Posts Tagged ‘gun control’

Obama’s Surgeon General Nominee: Politics First, Medicine Second

February 14, 2014

Dr. Vivek MurthyAmerica’s Surgeon General serves as a spokesperson for the federal government, representing its views on public health policy and initiatives.

That being said, one would think that a conscientious President would want to appoint someone of proven leadership ability and impeccable character, such as the late Dr. C. Everett Koop.

Not our man, Scooter. His nominee makes Dr. Joycelyn Elders look good.

The Washington Times reports that

His latest maneuver is to nominate a rabidly anti-gun doctor to be the next U.S. surgeon general. Dr. Vivek Murthy is facing Senate approval in upcoming weeks.

Dr. Murthy is the 36-year-old president and co-founder of Doctors for America, a group that advocates for Obamacare and gun control laws.

The group calls gun violence “a public health crisis.” It pushes for Congress to ban “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines and calls for spending tax dollars for more gun-control research.

The organization also lobbies for doctors to be allowed to ask patients, including minors, whether they have legal guns in the home. If the patient admits to having guns, Dr. Murthy wants doctors to “counsel them appropriately about safety measures.”

Gun rights advocates and many families view this policy as a violation of privacy.

At a hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week, Sen. Lamar Alexander asked Dr. Murthy about public comments on firearms, such as a tweet from before the 2012 president election that said, “Tired of politicians playing politics w/ guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.”

Mr. Alexander, the ranking Republican on the committee, told Dr. Murthy that “Americans have a First Amendment right to advocate the Second Amendment — or any other amendment. And the Second Amendment is not a special interest group, it’s part of our Constitution.”

The Tennessee senator added that, “If your goal is to make guns the bully pulpit of your advocacy in the surgeon general’s office, that would concern me.”

The fact that Obama’s Surgeon General Nominee is an “anti-gun doctor” is just the tip of the iceberg.

Regarding the group which Dr. Murthy co-founded, “Doctors for America”, Michelle Malkin wrote the following on October 7, 2009:

Lights, camera, agitprop! The curtains opened on yet another artfully-staged performance of Obamacare Theater this week. One hundred and fifty doctors took their places on the plush lawn outside the West Wing – many acting like Twilight groupies with cameras instead of credible medical professionals. The president approved the scenery: “I am thrilled to have all of you here today, and you look very spiffy in your coats.”

White House wardrobe assistants guaranteed the “spiffy.” As the New York Post’s Charles Hurt reported, the physicians “were told to bring their white lab coats to make sure that TV cameras captured the image.” President Obama’s aides hastily handed out costumes to those who came in suits or dresses before the doc-and-pony show began.

But while Halloween came early to the Potomac, these partisan single-payer activists in White House-supplied clothing aren’t fooling anyone.

Obama’s spin doctors belong to a group called “Doctors for America” (DFA), which reportedly supplied the white lab coats. The White House event was organized in conjunction with DFA and Organizing for America, Obama’s campaign outfit. OFA and DFA are behind a massive new Obamacare ad campaign, letter-writing campaign, and doctor recruitment campaign. The supposedly “grass-roots,” non-profit DFA is a spin-off of Doctors for Obama, a 2008 campaign arm that aggressively pushed the Democrats’ government health care takeover. DFA claims to have thousands of members with a “variety of backgrounds.” But there’s little diversity in their views on socialized medicine (98 percent want a taxpayer-funded public insurance option) – or in their political contributions.

DFA president and co-founder Dr. Vivek Murthy, an internal medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an Instructor at Harvard Medical School, served as a member of the Obama Health Policy Advisory Committee and the Obama New England Steering Committee during the 2008 presidential campaign.

DFA vice president Dr. Alice Chen of Los Angeles is an Obama donor and avowed supporter of Organizing for America, Obama’s campaign shop run by the Democratic National Committee. On Monday, she posted on the OFA website with an appeal to Democrat activists for letters to the editor in support of Obama’s “health care reform.”

DFA “senior adviser” Jacob Hacker is an Obamacare architect who laughed at criticism of the plan being a Trojan Horse for single payer coverage. “It’s not a Trojan Horse, right” he retorted at a far Left Tides Foundation conference on health care. “It’s just right there! I’m telling you. We’re going to get there.”

…Who unveiled “Doctors for America” earlier this spring? No, not ordinary citizens outside the Beltway. The decidedly un-grass-roots sponsors of the Doctors for America launch were Democrat Sen. Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and the left-wing Center for American Progress (which is run by liberal operative John Podesta and underwritten by far Left billionaire George Soros).

As I’ve noted before, CAP is a lead organization in the Health Care Action Now coalition, the Astroturfed “grass-roots” lobbying group for Obama’s health care takeover legislation run out of 1825 K Street in Washington, D.C. with a $40 million budget. CAP is also the parent group of Think Progress, the far Left website leading the smear campaign against fiscal conservative activists who protested at congressional town halls this summer. And several CAP alumni are now leading the Obamacare push at the Department of Health and Human Services, including special HHS assistant Michael Halle and HHS director Jeanne Lambrew, a former senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who worked on health policy in the Clinton Administration. CAP/HCAN’s most recent initiative? Bussing protesters to the private homes of health care executives last week to bully them over the public option — even as many health care executives line the pockets of Obama administration officials and allies lobbying on their behalf.

It’s all in keeping with the elaborate Kabuki productions that have marked Team Obama’s efforts to manufacture support for government-run health care. They’ve been doctoring it up from Day One.

Let’s peek behind the  stage curtain of this Kabuki Theater, shall we? As it turns out, the Soros-funded CAP is more than just a “sponsor” of DFA.

The popular blog, Ace of Spades HQ, reported the following on November 18, 2013…

Who is behind “Doctors for America”?

(Spoiler alert: Center for American Progress)

On to Doctors for America’s meatworld presence; Their site lists a contact address:

Doctors for America

1333 H St NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 478-5327

1333 H St NW is notable, it has its own Wiki entry.

Tenants include the Center for American Progress, American Constitution Society, the Economic Policy Institute, and Reuters, among others.

ACS and EPI are both progressive/left organizations too.

When we look at CAP’s staff list, we find the linkage to DFA. It seems DFA is being run as some sort of sub-project under the CAP umbrella:

Doctors for America

Rachel Curley, Special Assistant

How tight are CAP and DFA? Well, they’re both located at 1333 H St NW and they’re both on the 10th Floor, and DFA is listed by CAP as a CAP “project”. Pretty tight.

Not exactly subtle, huh?

So let me get this straight…Obama has nominated a Second Amendment-hating, Obama and Obamacare-worshiping, bug-eyed, slack-jawed, Far left Radical to be America’s “Top Doctor”.

Open wide…and hurl.

Until He comes,

KJ

Obama Sells Out American Sovereignty to the U.N. by Signing Arms Treaty

June 4, 2013

gun rightsIf you were Barack Hussein Obama, and your attempt at Gun Confiscation had failed miserably, with both Congressional and widespread public opposition to your efforts, what do you do?

…after you threw a temper tantrum on national television…

Simple: You sign over your nation’s sovereignty to the United Nations.

United States of America Secretary of State John Kerry announced yesterday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, in spite of bipartisan resistance in Congress. Congress is concerned that the treaty could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.

Kerry, in a written statement, which he released as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, proclaimed that the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty…

We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.

Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

On April 2nd of this year, in the modern-day Tower of Babylon, known as the United Nations, a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade was passed by the delegates. oblivious to worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that this agreement could be the precursor to a national firearms registry.

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that participating countries will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

With the unwavering support of Obama and his Administration, the General Assembly vote totaled 155 to 3, with 22 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against it.

The problem with the treaty is that is positively porous, due to all of the loopholes contained in it. The list of controlled weaponry in it includes “small arms and light weapons”. Of course, the U.N. claims that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a sovereign nation. What does that mean?

It means that we are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws , The Constitution of the United States.

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

Our Founders  added “A Bill of Rights” to the U.S. Constitution in 1789. The second Amendment, found in that Bill of Rights, states…

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

By selling out our sovereignty to the United Nations, President Barack Hussein Obama is definitely infringing on our rights as American Citizens as specified in the Second Amendment, and ignoring the Oath which he has taken, twice, to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

All because he did not get his way.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Jihad in the UK…Could It Happen Here?

May 23, 2013

British BeheadingYesterday, the British Empire was rocked by the news that one of their Brightest and Best, a British soldier, had been beheaded in the middle of London by two Muslim Terrorists.

They stabbed their victim several times, while asking unarmed witnesses to video them.

After their barbarism was complete, they shouted “Allahu Akbar” and one of them said,  while clutching his blood-soaked meat cleaver,

We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day.

You people will never be safe. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

This British soldier is an eye for an eye a tooth for tooth. We apologize that women had to see this today but in our lands our women have to see the same.You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you.

You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? You think your politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy like you – and your children.

So get rid of them – tell them to bring our troops back so we can … so you can all live in peace.

The murder happened 200 yards from The Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich and close to a primary school.

It took police 20 minutes to arrive…too late.

Of course, none of the witnesses were armed…thanks to the UK’s strict Gun Control Laws.

  • In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate, a British citizen  had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be “satisfied” that the applicant had “good reason for requiring such a certificate” and did not pose a “danger to the public safety or to the peace.” The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.
  • In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers (“if known”) of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.
  • In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were “compulsorily surrendered” by February 1998. Using “records of firearms held on firearms certificates,” police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.

The homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.

So, they have an unarmed, vulnerable citizenry.

And now, thanks to years of wide open borders, they have a Muslim Population Problem.

An article titled, Britain Vs. Muslim Immigration, posted on April 21, 2011, imparts some staggering information…

By any measure, the Muslim population in Britain has skyrocketed over the past ten years. Based on official estimates, Britain’s Muslim population has grown from 1.6 million in 2001 (when the British Census first began to measure religion) to 1,870,000 in 2004, to 2,422,000 in 2008, to 2,869,000 in 2010. That is an overall increase of more than 1.2 million, according to data compiled by the British government’s Labour Force Survey (LFS), which were first published by the Times of London newspaper in January 2009, later confirmed by Hansard, the official report of debates in the British Parliament, and then updated by the Pew Research Center in September 2010.

In just two decades, the percentage of the British population born abroad has doubled to over 11%, according to the Office for National Statistics. In real terms, that amounts to nearly seven million immigrants, equal to the population of the City of London, or the equivalent of one immigrant every two minutes. This rate of inflow is 25 times higher than any previous period of immigration since the Norman Conquest of England in September 1066. Demographers forecast that at current trends, Britain’s population will exceed 70 million in less than twenty years, with almost all of that increase being driven by immigration. This would turn Britain into the most crowded country in Europe. According to a recent “Citizenship Survey,” 77% of those polled said immigration should be cut, with slightly more than half saying it should be reduced “by a lot.”

The Cross Party Group for Balanced Migration, a bi-partisan group that is attempting to protect and re-establish a sense of British national identity, has called for all parties in Britain to commit to keeping the population below 70 million. In January 2010, Cameron told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC One (here, here and here) that the population of Britain should be kept below 70 million “to relieve pressure on public services.” He made those remarks after the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, called for immigration caps to protect Britain’s Christian ethos.

In other words, Britain’s Muslim population has multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society over the past decade, while the number of Christians in the country has dropped by more than two million during the same period. Demographers expect that trend to continue. A new study titled “The Future of the Global Muslim Population” forecasts that Britain’s Muslim population will double to 5.5 million within the next 20 years.

As Britain’s Muslim population grows, British society is being transformed in ways unimaginable just a few years ago. For example, Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys in Britain. And the number of mosques in Britain (1,689) has grown to almost the number of Anglican churches (1,700) that have recently been closed.

That was two years ago…the Muslim Population in the UK has increased, since then.

Welcome to the United States of America…in the not too distant future.

With Obama and the rest of the Progressives pushing Gun Confiscation (Control) and “Immigration Reform” (thank you, Gang of Eight), we could very well be mired in the same “multi-cultural” situation that the Land of my Ancestors finds its stuffy liberal self in today.

The secret to America’s strength has always been our legendary status as a Melting Pot…immigrants yearning to actually become Americans, and assimilating into our culture and embracing our way of life, with a patriotic love for America rivaling those of us who are native-born.

However, in recent years, under Progressive rule, America has come to resemble the Tower of Babel, instead of The Shining City on a Hill.

We must not let our sacred land fall into the trap sprung on empires such as the Ancient Roman Empire and now, the United Kingdom.

Our foreign enemies can become our domestic enemies.

Simply by walking across a border.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Obama…

May 4, 2013

obamalameduck

“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” – Proverbs 16:18

Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) was re-elected President of these United States on November 6, 2012.

Liberals rejoiced. Republican Moderates looked around in disbelief. Conservatives in the Heartland said, “I told you so.”

With the 47% solidly behind him (as long as he keeps giving them stuff) and the Main Stream Media lying their posteriors off for him, Obama and his trusty sidekick, Crazy Uncle Joe (Biden, not Stalin. Although…) prepared themselves to finish the job of “radically changing” America.

First thing, though, before Obama could get to his pet issues, was the Sequester. As the deadline neared for it to take effect, he took to the airwaves, going on camera to “warn” Americans about the devastating effects  that would be unleashed upon the land,  if Republicans didn’t bow down to his wishes, and throw more money at the ever-expanding Obama Administration, then American, as we know it, would cease to exist…or something.

The Republicans, to their credit, decided to let the sequester end, which resulted in absolutely nothing happening.

Being made to look like a fool, the Petulant President started making things happen on his own. He stopped tours of the White House, and started making cuts to essential services, like small town airports.

Obama set his sights next on Gun Confiscation, announcing that it was for the “chirren”. Never mind, that in his own hometown of Chicago, Black chirren are being turned into gang bangers, and, subsequently, killing each other at an alarming rate.

Instead, Obama decided to go after us law-abiding “bitter clingers”. Knowing that he couldn’t overtly go after our Bibles, he decided to try to take away our guns, by blaming the mass murder of children at Newtown on guns, instead of the psychopath who actually was responsible for the murder of those precious children and the adults who tried to protect them.

The Senate’s Gun Control Bill, created at the request of Obama, was killed right there on the Senate Floor, leading the Petulant President to hold a hastily-arranged Press Conference, where he proceeded to trot out family members of the Newtown victims, using them as a political tool, like Hitler did on several occasions, when he surrounded himself with children for photo ops. Surrounded by these family members, Obama proceeded to throw the first Presidential Temper Tantrum, blaming everyone but himself for the failure of the bill, sounding like a didactic visiting lecturer at the University of Chicago, instead of the Leader of the Free World.

The second of Obama’s pet issues that he is setting his laser-like focus on is Immigration Reform, or, as we “bitter clingers” call it, Amnesty. A Senatorial “Gang of Eight” has been working on a bill which will create 33 million new Democratic Voters.

One member of the committee, Republican Marco Rubio, has recently been hitting all of the Conservative Talk Shows, in a determined effort to try to convince us that Amnesty is a great and wonderful thing.

He has been received by Conservatives about as well as someone popping open a can of beer on a back row of a funeral chapel, with the service in progress.

All young Marco has achieved, unfortunately, is the demise of his standing as a Tea Party Favorite. You just don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Additionally, with several of the Muslim Terrorists who planned and executed the New Boston Massacre turning out to be here illegally, the Amnesty Bill is dead in the water.

The last two issues on Obama’s agenda pits this country’s Administration directly against the Lord Almighty.

The first is Homosexual Marriage. Obama decided a while back that he would be perceived as being “cool” and “electable” if he came out (if you’ll excuse the expression) in favor of Homosexual Marriage.

The only problem with his plan is that the majority of states have already voted against it. So, there was only one thing for him and his merry band of Liberal Hopers and Changers to do. Take it to the court system., seeking to overturn the will of the people. Sound familiar?

The Supreme Court will being hearing arguments soon.

The other issue,  inter-twined with “Homosexual Marriage”, that Obama and his minions are pushing, is the Elimination of Christianity. First, as I have previously chronicled, they are beginning their quest in the Armed Forces, having already used them as Lab Rats in their quest to “normalize” Homosexuality in the Military by ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

The Obama Administration has decided that the Military is no place for Americans to be sharing their faith with one another. Recently, Obama and his minions blocked the Southern Baptist Convention’s website from Military Servers. The SBC is the largest  Christian Evangelical Denomination in the world.

Next, as I wrote earlier this week, they consulted with Mikey Weinstein, a bitter little former Air Force lawyer, who heads the atheist group, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF).

After meeting with Weinstein, the bureaucrats who run the military have decided that sharing your faith within the military is punishable by court martial.

If they are bold enough to try to eliminate Christianity from our Armed Forces, how long will it be, until speaking against Homosexual Marriage from civilian pulpits is a Hate Crime, and, attempting to force churches to perform Homosexual Marriages?

Do you want to hear some GOOD NEWS?

First, God is in control. And, He loves you and me.

Also, the sleeping giant who President Nixon referred to as “The Silent Majority”, is waking up. People are starting to slowly get involved. They are calling their Congresscritters and letting them know that average Americans do not appreciate the Manchurian President’s attempt to take away our Constitutional Rights from us.  

They are also letting them know that as politicians, they work for us…not the other way around.

Americans will not let their country be turned into a Third World Marxist Nation without a fight.

As this involvement by average Americans continues to grow, Obama’s plans to bring his Far Left/Socialist Agenda to fruition will be thwarted.

The true power of America does not reside in government bureaucracy, but in the faith and strength of average American Citizens, standing up on their hind legs, and saying 

NO MORE!

STAY STRONG, AMERICANS!

FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT.

PRAY FOR OUR NATION.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Do Americans Fear Our Own Government?

April 29, 2013

obamabiggovernmentIn America of 2013, what do you think that Americans fear the most? Our enemies from without or within?

One might think, with the New Boston Massacre fresh on their minds, that Americans would fear the uncertainty of where the terrorists would attack next.

Unfortunately, “one” would be wrong.

A Fox News survey polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing found despite the tragic event, those interviewed responded very differently than following 9/11.

For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”

Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45 percent answered no to the question, compared to 43 percent answering yes.

In May 2001, before 9/11, the balance was similar, with 40 percent answering no to 33 percent answering yes.

But following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the numbers flipped dramatically, to 71 percent agreeing to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.

Subsequent polls asking the same question in 2002, 2005 and 2006 found Americans consistently willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. Yet the numbers were declining from 71 percent following 9/11 to only 54 percent by May 2006.

Now, it would seem, the famous quote widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – is holding more sway with Americans than it has in over a dozen years.

A similar poll sampling 588 adults, conducted on April 17 and 18 for the Washington Post, also discovered the change in attitude.

“Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”

The poll found 48 percent of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41 percent who worry it won’t go far enough.

And similar to the Fox News poll, the Post found the worry to be a fresh development, as only 44 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2006 and only 27 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2010.

Ronald Reagan once famously said,

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

Ronaldus Magnus was a prophet.

On October 23rd of last year. Rep. Eric Cantor issued his Majority Leader’s Report, in which he wrote…

There is no excuse for this continuous disregard of legislative authority and the Constitutionally-required separation of powers. In some instances, President Obama attempted to garner legislative authority, failed and then acted unilaterally in defiance. In other instances, the President never even sought to find consensus and instead ignored Congress and its authority from the outset. In speeches, the President has proudly acknowledged that he has acted without Congress, contending that he has no other alternative.

This is no way to govern. The President has set a precedent that even his supporters should find troubling. After all, what would now prevent a subsequent President, with opposite policy predilections, from bypassing the checks on his own authority and enacting his own policies in this same manner? The Founding Fathers wisely gave the President many powers, but making law was not one of them. They understood that laws should not be made by one individual acting alone, but rather through elected representatives working to achieve consensus.

House Republicans have acted to prevent and overturn the President’s harmful actions in order to return economic growth, opportunity and certainty to the American people and American job creators. However, the majority of the bills the House has passed are sitting idly in the Democrat-led Senate, without any action on the part of Democratic Leader Harry Reid or President Obama.

Throughout our nation’s history, presidents have sought common ground and achieved legislative success with opposing party leaders. Many of the laws circumvented in this report were achieved in that manner. Congressional authority must not be disregarded to suit political interests, create unpopular regulations and to avoid the hard work of bipartisan negotiation that has been a hallmark of our Republic since its inception.

Little did Rep. Cantor know that Obama was just getting started.

Just as average Americans feared, after re-election Obama has put “the pedal to the metal” in his pursuit of  his mission to “radically change” the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

Just look at the issues he been attempting to push down the our throats: Gun Confiscation, Homosexual Marriage, and Amnesty, or, as the Administration and all their Liberal allies euphemistically refer to these issues: Gun Control, Gay Marriage, and Immigration Reform.

And, it does not appear that Obama is going to take “NO” for an answer.

Just yesterday, Sen. Joe Manchin told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that he and the rest of the Liberals and RINOs (but, I repeat myself) in the Senate are going to continue in their efforts to make it possible for this Administration to confiscate law-abiding Americans guns, even though their most recent attempt failed miserably.

Look at Homosexual Marriage. This summer the Supreme Court will have to make a ruling on it, even though 39 states have already voted against allowing it, including California, whose vote was overruled by a Homosexual Judge.

No “Judicial Activism” there, huh?

Finally, as far as the Gang of Eight, including the naive Sen. Mario Rubio’s, efforts at “Immigration Reform” are concerned, all the country, except, evidently him, knows that it is nothing but a ploy to create 33 million new Democratic Voters.

It is not surprising then, that these polls show that Americans are more afraid of our own government than we are of any external threat that we face in today’s dangerous and oft-times confusing world.

Americans, even after everything we’ve gone through, since Reagan was President, still know the difference between public servants and hack politicians, between freedom and oppression, and between right and wrong.

I believe that the strength of our nation, lies not at 1600 Pennsylvania, Avenue in Washington, DC, nor up on Capitol Hill.

Ronald Reagan said it best: 

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.

That applies to all of those who seek to take away our FREEDOM…foreign or domestic.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Gun Control: A Defeated Obama Seeks to Bypass the Will of the People…Again

April 19, 2013

gun rightsYesterday, Liberals  were walking around aimlessly, like zombies from the popular A&E television series, The Walking Dead, after their cause celebre,, Gun Control was soundly defeated in the U.S. Senate.

In a conference call to some of their Power Brokers, who have invested heavily in the Quest for Gun Confiscation, Vice-President Biden announced the following,

Look…I know you’re going to say that I’m just being an optimist and I’m trying to put a good face on this. But you know I’ve been around here a long time and we’ve already done, because of you, some really good things. Number one, the president is already lining up some additional executive actions he’s going to be taking later this week.

An executive order, sometimes known as a proclamation, is a directive handed down directly from the President of the United States without input from the legislative or judicial branches. Executive orders can only be given to federal or state agencies, not to citizens, even though we wind up bearing the brunt of them.

Executive orders go all the way back to our first president, George Washington. Presidents have used them to lead the nation through times of war, to respond to natural disasters and economic crises, to encourage or to limit regulation by federal agencies, to promote civil rights, or in the case of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to set up Japanese internment camps, in order to revoke civil rights.

So, can Obama do whatever the H*e* double*hockey*sticks he wants to do, through the use of Executive Orders?

Not exactly.

Rush Limbaugh originally explained the role of Executive Orders back in January, when Obama first used them to further his dream of Gun Confiscation:

You see, there’s a thing in this country. It’s called the Constitution, and while presidents and members of Congress and mayors and others run for election every year (or every two years, or every four years, depending), the Constitution is constant. There’s not one elected official who has the power to change it. There is a way to amend the Constitution, and the Constitution spells out the procedures that must be taken to change it. Presidents cannot. Now, I know this is gonna shock many of you in the low-information community.

Many of you believe… This is what you’ve been taught. This is what you have been educated with, and many of you have been taught to actually support this kind of presidential power, that a president, if he doesn’t like something, can just “fix” it. But there is no such power granted to the president by the Constitution, and executive orders are not a way for the president to get around the Constitution. Executive orders were not established for that purpose. Executive orders are to take care of emergencies during times when Congress is not in session. 

That’s one of many examples for their usage, but the executive order does not contain the power to violate the Constitution. The executive order does not give the president the authority to say, “I don’t like the Second Amendment, and I’m going to write a law that supersedes it.” No president has ever had that power. No president today has that power. Barack Obama doesn’t have it. If he acts in such a way, he is in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution is what holds this country together. The Constitution is what defines this country. 

There isn’t enough knowledge, nor is there enough respect, for the Constitution in our country today, which is why I’m trying to help a little bit here. Nineteen executive orders to deal with something they are not permitted to deal with, in a way they’re not permitted to do it. But if nobody is willing to stand up and oppose the president and this usurpation of power — which does not exist and which he does not have — then, of course, he will get away with it. But I just want you to know this. I want those of you in the low-information voter community to know that executive orders do not exist so that the president can break the law. They do not exist so the president can change the law. That is not why they exist.

You see, the laws of this country… Again, pardon me for a second as I address the low-information voter community. The laws in this country are written in Congress. That would be the Senate and the House. The president does not write laws. The president does not make law. Well, he’s not supposed to. Judges are not supposed to make laws. Judges are not supposed to create laws. That’s only supposed to happen in Congress. When Congress refuses to vote for a law, then it’s dead. What the administration and Biden are admitting here is that they can’t legally enact the gun laws that they prefer.

So they’re just going to do it unilaterally with the executive order.

Now, I’m not lying to you when I tell you that is not what executive orders permit. It’s not why they were created; it’s not what they’re for. Executive orders do not grant dictatorial power to presidents. They do not grant the power to the president to violate existing law. Executive orders do not grant the power to the president to write new law. The president and his team will be in violation of the Constitution if they do this. Now, there are certain things that can be done with executive orders, but they can’t write new law. But if nobody stops them, what’s the point?

They can get away with it.

There’s always a way to get away with it.

Obama can try to achieve his Marxist dream of taking away guns from law-abiding citizens through the issuing of Executive Orders, but this is not Russia, during the Bolshevik Revolution. This is America, where we have a System of Checks and Balances.

Please urge your Senator and Representative to put all the pressure they can on their Democratic colleagues to stop the president from turning us into an unarmed citizenry, vulnerable to enemies, foreign and domestic….and political, too.

Obama’s actions, as I wrote yesterday, remind me of a spoiled child who, when told “NO!” by his parents, launches into a screeching, whining temper tantrum.

Just like an unruly child, it’s time for Obama to be disciplined…by turning him into a lame duck for the next 3 and 1/2 years.

Obama is not a leader. He is a petulant, pedantic Graduate Assistant, playing at being a tenured professor.

Americans…it’s time to ring the dismissal bell on this class.

Until He comes,

KJ.

Gun Control: 4/17/13…A Presidential Temper Tantrum

April 18, 2013

Obama-Shrinks-2Yesterday afternoon, as I was driving home from work, I decided to listen to the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama’s, Press Conference, hastily arranged to respond to the defeat of  his Gun Control Initiative  in the United States Senate.

What I heard was , as the title suggests, the First Presidential Temper Tantrum.

As my local ABC Radio affiliate, WKIM, joined the presser, a gentleman who had lost a child to the psychopath responsible for the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre was speaking.

I tuned the gentleman out, because my mind was too occupied with the cognitive realization and resulting revulsion, that Obama was using these grieving Newtown parents as propaganda tools….mere instruments designed to help the Manchurian President achieve his goal of taking firearms from law-abiding Americans.

The grieving parent introduced the president and then, the condescending vitriol that began to spew out of Obama’s mouth, almost caused me to drive off of the road.

I’m going to speak plainly and honestly about what’s happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with “A” grades from the NRA — come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.

As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.

Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both — she’s a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.

In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That’s why 90 percent of the American people supported it.

But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter.

And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they’re all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.

But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn’t want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this. It came down to politics — the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.

And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse — any excuse — to vote “no.”

One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres. And that’s true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand — if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.

And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.

I’ve heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn’t make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent?

I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. “A prop,” somebody called them. “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?

So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.

And, now, Mr. President…I’m going to speak plainly and honestly.

I’m glad you failed.

Even your fellow Democrats are admitting that this bill would not have stopped that murderous psychopath from killing those children in Newtown. So, why did you insult the American People, lecturing us like a pedantic professor, instead of approaching us as a United States President, who is supposed to be the leader and servant of all Americans and who works for us?

Is it possible that you believed your own outrageous propaganda concerning Gun Control?

Evidently, you did. Or, you would not have kept repeating your blatantly false assertion that 90% of Americans are in favor of the failed “Background Check” Initiative and how it would keep guns out of the hands of psychopaths and criminals. 

I guess you refuse to believe the CBS News Poll which shows that 90% of Americans believe that Gun Control is not a very important issue at all.

Blows your plans for Gun Confiscation all to Hades, doesn’t it?

Here’s your problem, Mr. President:

We, the average Americans living out here in the Heartland, think you are full of it, and don’t trust you any further than we can throw you.

You pushed Obamacare down our throats, and now, you’ve tried to take away our guns. Bad move, Scooter.

You see, as Americans, we value our freedom, and trust our Founding Fathers and the Constitution which they wrote so masterfully, more than your empty promises, which all have expiration dates.

Our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to win our freedom. 

It would be disrespectful not to follow their example.

And, that would be shameful.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

Gun Control: Hey, UN…Molon Labe

April 3, 2013

guncontrolThere are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a sovereign nation. What does that mean?

It means that we are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws , The Constitution of the United States.

And, that is what makes the following news, disturbing.

Yesterday, in the modern-day Tower of Babylon, known as the United Nations, a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade was passed by the delegates. oblivious to worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that this agreement could be the precursor to a national firearms registry.

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that participating countries will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

With the unwavering support of Obama and his Administration, the General Assembly vote totaled 155 to 3, with 22 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against it.

The problem with the treaty is that is positively porous, due to all of the loopholes contained in it. The list of controlled weaponry in it includes “small arms and light weapons”. Of course, the U.N. claims that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

This reassurancecomes from the same bunch who equates Zionism to Racism.

On the bright side, in its budget debate late last month, the Senate approved a non-binding amendment opposing the treaty offered by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, with eight Democrats joining all 45 Republicans backing the amendment.

Per Sen. Inhofe,

It’s time the Obama Administration recognizes [the treaty] is already a non-starter, and Americans will not stand for internationalists limiting and infringing upon their Constitutional rights. Furthermore, this treaty could also disrupt diplomatic and national security efforts by preventing our government from assisting allies like Taiwan, South Korea or Israel when they require assistance.

Amnesty International was doing back-flips of joy over the signing of the treaty…

The voices of reason triumphed over skeptics, treaty opponents and dealers in death to establish a revolutionary treaty that constitutes a major step toward keeping assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons out of the hands of despots and warlords who use them to kill and maim civilians, recruit child soldiers and commit other serious abuses,” said Frank Jannuzi, deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA.

AI is an International Human Rights Group which presents itself as an ideologically disinterested and apolitical organization. According to Amnesty International, it

does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.

The lion’s share of Amnesty International’s criticism is usually directed at the United States. In the 1980s AI joined leftist non-governmental organizations like the Church World Service and Americas Watch in loud opposition to the Reagan administration’s support for the Contra resistance movement against Nicaragua’s Communist dictatorship.

In more recent years, AI has emerged as a vocal critic of the U.S.-led War on Terror, opposing especially the American-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

My question is, what legitimate right does the United Nations and any of the countries therein, have to “make rulings” affecting the Second Amendment of the United States Contitution and us American citizens who are protected under it?

Answer:  none

Steven Groves, writing for Heritage.org, said it very well,

The proper exercise of diplomacy by the United States does not threaten our sovereignty. The Founding Fathers understood the value of diplomacy. They drafted the Constitution, in part, because they wanted the United States to be able to negotiate treaties with other nations. But they also understood that American foreign policy must ultimately be controlled by the American people.

That is why, for instance, the United States Senate must approve treaties that are negotiated by the President. That is how our diplomatic process works. But today, American sovereignty is threatened by the many treaties that seek to take power away from the nations that negotiate them. The solution is not to reject treaties or diplomacy: it is to return to the vision of the Founders, and to their belief that the American people have an inherent right of self-government, through their elected representatives, that cannot be extinguished by any treaty.

The drafters of the Declaration would be surprised to find Americans submitting themselves to these international organizations, and the constraints on independence that they have spawned. The United States may, of course, work with other nations in a principled way that advances its national interests. But the Founders would be amazed by the extent and depth of the threats to American sovereignty posed by this new transnationalist vision.

The Founders did not risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor casting off the rule of King George III so that, two hundred years later, the United States could subject itself to the whims of unelected foreign bureaucrats and international lawyers. Sovereignty was essential to the founding of America in 1776, and it is essential to America today.

By declaring its independence from King George III and the British Parliament, America declared its sovereignty. By dedicating itself to the principles of liberty, equality, and popular consent, it set the standard by which all sovereign nations are to be judged.

This Administration seems bound and determined to make America into just another nation, assigning American Exceptionalism to the trash heap of  history.

Their pure ignorance to America’s place in the world is overwhelming. Only by standing up to the thug nations represented at the UN, will America be respected, and left alone, as the sovereign nation that we are.

Obama’s bowing and scraping, like a leader of a country who occupied a subservient position to nations filled with barbarians, who would slit every American’s throat, if given the chance, is an stunning example of this naivete and downright ignorance.

Here is today’s Big Idea (thank you, Preacher):

As regards the present situation, concerning American citizens and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States: Average Americans do not trust the United Nations, or the present occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.

Molon Labe.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Gun Control: Bloomberg and Carrey…Dumb and Dumber

March 25, 2013

bloomberg2carreyThere is one axiom that I have found that pertains to Liberal’s in both DC and Hollywood: They always believe that they are the smartest person in any room they walk into. In regards to gun confiscation, they believe that they know more about gun safety that Americans who have been around guns all their lives.

Allow me to tell you about 2 well-know Liberals , of like minds, whose combined brain power would not operate a 25 watt light bulb.

New York City’s Nanny Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has launched a $12 million advertising campaign aimed at those Senators who are wavering in their opinion about gun confiscation.

The rich, clueless Liberal expresse a warning on Meet The Press yesterday, that this was just the beginning:

I have a responsibility … to try to make this country safer.

If I can do that by spending some money, and taking the NRA from being the only voice to being one of the voices, so the public can really understand the issues, then I think my money will be well spent and I think I have an obligation to do that.

If 90% of the public wants something, and their representatives vote against that, common sense says they are going to have a price to pay for that. (Actually, the majority of Americans are against gun control, Mr. Mayoe.)

Bloomberg launched the ad campaign, which will start airing Monday, in a dozen states where Bloomberg believes key senators can be swayed. The ad features a rifle-toting hunter making the case for background checks.

I don’t think there’s ever been an issue where the public has spoken so clearly where Congress hasn’t eventually understood and done the right thing,.

…I don’t think we should give up on the assault weapons ban, but clearly it is a more difficult issue for a lot of people.

Meanwhile, in Hollyweird, formerly relevant actor Jim Carrey, has written a liltte ditty, aimed at us rednecks who have guns in our homes.

The formerly popular actor sent out a Tweet on February 2nd which read,

[Anyone] who would run out to buy an assault rifle after the Newtown massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth protecting.

Yesterday, Carrey sent out the following Tweets, proving that all of those times in the movies, when he played a complete idiot…he wasn’t acting:

  • The important question is “Do we possess guns in America or do guns possess us?”
  • Hunters hang animals up on their walls.I kill mosquitos bt their little heads r hard to mount! ‘COLD DEAD HAND’ Funny Or Die 12:01am Mon ;^P
  • Some ppl hate when i talk about guns so I decided to sing about it! Check out COLD DEAD HAND 12:01 AM Monday on Funny Or Die and itunes! ;^P
  • ‘Cold Dead Hand’ is abt u heartless motherf%!@ers unwilling 2 bend 4 the safety of our kids.Sorry if you’re offended by the word safety! ;^}
  • How abt developing more non-lethal forms of selfdefense?Too sensible?!’Cold Dead Hand’ 1min aft midnight 2night on Funny Or Die n itunes ;^P
  • I repeat,HOW ABT DEVELOPING MORE NON-LETHAL FORMS OF SELF-DEFENSE?! TOO SENSIBLE?!!!Why the hell are rubber bullets ILLEGAL?FOD 12:01am ;^}
  • No 1 is answering my suggestion of developing non-lethal self-defense! I guess that wouldn’t satisfy our national addiction to violence! ;^}
  • Gun folks are afraid that control won’t stop with large magazines. Their nervousness is far less important than the safety of children. ;^]
  • I’d like to respond to all the conservative bundits out there personally but I’m far too busy NOT stumping for the gun companies! ;^P
  • Over a million ppl have been killed by guns in the US since John Lennon was shot. Look no further than your own backyard for WMDs! {8^•

Great career move, Carrey. This should make you as popular as the Dixie Chicks.

I would like these two gentlemen to kindly explain how taking  away the guns of law-abiding American citizens, is going to protect us from the criminals who will still have guns.

Liberals live under the delusion that, since they believe that they are the “smartest person in the room, and “care more” than other Americans, that we should consider them experts at everything. They also believe that we (especially those of us who do not live in the Northeast Corridor or on the West Coast) do not know how to run our own lives, and therefore, we should allow them to run our lives for us.

There is a reason why Obama’s popularity ratings are beginning to tank.

Americans get up on our hind legs when tyrants, foreign or domestic, attempt to take away our freedoms, as assigned to us by our Creator, through our Founding Fathers.

I hope that Mayor Bloomberg and Mr. Carrey do not plan a trip down to Mississippi any time soon. Some of my neighbors are liable to tell them how they feel about their attempts at gun confiscation.

And, it won’t be pretty.

Until He Comes,

KJ

With Freedom Comes Responsibility

March 16, 2013

americaneagleflagHave you ever thought about what it truly means to be free?

Does “Freedom” mean that you can run naked down the street and then through a playground of young children? Does it mean that you can marry a 9 year old? Does it mean that you can smoke a lid of marijuana, go out and get in your car, have an accident, and maim or kill somebody?

Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

What did he mean by that? Was he merely speaking of the inner workings of the Federal Government, which he and the Founding Fathers so masterfully designed?

Or, was he talking about this complex matter known as American Freedom?

Ronald Reagan said,

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

Was Ronaldus Magnus speaking about our Freedom as a nation? Or, the freedom of the individual?

The answer is yes. Both.

President Reagan knew how fragile this precious thing called freedom is. So did Dr. Franklin.

Dr. Franklin, along with our other Founding Fathers, pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor in pursuit of it.

When he made that now-famous quote to Mrs. Powel, he was expressing his worry that seceding generations, having attained their freedom so easily, might grow lackadaisical and so spoiled by it, that they would squander it through self-indulgence. Franklin was, in fact, so leery of losing this new republic that he said,

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

He was afraid that Americans would rely and trust those in power over them to the extent that they would surrender their freedom to them.

Sound familiar? Does the phrase “gun control” ring a bell?

I know that it is a phrase which you have no doubt heard before, but, as I write this blog, we are closer to losing this fragile American Freedom, than we have been since my parent’s generation, known as “the Greatest Generation”.

Please allow me to relate to you a story about my Daddy (a Southern colloquialism denoting a male parental unit), an average young man, tossed into a situation beyond his wildest imagination. One of those “fight or flight situations” all the psychiatrists like to theorize about in the Halls of Academia.  However, this was no theory. This situation was as real as it gets:

By the time the sun set on June 6, 1944,more than 9,000 Allied soldiers were dead or wounded, and more than 100,000 had made it ashore, capturing French coastal villages. Within weeks, supplies were being unloaded at Utah and Omaha beachheads at the rate of more than 20,000 tons per day. By June 11, more than 326,000 troops, 55,000 vehicles, and 105,000 tons of supplies had been landed on the beaches. By June 30, the Allies had established a firm foothold in Normandy. Allied forces crossed the River Seine on August 19.

There has never been an exact count of the sacrifices made on D-Day. Although, it is estimated that more than 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded, or went missing during the battle. 209,000 of those who lost their lives were Allied forces.

Among the young men who stepped off those boats, in a hail of gunfire, was a fellow named Edward, whom everyone called Ned, from the small town of Helena, Arkansas.  Already in his young life, Ned had been forced to drop out of school in the sixth grade, in order to work at the local movie theater to help support his mother, brother, and sister faced with the ravages of the Great Depression.

He was a gentle man who loved to laugh and sing, having recorded several 78 rpm records in the do-it-yourself booths of the day. And now, he found himself, a Master Sergeant in an Army Engineering Unit, stepping off of a boat into the unknown, watching his comrades being mercilessly gunned down around him.

Ned, along with the rest of his unit who survived the initial assault, would go on to assist in the cleaning out of the Concentration Camps, bearing witness to man’s inhumanity to man.

The horrors he saw had a profound effect on Ned.  One that he would keep to himself for the remainder of his life.  While my older sisters and I knew that he served with an Engineering Unit in World War II, we did not know the full extent of his service, until we found his medal, honoring his participation in the Invasion of Normandy, going through his belongings after he passed away on December 29, 1997.

There are a number of Americans nowadays who seem to believe that “Freedom” is merely a personal thing, a state which is unaffected by any unethical, immoral, or irresponsible actions committed by those around them, including family, friends, or strangers. They, in turn, seem oblivious of their responsibility to other Americans, as we all attempt to protect and nurture this fragile thing we call “Freedom”.

Our Legacy of Freedom, bequeathed to us as American citizens, is not  just the blessing of being a free people, but, the responsibility that goes with it, as my Daddy knew all too well…

a responsibility to our family, our friends, our fellow citizens, and the Author of Our Freedom as Americans, Our Creator.

A responsibility that is our charge to keep.

Until He Comes, 

KJ


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,511 other followers