Posts Tagged ‘gun control’

Bypassing the Constitution: Internet Control Accomplished. On To Gun Control.

February 26, 2015

guncontrolObama can’t stop ISIS from butchering Christians, but, by God, he can seize control of the Internet. Priorities, Priorities. #tcot #KJ

I tweeted that, yesterday afternoon,  still hot over Obama gaining control over the World Wide Web.

Unfortunately,  that was just the beginning.

The Washington Examiner reports that

It’s starting.

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.

The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.

“The Obama administration was unable to ban America’s most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it’s trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group’s policy and lobby shop. “The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama’s latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.”

At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.

The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.

But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof. Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.

“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.

Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”

Many see the bullet ban as an assault on the AR-15 and Obama’s back-door bid to end production and sale.

“We are concerned,” said Justin Anderson with Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s top sellers of AR-15 style rifles. “Frankly, we’re always concerned when the government uses back-door methods to impose quasi-gun control.”

Groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation suggest that under BATFE’s new rule, other calibers like popular deer hunting .308 bullets could be banned because they also are used in AR platforms, some of which can be turned into pistol-style guns. “This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide,” said the group.

One man with a gun can control 100 without one. – Vladimir Lenin

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 president is admitting here is that he can’t legally enact the gun laws that he and his minions would prefer.

So he is just going to do it unilaterally with Executive Orders.

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 is trying to achieve his Marxist dream of taking away guns from law-abiding citizens through the issuing of Executive Orders.

However, 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 have written before, 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 remainder of his presidency.

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,


The Paris Islamic Terrorist Attack: Can It Happen Here…Again?

January 7, 2015

AFBrancoObamaISIS922014Now, I made some commitments four years ago. I told you I’d end the war in Iraq — and we did. I said we’d end the war in Afghanistan — we are. I said we’d refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11 — and we have. And today, a new tower rises above the New York skyline, and Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Usama bin Laden is dead. – United States President Barack Hussein Obama, October 18, 2012

Yesterday, Muslim Terrorism reared up its ugly head once again, this time in Paris, France. We have since found out that the perpetrators of this mass murder were members of al-Qaeda from the country of Yemen.

Upon further review of the incident, it was also noticed that three of the officers arrived on the scene we’re not even carrying firearms, due to the very strict gun control policy of the country of France.

France is a country controlled by Liberal Politically-Correct Government, as is the case presently in the United States of America.

Did their Liberal Policies lead to yesterday’s horrific massacre?

At least one French Political Leader thinks so. reports that

France’s Front National leader Marine Le Pen pinned the blame for the killing of 12 people in Paris today on Islamic radicals, as mainstream leaders tried to downplay the religious dimension of the attack.

While President Francois Hollande called for national unity in an attempt to deter the public from demonizing the country’s 5-million strong Muslim community, Le Pen said France has to confront the beliefs of the gunmen who stormed the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo this morning.

“Time’s up for denial and hypocrisy,” Le Pen, who has railed against immigration, said in a video posted on her party’s website today. “The absolute rejection of Islamic fundamentalism must be proclaimed loudly and clearly.”

The lessons voters’ draw from the deadliest attack on French soil since World War II will shape the political debate as the country looks toward the 2017 election. Hollande, the most unpopular president in modern history, is struggling to make up ground on Le Pen, who’s seen her support surge as she blames immigrants for France’s near-record unemployment and deepening inequalities.

2012 Precedent

“Of all political parties, the Front National stands to gain most from this atrocity,” Jim Shields, head of French studies at Aston University in Birmingham, England, said in an interview. “Public agreement with the FN’s ideas has been rising steadily and this event will play into the party’s anti-immigration, anti-Islam agenda.”

When the Islamist terrorist Mohammed Merah carried out deadly attacks in Toulouse and Montauban in 2012, Le Pen was the presidential candidate who benefited most, Shields said.

The French government is trying to damp fears that the growing influence of Islam is eroding social cohesion. Le Pen led Hollande by as much as 15 percentage points in a September survey of voting intentions by Ifop for Le Figaro newspaper. The Front National topped Hollande’s Socialists and their predecessors, the UMP, in last year’s European elections.

Hollande, who Le Pen has previously attacked for underestimating the terrorist threat, today put the country on its highest alert while appealing to his countrymen to transcend their ethnic and religious divisions.

5 Million Muslims

“We’ll stick together and show that France is a country that knows how to react appropriately, showing firmness and national unity,” the president told reporters in eastern Paris, near the scene of the attack.

France is home to Europe’s largest Muslim community, making up about 7.7 percent of the population, and their numbers have been growing with children and grandchildren of those who arrived from the country’s former colonies in North Africa during the 20th century. Very few Muslims have reached top-level jobs in France, while second-and- third-generation French people of Arab descent say they often face discrimination.

Well, the actions of these Muslim Terrorists yesterday certainly will not help their cause any.

As I have shown in previous blogs, several verses of the Muslim holy book, the Quran, call for violence toward anyone who does not accept Islam as the one true faith. There are many verses within the Quran, which spell out in graphic detail the measures which the believer is supposed to take against non- believers, or infidels.

Just as President Obama’s attempts to negotiate with these barbarians have failed spectacularly so far, it appears that France’s attempts at appeasement have failed as well.

What is important factors that differentiates the United States of America from France is the fact that our citizens still possess the constitutional right to bear arms. Also, our police are still allowed to carry them, as well.

We all know the old saying that goes,

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

As the country of France found out yesterday, that goes for Muslim terrorist, as well.

Until He Comes,


Senate Approves Nomination of Gun Control/Obamacare Advocate For Surgeon General

December 15, 2014

vivek murthyFor those who have not figured it out by now, let ol’ KJ clue you in: Everything that President Obama does has a political purpose. Political expediency always outweighs any concern he may have for the best thing to do for America.

The choosing of his latest cabinet member is not the exception to that rule, as Fox News reports…

The Senate on Monday approved President Obama’s nomination of Dr. Vivek Murthy to serve as U.S. surgeon general, despite opposition from Republicans and some Democrats over his support for gun control and past statements that gun violence is a public health issue.

Murthy, 37, a physician at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, won confirmation on a vote of 51-43. He’s a co-founder of Doctors for America, a group that has pushed for affordable health care and supports Obama’s health care law.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said most of Murthy’s career has been spent as an activist focused on gun control and other political issues, rather than on treating patients. “Americans don’t want a surgeon general who might use this position of trust to promote his own personal campaign against the Second Amendment of the Constitution,” Barrasso said.

Supporters said Murthy is well-qualified and noted his promise not to use the position as a bully pulpit for gun control.

The nation has been without a Senate-confirmed surgeon general since July 2013. The surgeon general does not set policy but is an advocate for the people’s health.

Murthy’s confirmation “makes us better positioned to save lives around the world and protect the American people here at home,” President Barack Obama said in a statement. Murthy “will also help us build on the progress we’ve made combatting Ebola, both in our country and at its source” in West Africa.

Murthy’s confirmation represented a rare defeat for the National Rifle Association, which told senators that a vote for Murthy would be scored against them when they rate lawmakers’ votes during election campaigns.

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said Murthy has been “pilloried and excoriated” by the NRA and its supporters for his backing of stricter gun laws, including an assault weapons ban, and statements that gun violence is a public health issue.

Murthy has made clear he is not “aspiring to be the leading doctor in America to engage in a political debate, but rather to engage in public health debates about obesity and tobacco and things that make a dramatic difference to the lives of so many people who live in this country,” Durbin said.

Murthy expressed support for gun control in a letter to Congress after the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting.

His nomination was endorsed by more than 100 health organizations, including the American College of Physicians, the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association.

On February 28, 2014, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action posted the following information about Dr. Murthy on their website:

In 2008, Dr. Murthy co-founded the organization “Doctors for Obama” in order to support the presidential campaign of then-Senator Barack Obama and his plans for health care reform. A year later, the group changed its name to “Doctors for America.”

In his capacity as president of “Doctors for America,” Dr. Murthy has offered his support for a wide array of gun control policies that have been repeatedly rejected by the American people and their elected representatives.

A recent letter sent to Congress by “Doctors for America,” and signed by Dr. Murthy, urges mandatory licensing “for anyone purchasing guns and ammunition–including mandatory firearm safety training and testing.” Under Dr. Murthy’s scheme, further regulations would place “limits on the purchase of ammunition,” and establish a “mandatory waiting period of at least 48 hours.”

In the letter, Dr. Murthy also advocates for a “federal ban on the sale” of popular semi-automatic firearms and their ammunition, and proposes a “buyback” of these popular types of firearms to “reduce the number… that are currently in circulation.” Even some of the most ardent anti-gun researchers, along with the Department of Justice, have admitted the futility of gun “buyback” programs.

Another of Dr. Murthy’s proposals would strip vital privacy protections put in place to protect firearm owners and prevent the fracturing of physician-patient relationships. The letter, for example, calls for removing “the provision in the Affordable Care Act and other federal policies that prohibit physicians from documenting gun ownership.” While some advocates of the ACA had argued the provision prohibiting such documentation was unnecessary, given that the ACA had nothing to do with guns, Dr. Murthy obviously sees the ACA as playing a role in gun control.

And, in late 2012 and early 2013, Dr. Murthy took to his personal Twitter account to promote his gun control beliefs, including a statement on October 16, 2012, that “Guns are a health care issue.”

Under Dr. Murthy’s leadership, a 2013 Doctors for America petition urged Congress to “immediately” pass a ban on popular semi-automatic firearms and their magazines. Doctors for America also signed on in support of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s expansive “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.”

The American people deserve a Surgeon General who will carry out the mission of the office unmotivated by political or ideological goals. Given Dr. Murthy’s lengthy history of hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms, along with his calls for the full weight of the federal government’s health apparatus to be used to target lawful gun ownership, there is strong reason to believe that he would use the influence of the Surgeon General’s office to promote gun control. Simply put, confirmation of Dr. Murthy is a prescription for disaster for America’s gun owners.

The NRA could very well be right.

While the Affordable Care Act does not require physicians to ask their patients if they own a gun, Liberal Doctors often do. In fact, Liberal Pediatricians ask children if their parents have firearms in the house.

Luckily, Americans are still well within their Constitutional Rights to tell these Liberal Doctors that it is none of their business. However, what’s going to happen, now that an anti-gun activist has become the Surgeon General of the United States of America?

The greatest United States President in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan, said the following about Gun Control:

You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.

Unfortunately, we have a president who encourages riots and demonstrations on the behalf of fallen criminals.

So, that being said, why would a United States President push so hard for Gun Control?

…Unless his purpose was to control law-abiding citizens.

Until He Comes,



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,


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,


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,


The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Obama…

May 4, 2013


“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 





Until He Comes,


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,


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,


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, 



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,641 other followers