Posts Tagged ‘gun control’

Obama’s DOJ Suing City of Ferguson on Behalf of the Rioters. Welcome to Bizarro World.

February 11, 2016

untitled (28)The longer the reign of King Barack the First drags on, the more I become convinced that we are living in an old Superman Comic Book, stuck in Bizarro World.

USA Today reports that

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is suing the city of Ferguson in an attempt to forcibly overhaul the city’s troubled police and court operations, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday.

The decision comes hours after city leaders sought to revise a long- negotiated settlement, citing prohibitive costs of executing such a deal.

“There is no cost for constitutional policing,” Lynch said late Wednesday.

“Painstaking negotiations lasted more than 26 weeks as we sought to remedy literally years of systematic deficiencies,” she said of the government’s action, which followed a public announcement last month of a tentative agreement that the attorney general described as “both fair and cost-effective . . . Last night, the City Council rejected the consent decree approved by their own negotiators; their decision leaves us no further choice.”

Lynch said the residents of Ferguson have been waiting “decades for justice,” having endured civil rights breaches that established a pattern and practice of racially biased policing .

“I think the city of Ferguson had a real opportunity to step forward here,” a visibly disappointed attorney general said. “Instead, they have chosen to step in the past.”

Earlier Wednesday,  Ferguson Mayor James Knowles signaled that the city was ready to take on the Justice Department in federal court. He defended Ferguson’s unanimous decision to revise the agreement by removing language from the agreement, which local leaders asserted, mandated big raises for police officers.

Local leaders also sought to free the city from its obligations under the agreement should Ferguson seek to shutter the police department altogether and enlist another agency to provide public safety services.

“The ball is in their court,” Knowles said at a hastily called news conference in Ferguson. “We’re sitting and waiting to talk. If they want to threaten legal action, then that’s what they’re threatening.”

The threat became reality within hours of the mayor’s appearance when the Justice lawsuit was filed in a Missouri federal court, alleging local law enforcement conduct routinely violated the Constitution.

“The residents of Ferguson have waited nearly a year for their city to adopt an agreement that would protect their rights and keep them safe,” Lynch said. “They have waited nearly a year for their police department to accept rules that would ensure their constitutional rights and that thousands of other police departments follow every day.”

“I don’t know if I’d characterize it as an absolute agreement in principle,” Knowles said. “Also an agreement in principle doesn’t allow you to assign a numerical value of every piece of the agreement.”

The push to amend the deal comes after Knowles and council members raised concerns it could cost nearly $10 million over the next three years to implement.

The city of 21,000 has a budget of about $14 million and is facing about $2.8 million in debt after the August 2014 police shooting death of an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, sparked weeks of sustained and often violent protests. Much of the debt accrued from police overtime during the unrest following Brown’s death and lost tax revenue from businesses destroyed or badly damaged in rioting.

A St. Louis County grand jury declined to indict Darren Wilson, the officer involved in the incident, and the Justice Department said it would not pursue federal civil rights charges against him. But the incident and subsequent protests led Justice to launch a wide-ranging investigation, concluding nearly a year ago that the city’s police and municipal court unfairly targeted African-American residents, who make up about 70% of the population.

Ferguson’s troubles and similar problems in cities across the country prompted a national discussion on police tactics and the appointment of a special White House panel, which in part urged the adoption of new strategies to rebuild a broken trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

In Ferguson, city leaders hosted a series of emotionally-charged hearings this month on whether it should ratify the tentative Justice settlement. Some residents urged the City Council to reject the deal and take their chances in court. Others favored the agreement as a way for the city to regain the trust of a wary African-American community.

Wesley Bell, a Ferguson council member, said members of the council felt it was important present their concerns about the costs of implementing the deal. He said the amendments to the agreement were not meant to be a “take it or leave it” offer.

“We hope the Justice Department is willing to sit down and talk to us and continue negotiations,” Bell said. “If this case goes to court, it will not be because of the city of Ferguson.”

Proponents of Justice agreement noted that fighting a legal battle would be costly and could prove more expensive in the long-term than settling now. Knowles disputed that notion Wednesday, saying the city’s analysis shows “the agreement, as it currently stands, will cost more to implement than it would be to fight a lawsuit.”

“Substantially more,” Knowles added.

Meanwhile, in my Hometown of Memphis, TN, 4 Black Americans died yesterday, killed by other Black Americans.

And, this past month, in the Windy City of Chicago, which has some of the strictest Gun Control Laws in the nation, newsmax.com reports that

Chicago’s homicide rate jumped to a 15-year high in January after authorities recorded 51 murders in the first month of the year.

The homicide increase was a sharp rise from the 29 murders reported in January 2015, and 20 in 2013, according to USA Today. Overall, there were 241 shooting incidents in  January, an increase from 119 such incidents last year.

The “unacceptable increase in violence was driven primarily by gang conflicts and retaliatory violence,” said Chicago’s interim police superintendent, John Escalante, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. 

Well, I realize that I’m just an ig’nant old cracka’, living down here in the Bible Belt, but, it occurs to me that if the Ferguson, New York City., and Baltimore Rioters, murders, and other assorted lawbreakers  (paid and unpaid…thank you, George Soros) had jobs, they would not have been “so mistreated ” at the hands of those mean ol’ Police Officers (White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic).

So, perhaps the President of the United States should focus his attention to giving “his people” (who are actually supposed to be all of us) educational training and the cultural impetus to exercise personal responsibility, in order to gain employment, be men and women, support their families, and thrive as Americans.

A few years ago, I worked at our county’s State Employment Center Office.

While at the Employment Office, I was able to observe Americans, both Black and White, down on their luck, struggling to find work and survive in this economy. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of “unemployed ” who came to this particular office were Black.

I saw Black American Families whose existence living on the Government Dole, had become generational.

It is these people whom Obama and the Democrats have hypnotized into believing that Uncle Sugar loves them, and is their only solution to surviving a stifling existence.

They are so, so wrong.

The strength and vitality of America does not come from the benevolence of a Nanny-state Federal Government.

As the greatest American President of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan said:

The nine words you never want to hear are: I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.

Being enslaved to the Government Dole steals one’s ambition. It takes away any impetus or desire to create a better life for yourself and your family, to challenge yourself to pick yourself up by your bootstraps and pursue the American Dream. It makes you reliant on a politically motivated spider’s web full of government bureaucrats who view you and your family as job security.

I watched American citizens trapped in this web of government bureaucracy, so numbed of any initiative that they once had, that they seemed offended that they actually had to prove that they inquired about three jobs that week in order to keep their “benefits”. Others seemed puzzled that they had to search through the state data base and pick out a job that they wanted to talk to an interviewer about receiving a referral to, and weren’t just simply handed a job when they walked through the door.

Instead of moving forward, by exercising the self-reliance that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached so well, these people I saw, were content on being “taken care of” by Uncle Sugar, as if being held down by their own poor, miserable circumstance, was a good thing.

Dr. King, I am sorry to tell you that racism and injustice is still going on in America. Unfortunately, it will not end any time soon, There are two many race-baiters profiting off of it.

Including, the President of the United States.

The part of your magnificent speech about “the content of their character” has been purposefully ignored by the professional race-baiters and assorted politicians (but, I repeat myself) for the entire 7 years that the “Firt Post-Racial President” has been in office.

Dr. King, your call for self-reliance took a back seat to the self-serving agenda of Professional Race-Baiters, such as “Community Organizers” and Politicians, a long time ago.

And, those who sacrifice themselves, while serving and protecting us on the streets of America everyday, make convenient scapegoats, for the Political Failure of the Great Society.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Little White Lies, Bald-Faced Lies, and Hillary: “I’m For Huge Campaign-Finance Reform”…Except in the Clinton Foundation

January 18, 2016

untitled (19)There is a very logical reason that the Main Stream Media, in cooperation with the Democrat Party, is scheduling the Democrat President Primary Candidate Debates late on Weekend Nights:

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Late last night, hidden in the abyss of Sunday Television Programming at 9:00 p.m. Center, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernie Sanders, And Martin O’Malley (Who!), , took the stage in South Carolina for another Democrat Presidential Democrat Candidate Debate.

…which, once again, ended early.

Even politicians can blatantly lie for just so long, I suppose.

For example…

SANDERS: “We need someone with the guts to stand up the private insurance companies and all of their money, and the pharmaceutical industry. That’s what this debate should be about.” 

CLINTON: “Well, as someone who, as someone who has a little bit of experience standing up to the health-insurance industry, that spent — you know, many, many millions of dollars attacking me and probably will so again because of what I believe we can do, building on the Affordable Care Act — I think it’s important to point out that there are a lot of reasons we have the health-care system we have today. I know how much money influences the political decision-making. That’s why I’m for huge campaign-finance reform. However, we started a system that had private health insurance. And even during the Affordable Care Act debate, there was an opportunity to vote for what was called the public option. In other words, people could buy-in to Medicare, and when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn’t get the votes for that. So, what I’m saying is really simple, this has been the fight of the Democratic Party for decades. We have the Affordable Care Act. Let’s make it work. Let’s take the models that states are doing. We now have driven costs down to the lowest they’ve been in 50 years. Now we’ve got to get individual costs down. That’s what I’m planning to do.”

Liar, liar…pantsuit on fire!

On April 18, 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that

The board of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has decided to continue accepting donations from foreign governments, primarily from six countries, even though Hillary Clinton is running for president, a summary of the new policy to be released Thursday shows.

The rules would permit donations from Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the U.K.—countries that support or have supported Clinton Foundation programs on health, poverty and climate change, according to the summary.

That means other nations would be prohibited from making large donations to the foundation. But those governments would be allowed to participate in the Clinton Global Initiative, a subsidiary of the foundation where companies, nonprofit groups and government officials work on solutions to global problems.

Ministers from any government would be allowed to attend meetings and appear on panels at the group’s meetings and their governments would be allowed to pay attendance fees of $20,000.

The new policy, which was designed to address growing concern that the donations would present a conflict of interest for a Hillary Clinton presidency, all but ensures that Mrs. Clinton’s links to the charity will be a feature of the emerging presidential campaign.

Just how dishonest is Hillary Rodham Clinton? She wouldn’t lie about her own family would she?

…I mean, besides Bubba.

Is Michael Moore barred from all buffets in the Continental United States?

On April 23, 2015, I wrote a blog titled, “Foundationgate: There’s Little White Liars, Bold-Faced Lars, Statistical Liars, and Then, There’s the Clintons”.

Here is some pertinent information contained in that blog

NYMag.com reports that

The qualities of an effective presidency do not seem to transfer onto a post-presidency. Jimmy Carter was an ineffective president who became an exemplary post-president. Bill Clinton appears to be the reverse. All sorts of unproven worst-case-scenario questions float around the web of connections between Bill’s private work, Hillary Clinton’s public role as secretary of State, the Clintons’ quasi-public charity, and Hillary’s noncompliant email system. But the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”

The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.

When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary’s ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder.

And yet the Clintons paid little to no attention to this problem. Nicholas Confessore described their operation as “a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.” Indeed, as Ryan Lizzareported in 2012, Bill Clinton seemed to see the nexus between his role and his wife’s as a positive rather than a negative:

Regardless of Bill Clinton’s personal feelings about Obama, it didn’t take him long to see the advantages of an Obama Presidency. More than anyone, he pushed Hillary to take the job of Secretary of State. “President Clinton was a big supporter of the idea,” an intimate of the Clintons told me. “He advocated very strongly for it and arguably was the tie-breaking reason she took the job.” For one thing, having his spouse in that position didn’t hurt his work at the Clinton Global Initiative. He invites foreign leaders to the initiative’s annual meeting, and her prominence in the Administration can be an asset in attracting foreign donors. “Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State,” the Clinton associate continued. “It worked out very well for him. That may be a very cynical way to look at it, but that’s a fact. A lot of the stuff he’s doing internationally is aided by his level of access.”

The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration alsodemanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.

The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. Their experience running the actual government, with its formal accountability and disclosure, went reasonably well. Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco.

On Jan. 8, 1996, in a still-relevant commentary titled “Blizzard of Lies,” New York Times columnist William Safire described Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar. Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.

1. Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor’s wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.

She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe.

2. The abuse of Presidential power known as Travelgate elicited another series of lies. She induced a White House lawyer to assert flatly to investigators that Mrs. Clinton did not order the firing of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton’s cronies.

Now we know, from a memo long concealed from investigators, that there would be “hell to pay” if the furious First Lady’s desires were scorned. The career of the lawyer who transmitted Hillary’s lie to authorities is now in jeopardy. Again, she lied with good reason: to avoid being identified as a vindictive political power player who used the F.B.I. to ruin the lives of people standing in the way of juicy patronage.

3. In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man’s office. Her closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary’s lie with jail terms.

Again, the lying was not irrational. Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster’s White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for two years — in Hillary’s closet, in Web Hubbell’s basement before his felony conviction, in the President’s secretary’s personal files — before some were forced out last week.

Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell’s father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million.

Why the belated release of some of the incriminating evidence? Not because it mysteriously turned up in offices previously searched. Certainly not because Hillary Clinton and her new hang-tough White House counsel want to respond fully to lawful subpoenas.

One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in “lost” records — which investigators have — the White House “finds” its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.

Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.

Therefore, ask not “Why didn’t she just come clean at the beginning?” She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.

No wonder the President is fearful of holding a prime-time press conference. Having been separately deposed by the independent counsel at least twice, the President and First Lady would be well advised to retain separate defense counsel.

The late, great William Safire was a prophet.

The revelation contained in today’s blog should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

Lying comes as naturally to The Former First Lady as breathing in and out.

As I have written, from the time she was fired from the Watergate Investigative Committee to wiping her private e-mail server, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been as crooked as a dog’s hind leg.

Machiavellian in political ambition and armed with a vocabulary that would make the legendary Gong Show Judge, Jaye P. Morgan, blush (look her up, kids), “the Hildebeast” has cut a wide swatch in her path to Political Power.

It should be obvious to Americans by now, that she believes that morality and ethics are for “the little people” (i.e., you and me).

We already have a congenital liar in the White House.

We certainly do not need another one.

Oh…and Ambassador Christopher Stevens remains unavailable for comment.

Until He Comes,

KJ
 

 

 

Obama’s Gun Control Town Hall: “Giving Up a Little Bit of Liberty For a Little Bit of Security”

January 8, 2016

But-one-Life-600-LIThe President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, continued to display his “great disconnect” from average Americans last night in an Internationally-televised “Townhall Event, featuring a hand-picked audience, selected by CNN and the White House.

Foxnews.com reports that

President Obama doubled down on his push for gun control Thursday at a televised town hall meeting in which he said that sales of guns have soared under his presidency because gun rights groups have convinced people “that somebody is going to come get your guns.”

“Part of the reason is that the NRA has convinced many of its members that somebody is going to come get your guns,” Obama said after admitting that his presidency had been good for gun manufacturers.

The town hall came just two days after Obama announced executive actions designed, among other goals, to broaden the scope of gun sales subject to background checks.

Obama said that he has never owned a gun but would occasionally shoot one at Camp David for skeet shootings.

He also said he would “be happy” to meet with the National Rifle Association — which has vocally opposed to the president’s gun control proposals — and that he had invited them to the White House multiple times. Obama criticized the NRA’s decision not to attend the event, and took aim at their fiery language in response to his actions.

“If you listen to the rhetoric, it is so over the top, and so overheated,” Obama said.

At the town hall, which was hosted and televised by CNN, Obama took questions from Taya Kyle, whose late husband Chris Kyle was depicted in the film “American Sniper.” Kyle told Obama that gun ownership was at an all-time high while murder rates are at an historic low, and defended her right to own a gun.

“I want the hope — and the hope that I have the right to protect myself; that I don’t end up to be one of these families; that I have the freedom to carry whatever weapon I feel I need,” Kyle said.

“There is a way for us to set up a system where you (as) a gun owner … can have a firearm to protect yourself but where it is much harder for somebody to fill up a car with guns and sell them to 13-year-old kids on the streets,” Obama replied.

Obama also took questions from Cleo Pendleton, whose daughter was shot and killed near Obama’s Chicago home, and from Sheriff Paul Babeu, an Arizona lawman and congressional candidate who has accused Obama of unconstitutional power grabs on guns.

He also took questions from controversial Chicago Catholic priest Rev. Michael Pfleger.

“The reality is that I don’t understand why we can’t title guns just like cars,” Pfleger said. “If I have a car and I give it to you, Mr. President, and I don’t transfer a title, and you’re in an accident, it’s on me.”

“Issues like licensing, registration, that’s an area where there’s just not enough national consensus at this stage to even consider it. And part of it is, is people’s concern that that becomes a prelude to taking people’s guns away,” Obama replied.

Also in the audience was former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly. Kelly and Giffords became prominent gun control advocates after Giffords was shot in 2011.

Obama has come under heavy fire from Republicans and Second Amendment advocates for his actions, which they say infringe on Americans’ right to bear arms.

The NRA fired back at Obama while the town hall was still going on. NRA Director Chris Cox told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly: “This is an attempt to distract the American people away from his failed policies.”

“The NRA does more to teach safe and responsible gun ownership than this president ever has or ever will,” Cox said.

The president also published an opinion piece in Thursday’s New York Times in which he pledged not to support any candidate who is opposed to gun control.

“I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform,” Obama said, a move that could make Democratic candidates in Republican states feel unable to request the political support of the two-term president.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said before the event that Obama hoped the forum will spur a “serious conversation” about the Second Amendment as well as the administration’s new push to tighten gun control rules.

So, let’s have a “serious conversation” about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, found in the section known as the “Bill of Rights”.

The Second Amendment states that

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.

Why did our Founding Fathers, in all their wisdom, include this Amendment?

Dr. Nelson Lund, Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, wrote the following in an article posted at Heritage.org

The Founding generation mistrusted standing armies. Many Americans believed, on the basis of English history and their colonial experience, that central governments are prone to use armies to oppress the people. One way to reduce that danger would be to permit the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or similar emergencies, the government might be restricted to using a militia, consisting of ordinary civilians who supply their own weapons and receive a bit of part-time, unpaid military training.

…Thus, the choice was between a variety of militias controlled by the individual states, which would likely be too weak and divided to protect the nation, and a unified militia under federal control, which almost by definition could not be expected to prevent federal tyranny. This conundrum could not be solved, and the [Constitutional] Convention did not purport to solve it. Instead, the Convention presumed that a militia would exist, but it gave Congress almost unfettered authority to regulate that militia, just as it gave the new federal government almost unfettered authority over the army and navy.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that federal control over the militia would take away from the states their principal means of defense against federal oppression and usurpation, and that European history demonstrated how serious the danger was. James Madison, for one, responded that such fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the new federal government was structured differently from European governments. But he also pointed out a decisive difference between America and Europe: the American people were armed and would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so. In The Federalist No. 46, he wrote:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.”

Implicit in the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions: first, that the proposed new constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and the militia; and second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. The disagreement between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was only over the narrower question of how effective an armed population could be in protecting liberty.

My purpose in reviewing history is quite simple:

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

Make no mistake, if President Barack Hussein Obama had his way, we would live in a country comprised of restrictive gun laws, which would be modeled after those in Europe.

And, as recent events have plainly shown, those restrictive gun laws have allowed Islamic Terrorists to kill innocent people unchallenged, because none of those innocent people were allowed to carry a weapon with which to defend themselves.

In fact, in some cases, even the police officers, who first arrived on the scene, were unarmed, and had to call for additional forces, thus giving the perpetrators more time to murder and maim the innocent.

One of our Founding Fathers, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, once wrote,

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Like Dr. Franklin and the rest of those who have fought for our freedom, average Americans realize what the president does not.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Gun Control, Planned Parenthood, and Tears of Hypocrisy

January 7, 2016

th85XTKBQMOn Tuesday, in an address televised across our nation, the President of the United States of America, appeared to “tear up” as he lamented the American Children who have become victims of “Gun Violence”.

However, there are other young lives, ended needlessly every year, that he scarcely gives a thought to.

The Christian Post reports that

America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, conducted nearly 324,000 abortions and received over $553 million from taxpayers in 2014, the organization’s latest report shows.

Planned Parenthood released its annual report for 2014-2015 which shows that although the organization performed fewer abortions, provided fewer services and saw about 200,000 fewer clients than in 2013, the organization received increased funding from the federal government.

Although the Hyde Amendment explicitly forbids federal tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions, the amount of taxpayer dollars that went to Planned Parenthood increased by about $25 million from 2013 to 2014, as the group received $553.7 million in 2014.

According to the report, “government health services grants and reimbursements” accounted for 43 percent of Planned Parenthood’s $1.29 billion in revenue during the reporting period.

While Planned Parenthood officials and supporters have claimed in combating attempts last year to strip the organization of its federal funding that the tax money it receives is vital for providing women with the “healthcare” they need, the report indicates that the organization is still benefiting from $61 million in “excess revenue.” In 2013-2014, the organization benefited from $127 million in excess revenue.

While Planned Parenthood maintains that abortions only consist of about 3 to 10 percent of its services, the abortion giant only issued 2,024 adoption referrals, as compared to the 323,999 abortions it conducted in 2014.

While Planned Parenthood conducted approximately 4,000 fewer abortions than it did in 2013, the report states that the organization conducted over 4.2 million STD/STI tests, over 682,000 cancer screenings and 1.1 million other women’s health services.

The pro-life group Live Action, headed by Lila Rose, found some inconsistencies with Planned Parenthood’s report.

In 2014, Planned Parenthood claimed to have prevented more unintended pregnancies than it did in 2013. Although the organization saw a decliine of more than 500,000 contraceptive services in 2014, it claims that it averted 578,681 unintended pregnancies, which is about 62,000 more than the 516,000 unintended pregnancies that the organization claimed to have averted in the 2013 report.

“So Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive services are DOWN across the board and yet they claim to have prevented MORE unintended pregnancies than the year before. How does that make sense?” the Live Action report asks. “Planned Parenthood says the number of unintended pregnancies averted is calculated using a formula from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, which was founded by Planned Parenthood. Their report does not disclose the formula they used or how it apparently changed from 2013 to 2014.”

After the pro-life group Center for Medical Progress released a series of undercover videos last year purporting to show high-level Planned Parenthood officials violating a number of ethical and legal codes in negotiating compensation for aborted baby body parts, conservatives renewed a call to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal funding.

In response to that call, the House of Representatives have actually listened to their constituency for a change.

Politico.com reports that

The House on Friday approved legislation to defund Planned Parenthood for one year and to add new medical and reporting requirements on live births resulting from an attempted abortion.

The bills were the latest in the House’s response to a series of videos that opponents of Planned Parenthood say show that the organization is making money off the trafficking of human fetal tissue and organs. Planned Parenthood denies such claims and says the videos were highly edited.

But the videos have enflamed the already contentious debate over abortion and Planned Parenthood and are threatening to hold up a bill to fund the government before it runs out of money on Oct. 1. Friday’s votes, however, are unlikely to satisfy conservative lawmakers who are pushing Republican leaders to cut off Planned Parenthood’s federal support in must-pass legislation funding the government. 

The bill to defund Planned Parenthood was approved 241-187 with the support of two Democrats. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) voted present because he said the bill’s language wasn’t strong enough. The bill adding criminal penalties for not treating a baby born alive in the course of an attempted abortion passed 248-177 with the support of five Democrats. One Democrat voted present. Neither bill is expected to pass the Senate if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were to bring them up for a vote. President Barack Obama said he would veto them.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who sponsored H.R. 3504, the bill that would add criminal penalties, says his legislation would ensure that health care providers care for a baby that is born during an attempted abortion. Any health provider who is aware of anyone who violates that law would be subject to criminal penalties if they don’t report it. But opponents say that the language is not only repetitive — any baby born alive is already treated as a person with rights to medical care — but goes further than existing law and “would likely have a chilling effect, reducing access to care,” the White House said in its veto threat.

The defunding bill, H.R. 3134, would eliminate about $255 million in federal funds to Planned Parenthood, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the cuts would likely result in more Medicaid spending down the road — $20 million in the first year and a total of $60 million over the next decade.

CBO, which said that its predictions were very rough, estimated that cutting Planned Parenthood’s federal funds would result in less access to birth control services, leading to more pregnancies. A portion of those pregnancies and children would likely be covered by Medicaid.

“This is not about pro-choice or prolife,” said Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.). “This is about the gruesome practices at an organization that receives over $500 million a year from the federal government. …I’ve seen the videos. And I can tell you that that is not health care.”

Prior to 1973, abortions were allowed in some states but restricted or almost banned in others. Every state legislature made their own decision on whether to allow abortions and under what circumstances.  There was no Federal Law in regards to abortion.   Then, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade. It declared a Texas anti-abortion statute unconstitutional and, in doing so, affected abortion laws in many other states.

For any low  information voters who might be reading, I present the following summary:

Jane Roe was an unmarried and pregnant Texas resident in 1970. Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe filed suit against Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, contesting the statue on the grounds that it violated the guarantee of personal liberty and the right to privacy implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In deciding for Roe, the Supreme Court invalidated any state laws that prohibited first trimester abortions.

“We … acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.” — Justice Blackmun (1973), majority opinion in Roe v. Wade

When you talk to Liberals about this stopping of a beathing heart, they will  claim that, a human fetus is “just a clump of cells”. 

From the scientific perspective, Dr. Carlo Bellieni, in his book “Dawn of the I: Pain, Memory, Desire, Dream of the Fetus,” says:

As soon as it is born, the child shows in a scientifically demonstrable way that it recognizes its mother’s voice and distinguishes it from that of a stranger. Where has he learned that voice other than in the maternal womb?

There are also direct proofs. For example, we register how the movements and cardiac frequency of the fetus vary if we transmit unexpected sounds through the uterine wall. And we see that at first the fetus is startled, then it gets used to it, just like we do when we hear something that does not interest us.

In fact, the scientific evidence is immense. We cannot understand how it can be thought that it becomes a person at a certain point, perhaps when coming out of the uterus.

From the physical point of view, at the birth very little really changes: Air enters the lungs, the arrival of blood from the placenta is interrupted, the type of circulation of blood in the heart changes, and not much more.

As I often say, only blind faith in magic arts or some strange divinity can lead one to think that there is a “human” quality leap at a given moment — certainly not science.

A few years ago, the same President Obama who was brushing away tears on Tuesday Morning on behalf of limiting the Second Amendment Rights of American Citizens, said the following,

Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.

My question for you, Mr. President, is:

When do children stop being a “punishment” and start being precious lives to shed tears over?

Is it simply a matter of “Political Expediency”?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Obama’s Gun Control EO: “The Tears of a Clown”

January 6, 2016

Salesman-600-nrd1President Barack Hussein Obama presented his Executive Order concerning Gun Control, yesterday, in a National Address, spotlighted by an emotional performance which hasn’t been seen since “Ol’ Yeller” died.

Foxnews.com reports that

President Obama’s executive action to expand gun sale background checks has opened up a legal can of worms, specifically the president’s bid to broaden the definition of who’s a dealer — and therefore must get a license and conduct background checks. 

Under current federal law passed by Congress, only federally licensed dealers must conduct background checks on buyers. The law does not specify whether this applies to online sales and other areas — so those selling or trading guns on websites or in informal settings such as flea markets often don’t register.

As the centerpiece of Obama’s new gun push, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Monday night issued updated guidance that now deems anyone “in the business” of selling guns a dealer, regardless of where they sell. 

All of which puts a constitutional spotlight on Obama’s actions, raising questions of interpretation that may have to be settled by the courts.

“Mr. Obama will now require that anyone who sells a gun, that is even an ‘occasional’ seller, will be required to perform a background check. By defining what an ‘occasional seller’ is, the president is essentially interpreting the law, a job reserved for the courts,” Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst, said in a FoxNews.com opinion piece. 

Until the courts weigh in, it falls on the sellers to figure out who technically is “in the business” of dealing. 

It’s a tough question — and one with serious implications. As Obama noted during remarks at the White House Tuesday, failure to follow these rules can result in criminal prosecution. 

While the new guidance says collectors and gun hobbyists are largely exempt, the exact definition of who must register and conduct background checks is vague. Some officials suggested that selling just one or two firearms could subject a seller to these rules. 

Philip Dacey, president of the Pennsylvania Gun Collectors Association, told FoxNews.com that while he thinks the new orders will not have a huge impact on collectors, the devil is in the details.

“I think [to require a license for] one or two guns would be ridiculous, and how will you enforce it? If there’s no paperwork trail, how would you know when people are selling one or two guns to their neighbor?” Dacey said.

Dacey also noted that getting a federal license could take over three months and entail a complex process involving fingerprints, photographs and a visit by ATF agents. 

The guidance says determining whether someone is “engaged in the business” of dealing requires looking at “the specific facts and circumstances of your activities.”

“As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed,” the guidance says.

However, the document also notes the courts have deemed people dealers in some cases even if they only sell a couple guns.

“Note that while quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold, or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors were also present,” the guidance says.

In a conference call with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and White House Press Secretary Josh  Earnest, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett sought to clarify, but risked making the confusion even greater.

“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ depends on the facts and circumstances,” Jarrett said, according to The Washington Free Beacon. “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”

On the question of the number of guns sold, Lynch said: “It can be as few as one or two depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun.” 

Adding to the questions, the background check provision rests in the murky realm of agency “guidelines,” which carry less weight than formally issued federal regulations and can easily be rescinded.

Republicans blasted the new guidance as a form of intimidation that would only target law-abiding citizens.

“[Obama] knows full well that the law already says that people who make their living selling firearms must be licensed, regardless of venue,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in a statement. “Still, rather than focus on criminals and terrorists, he goes after the most law-abiding of citizens. His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”

After Obama’s soon-to-be-Golden Globe-Nominated Performance, Rush Limbaugh made the following observations on his Nationally-Syndicated Radio Program…

I’m just sitting here thinking, CNN’s interviewing a gun owner, and where do you think the gun owner’s store is?  Georgia. (imitating Southern accent) “Yes, they’re gonna go find gun shops in the South and they gonna talk to gun shop owners in the South.”  Now, you might be thinking, “Rush, CNN is in Georgia.  It would makes sense they’d find them there.”  They are also in New York.  But they sent somebody out to find a gun shop in Georgia.  It fulfills the image that they have of Second Amendment supporters and gun enthusiasts, hunters and so forth, a bunch of hayseeds. 

You know, Obama, I mentioned this, he had a tear. He cried at the end of his show today in the White House.  And he said (imitating Obama), “I think, you know, I got nothing to prove.  I’m in my last year, and I really don’t — I don’t know why, uh, we have to impugn people’s motives.  I don’t know why we have to.”  Well, sir, I tell you, your motive is all that matters, because your motive tells us the why, obviously.  The motive is what’s crucial here.  The motive tells us how serious you are about this.  The motive and the objective are all we need to know. 

You know, they’ve tried this with alcohol, as you well know. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, they’ve tried to penalize, punish bartenders and bars for selling adult beverages to people who later had accidents or a DUI.  Don’t think that they’re not gonna go to doctors here.  You know, folks, who do you think might be, as far as the left is concerned, a prime target for somebody a family member could claim is mentally ill or a doctor could decide is unstable or not all there?  How about veterans returning from the theater of combat?  I mean, as far as many Americans are concerned, they’re all upset. 

How many movies have there been portraying returning veterans as incapable of adjusting to peacetime, posttraumatic stress disorder.  I would wager that many Americans think that your average returning soldier from Afghanistan, Iraq, anywhere where there are hostilities comes back and cannot cope for some reason or other.  Insomnia, flashbacks, undiagnosed and diagnosed PTSD.  And, by definition, these returning vets need medical treatment, and so they go to doctors.  And now doctors are required to call the FBI, report to the FBI about any patients that might appear to be upset, mentally unstable, maladjusted, whatever term you want to use. 

And many of these veterans of course have firearms, do they not?  They have been trained in their usage.  The very people who are most familiar, trained and proficient with these weapons would be among the prime targets for having their guns taken away from them simply on the basis that they’re not mentally competent to possess them anymore.  And all it might take with Obama’s new regulations here is their doctor calling the FBI and saying, “Staff sergeant so-and-so Kowalsky just left my office, and I don’t know, FBI, I’m very, very concerned about the mental state of staff sergeant Kowalsky.” 

“Thank you, Doctor,” says the FBI, “we appreciate your call.  Leave it to us.  We’ll take it from here.”  Liberal members of your family who know that you have a gun and don’t particularly like it, might they now have avenues.  And you think the doctor might not cooperate.  Well, how many doctors can no longer afford malpractice insurance simply because of Obamacare?  And do you think the doctor is ever going to claim that any member of a minority group is unstable?  Can you imagine a doctor reporting, what’s her name, the prosecuting attorney in Baltimore, what’s her name?  Mosby, Marilyn Mosby goes to the doctor.  She’s obviously unstable. She goes to the doctor, do you think the doctor would report to the FBI that the DA was just here, and I don’t know, she doesn’t seem right. Or that Mahmoud Sahib Skyhook was just here, and Mahmoud didn’t seem to be all that right to me, you think that’s gonna happen? 

No, it isn’t, because the doctor is not gonna be accused of bigotry or religious prejudice or racial prejudice. So guess who’s gonna get reported on here?  At least the odds are.  And Obama’s crying.  “I have nothing to prove.  I’m in my last year.  I’m just doing what I think is right.”  Well, these leftists, folks, Obama’s quest to transform the country is not gonna end with him leaving office.  He’s not just gonna sit around idly in his post presidential days and watch people dismantle what he’s done.  He’s gonna try to preserve it.  We haven’t seen anything yet. 

I’m telling you, the next 12 months and then the aftermath when Obama’s out of office he’s still gonna have his media cadre on his side, whoever the incoming president is, Trump, Cruz, whoever it is, is gonna have Obama on their case and the media every day. And if there’s just the slightest shred of evidence that anything they’re doing is unraveling what Obama did, look out.  Don’t doubt me.  In fact, make a note of the prediction.  

The Executive Director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Tuesday concerning President Barack Obama’s Executive Gun Control Order:

Once again, President Obama has chosen to engage in political rhetoric, instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems.  Today’s event also represents an ongoing attempt to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attack.

The American people do not need more emotional, condescending lectures that are completely devoid of facts.  The men and women of the National Rifle Association take a back seat to no one when it comes to keeping our communities safe.  But the fact is that President Obama’s proposals would not have prevented any of the horrific events he mentioned.  The timing of this announcement, in the eighth and final year of his presidency, demonstrates not only political exploitation but a fundamental lack of seriousness. 

The proposed executive actions are ripe for abuse by the Obama Administration, which has made no secret of its contempt for the Second Amendment.  The NRA will continue to fight to protect the fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guaranteed under our Constitution.  We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be harassed or intimidated for engaging in lawful, constitutionally-protected activity – nor will we allow them to become scapegoats for President Obama’s failed policies.

I thought, that when Obama ascended to the Throne of the Regime, that he was supposed to “heal the sick, raise the dead, make the oceans rise and fall, and restore our divided country”?

Instead, Obama’s tenure in office will leave in his wake an America more divided than ever before, thanks to his Domestic Policy, consisting of the Rhetoric of Class Warfare and Racial Animus, and his advocacy of the failed Marxist Economic Theory of Socialism, in a nation which runs on the engines of Capitalism.

Yesterday’s non sequitur of a response to the horrific massacre of American Citizens by Radical Islamic Terrorists in San Bernadino, restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns, was just another serving of cake to us unwashed masses by “King Louis Obama”…punctuated by his phony tear as the cherry on top of his cake of ineffectual leadership.

And, you know, the kicker? Per Gallup, only 2% of Americans even consider Gun Control to be an important National Issue!

Back in 2010, I wrote a series of articles titled “The Great Disconnect: The Whole Ugly Truth About Barack Hussein Obama”.

Just call me Nostradamus.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Obama’s Gun Control EO: A Matter of Distraction and Control

January 5, 2016

guncontrolAccording to the pollsters over at gallup.com, Gun Control is only considered an Important National Issue by 2% of America’s Population.

Unfortunately for the continuation of our Second Amendment Rights, one of those individuals in that 2% is Barack Hussein Obama, the President of the United States of America.

CNN.com reports that

The Obama administration will announce a series of executive actions on Tuesday to combat gun violence in the U.S.Among other things, the actions would expand mandatory background checks for some private sales. The administration would also provide more funding for mental health treatment, FBI staff and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives agents.

“These are not only recommendations that are well within my legal authority and the executive branch,” Obama told reporters gathered Monday in the Oval Office. “But they are also ones that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners, support and believe in.”

With Attorney General Loretta Lynch by his side, the President said he planned to roll out the new restrictions, aimed at combating a wave of recent shootings, in the coming days. He will hold a town hall on the topic Thursday that will air on CNN and is expected to make it a focus next week during his final State of the Union address.

Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail have blasted any attempt by the White House to crack down on gun rules.

 “Pretty soon you won’t be able to get guns,” Donald Trump told CNN’s Chris Cuomo Monday during an interview on “New Day.” “It’s another step in the way of not getting guns.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan called out the President’s “dismissiveness” toward the Second Amendment as well as Congress.

“While we don’t yet know the details of the plan, the President is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will,” Ryan said in a statement Monday. “His proposals to restrict gun rights were debated by the United States Senate, and they were rejected. No President should be able to reverse legislative failure by executive fiat, not even incrementally.”

Over the weekend, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton told Radio Iowa she applauded the President’s new push, but warned any executive action was likely to fall short the comprehensive reform favored by most in her party.

“We’ve got to act,” she said, “but I don’t think that’s enough and I think we’re going to have to keep pushing forward on the political front and I intend to do that, to take on the gun lobby and to work with responsible gun owners.”

On the trail Monday, Clinton again said she backed the President’s efforts, but warned that voting a Republican into office in 2017 would effectively undo any progress that followed.

The most sweeping action currently being considered, an executive order defining who’s “engaged in the business” of selling guns, would immediately require some private dealers to obtain a license and begin conducting background checks.

But efforts to even partially close the so-called “gun show loophole” are sure to prompt a rash of challenges in court. The resulting rulings and subsequent appeals are likely to drag on well beyond the end of this administration.

Obama’s plan has already drawn heated criticism from Republicans, especially among the party’s presidential candidates.

Gun “Control” (i.e., confiscation) has been a priority of Obama’s since he took office.

And, of course, as Sir Isaac Newton observed,

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that

The FBI processed a record number of firearms-related background checks last year, indicating that more guns were sold in 2015 than in any previous year in American history.

More than 23 million checks were processed through the National Instant Background Check System in 2015, an all-time record.

The all-time record for yearly sales comes after May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December 2015 each set sales records for their respective months. In December the FBI conducted 3,314,594 checks, an increase of more than half a million checks over the previous single-month record set in December 2012.

The number of FBI background checks is widely considered to be the most reliable gauge of how many firearms were sold in a given month because background checks are required on all sales made through federally licensed firearms dealers. However, the checks do not provide an exhaustive representation of gun sales. Checks are not required on sales between private parties in most states, and a single background check may cover the purchase of multiple firearms by the same person at once.

Additionally, some states perform the checks on those who apply for gun-carry permits.

The record gun sales came as Democrats moved to implement new gun control measures at the federal, state, and local levels. Hillary Clinton, the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said that the Supreme Court’s decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller gun rights case was “wrong” and she and President Barack Obama praised Australian-style gun confiscation.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia (D.) issued an executive order imposing new gun control measures and the Democrat-controlled city council of Seattle imposed a new tax on guns and ammunition.

Gun rights activists say that Democrats’ new aggressive posture on gun control contributed to 2015’s record sales.

“A day has not gone by without a major media assault on gun rights or an Obama administration call for new additional restrictions on gun ownership,” said Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation. “Americans have voted with their dollars and bought record levels of guns and ammunition.”

In the second half of the year, terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California drove gun and ammunition sales even higher. Some dealers reported seeing their business triple in the wake of the attacks, cautioning that the spike was drying up supply in some areas.

Gun rights activists believe that sales will continue to set records in the new year.

In Obama’s zeal to grab our guns, there is an “inconvenient truth” that he and his minions always fail to mention:

A 1997 Justice Department survey of more than 18,000 state and federal convicts revealed the truth:

• 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member
• 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source
• 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show
• 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market
• 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop
• 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets

This fact remains unchanged to this day.

And, Obama and his Administration are quite aware of these numbers.

So, why attempt to restrict the gun ownership of law-abiding Americans?

As I observed yesterday,

Have you ever watched a mother, when their toddler bumps their head on a table, attempt to distract their child, by pretending to spank the table, while saying, “Bad Table”?

That, in a nutshell, is what President Barack Hussein Obama is attempting to do by writing Executive Orders, in an attempt to limit the Constitutional Right of American Citizens to own guns.

By creating new restrictions, instead of enforcing gun laws which are already in place, Obama is shifting the blame from the Radical Islamic Terrorists and those who operate outside of the law to America and her citizens.

Restricting private ownership of firearms by a country’s citizens is nothing new.

Back on January 13, 2013 while researching another post on the subject of Gun Control, I found some truth from a very unexpected source: Pravda.

(That’s pretty bad when Pravda is telling the truth and America’s Main Stream Media is not. But, I digress…)

Before the Revolution in 1918, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on Earth.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

Russian Marxist Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin said:

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

Obama’s Gun Control Executive Order which he will issue today is not about the safety of American Citizens.

It is about distraction and control.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Obama “Fired Up”, to Hold Gun Control Pep Rally on CNN

January 4, 2016

Party-Pooper-600-nrdHis (Obama’s) first impulse always is to take rights away from law-abiding citizens, and it’s wrong. And to use executive powers he doesn’t have is a pattern that is quite dangerous. – Republican Presidential Hopeful Jeb Bush, Fox News Sunday, 1/3/2016

ABC News reports that

Hawaiian vacation over, President Barack Obama says he is energized for his final year in office and ready to tackle unfinished business, turning immediate attention to the issue of gun violence. Obama scheduled a meeting Monday with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to discuss a three-month review of what steps he could take to help reduce gun violence. The president is expected to use executive action to strengthen background checks required for gun purchases.

Republicans strongly oppose any moves Obama may make, and legal fights seem likely over what critics would view as infringing on their Second Amendment rights. But Obama is committed to an aggressive agenda in 2016 even as public attention shifts to the presidential election.

Obama spent much of his winter vacation out of the public eye, playing golf with friends and dining out with his family. He returned to the White House about noon Sunday.

“I am fired up for the year that stretches out before us. That’s because of what we’ve accomplished together over the past seven,” Obama said his weekly radio and Internet address.

While in Hawaii, he also worked on his final State of the Union address, scheduled for Jan. 12. The prime-time speech will give the president another chance to try to reassure the public about his national security stewardship after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.

Congressional Republicans have outlined a competing agenda for January, saying they will spend the first days of 2016 taking another crack at eliminating keys parts of the president’s health insurance law and ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The legislation is unlikely to become law, but it is popular with the GOP base in an election year.

The debate about what Obama may do on gun violence already has spilled over into the presidential campaign.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has called for more aggressive executive actions on guns, and rival Bernie Sanders said he would support Obama’s expected move.

The Vermont senator told ABC’s “This Week” that he believes “there is a wide consensus” that “we should expand and strengthen the instant background check.” He added: “I think that’s what the president is trying to do and I think that will be the right thing to do.”

Republican candidates largely oppose efforts to expand background checks or take other steps that curb access to guns.

“This president wants to act as if he is a king, as if he is a dictator,” unable to persuade Congress and forcing an “illegal executive action” on the country, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told “Fox News Sunday.”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, also on Fox, said Obama’s “first impulse is always to take rights away from law-abiding citizens, and it’s wrong.”

In the radio address, Obama said tens of thousands of people have died from gun violence since background check legislation stalled three years ago.

“Each time, we’re told that commonsense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, so we shouldn’t do anything,” Obama said. “We know that we can’t stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one?”

Federally licensed gun sellers are required by law to seek criminal background checks before completing a sale. But gun control advocacy groups say some of the people who sell firearms at gun shows are not federally licensed, increasing the chance of sales to customers prohibited by law from purchasing guns.

Obama plans to participate in a town hall Thursday night at George Mason University in Virginia on reducing gun violence. The president will take questions from the audience at the event moderated by CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

Despite his deep differences with Republicans, Obama has cited two agenda items for 2016 that have bipartisan support: a free trade agreement with 11 other nations called the Trans-Pacific Partnership and changes in the criminal justice system that would reduce incarceration rates for nonviolent offenders. He often points out that the U.S. accounts for 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of its inmates.

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.

Have you ever watched a mother, when their toddler bumps their head on a table, attempt to distract their child, by pretending to spank the table, while saying, “Bad Table”?

That, in a nutshell, is what President Barack Hussein Obama is attempting to do by writing Executive Orders, in an attempt to limit the Constitutional Right of American Citizens to own guns.

By creating new restrictions, instead of enforcing gun laws which are already in place, Obama is shifting the blame from the Radical Islamic Terrorists and those who operate outside of the law to America and her citizens.

Obama is attempting to control law-abiding American Citizens, instead of punishing those who operate outside of our laws, such as the Muslim Terrorists who perpetrated the San Bernadino Massacre and the thugs who have turned Obama’s “hometown” of Chicago into their own personal “Killing Fields”.

Obama realizes that even though he “has a pen”, that does not mean that he has the national approval for his coming dictatorial action, which he claims that he has.

Therefore, he and his Administration have arranged for a “National Townhall Meeting”, to be held live on CNN, this Thursday night.

During this upcoming “Pep Rally”, I can guarantee you the following:

  1. The audience will be hand-picked by the Administration.
  2. Obama will use “human props”, like he did after the Sandy Hook Massacre and during the Obamacare Roll-out.
  3. Anderson Cooper will fawn over him, lobbing softball questions that Steve Urkel himself could hit out of the park.

Gun Control has not stopped the criminals from getting Guns in the UK. What makes Obama and his minions think that more regulations are going to accomplish what the UK has not?

Are they that full of themselves that they think that, since they are the “smartest people in the room”, that failed methods will actually work this time?

Are they just doing something to be doing something, in order to save face with their Far Left supporters?

Or, is it something more malevolent than just everyday politics?

Here’s a quote from an organization that backs Obama all the way with his Gun Confiscation efforts…

…the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans. It is for that reason, as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

One of their unhinged spokesmen, Texas talk show host Alex Jones, launched a national petition drive to deport CNN commentator Piers Morgan for questioning the Second Amendment. Jones said the amendment “isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs,” and then went on to threaten insurrection “if you try to take our firearms.”

Actually, the Second Amendment wasn’t enacted with any of these things in mind. The amendment was adopted as a means to enable the new American republic, lacking a standing army or state national guards, to muster militia to put down domestic uprisings, including slave revolts, to repulse any attempted return by the British and to deal with clashes with Native Americans on the expanding frontier.

These issues vanished long ago. The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans. There is no basis for claiming this amendment was intended to permit unregulated personal acquisition of firearms, including amassing military weapons and private arsenals for “protection” from the government. No government, especially one that is new and fragile, has ever authorized citizens to arm themselves against it.

The preceding quote actually comes from peoplesworld.org, the website of Communist Party USA.

As I have chronicled, over the last few years, this Gun Confiscation Movement comes right out of  the playbook of Marx and Lenin.

There is one thing that Obama did not take into account, however…

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. – Ronald Reagan

And, that is why he will fail.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama to Issue Gun Control Executive Orders Next Week…What “Checks and Balances”?

January 2, 2016

1722924_1319321378127988_8942781069457189654_nFreedom 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. – Ronald Reagan

The Washington Post reports that

HONOLULU — President Obama will press ahead with a set of executive actions on guns next week despite growing concerns in the United States over terrorism that have dampened some Americans’ enthusiasm for tighter firearms restrictions.

The president will meet Monday with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch to finalize a series of new gun control measures and will announce his package of proposals soon after, according to several individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan is not yet public.

One of the main proposals Obama is poised to adopt would require some unlicensed gun dealers to get licenses and conduct background checks on potential buyers. The change is aimed at occasional dealers, including some who sell online frequently or rent tables at gun shows but do not have a storefront.

Obama began examining how he could tighten the nation’s gun rules after October’s mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore. Administration lawyers have spent months reviewing various proposals to make sure they can withstand legal challenges.

The idea of requiring informal gun dealers to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and of conducting background checks came up two years ago when White House officials drafted a proposal for dealers who sell at least 50 guns annually.

The idea was shelved because of legal concerns but gained new momentum after the Roseburg shooting. At that point, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she would pursue such a requirement by executive action if elected. Administration officials gave the proposal another look and determined it could be done in a way that was legally defensible.

The White House review has been conducted in relative secrecy, soliciting input from gun safety groups without specifying which policies the administration might ultimately adopt. In the past month, Obama has met with former representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was gravely injured in a 2011 mass shooting, and her husband, Mark Kelly, and with former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the president of Everytown for Gun Safety, which Bloomberg helped start.

In Obama’s weekly radio address, released a day earlier than usual, the president said he was moving unilaterally because Congress had failed to address the growing problem of gun violence.

“A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence,” he said. “And on Monday, I’ll meet with our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options.

“Because I get too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids to sit around and do nothing,” Obama continued. “I get letters from responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time these tragedies happen; who share my belief that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms; and who share my belief we can protect that right while keeping an irresponsible, dangerous few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.”

In reviewing its options, the administration has shut out congressional Republicans, who joined with some Democrats in helping block legislation to expand background checks after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“The administration has not communicated with us, and we have not been briefed,” Doug ­Andres, a spokesman for House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), said in an email. “We will consider options once we have information, but what seems apparent is none of these ideas would have prevented the recent atrocities. Our focus should be on the consistent causes of these acts — mental illnesses and terrorism — rather than infringing on law-abiding Americans’ constitutional rights.”

While most Republican presidential candidates did not provide immediate reaction to Obama’s announcement, they are expected to talk about it in the coming days. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is scheduled to attend a gun show in Orlando on Sunday, where he will discuss the high marks he has received from the National Rifle Association.

Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), said that “President Obama is trying to distract Americans from his failure to address the true threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and instead going after the rights of law-abiding American citizens — it is complete lunacy. If Ted Cruz is elected president, the lawlessness will end on Day One, and Americans’ personal liberties will be restored and protected.”

Obama will make his case for additional gun restrictions in a number of forums in the coming month, according to aides, including during his Jan. 12 State of the Union address.

While beefing up background checks has strong support — a Quinnipiac University poll in December found that 89 percent of Americans supported checks for purchases at gun shows and for online sales — Obama’s actions also come as Americans have grown more fearful about the prospect of terrorist strikes and are expressing an openness to having ordinary citizens carry guns.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted last month in the wake of the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist shootings, for example, found that 53 percent of respondents opposed a ban on assault weapons ban, a record high. When asked which is the better reaction to terrorism, 47 percent said encouraging more people to carry guns legally, while 42 percent preferred enacting stricter gun control laws.

Why are Obama, his Administration, and their “fellow travelers” so intent over getting our guns?

If they cared so much about our nation’s children, their supposed reason for gun confiscation, they would not be pro-abortion, which has murdered 56 million children.

David Mamet, in an  article for The Daily Beast, published on January 27, 2013, wrote the following:

…where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”

…The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.

Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.

But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.

President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?

Why, indeed? The Communist Leader, Vladimir Lenin ,answered that question very succinctly:

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

Now, I am not one prone to conspiracy theories, but I question the timing of the whole thing. I believe that all of this “solution” was already prepared, and Obama and his sycophants were just waiting for the appropriate trigger mechanism to begin their push for gun confiscation. Unfortunately, the Islamic Terrorist Attack in San Bernadino, California provided them the excuse that they were waiting for.

So now, even as I write this, there are Executive Orders, sitting on the president’s desk, waiting to be signed.

This should come as no surprise to anyone. He has stated, numerous times, that if Congress will not give him what he wants, he will go around them.

Yes, our Founding Fathers put in a System of Checks and Balances. However, that system relies on the willingness of politicians to enforce them.

Unfortunately, in 2016, we have a bunch of professional politicians, who are too afraid of being thrown off of the Gravy Train, to tell the Conductor he’s on the wrong track. When the new Speaker of the House just recently demonstrated his willingness to be a doppelganger of the previous Vichy Republican in that position, by getting the Omnibus Bill passed, he left no doubt as to the state of his intestinal fortitude.

Hurry up, November.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

If I Were a Socialist U.S. President [December 2015 Edition]

December 29, 2015

 obamamywork

Prologue: A while back, I wrote a blog describing what I would do, if “I were a Socialist U.S. President”. I have since decided to add to it, since things promise to further spiral out of control, as we approach Barack Hussein Obama’s last year as President of these United States.

**In respectful honor and memory of the late, great Paul Harvey, an American Original, (September 4, 1918 – February 28,

If I were a Socialist U.S. President…

I would begin to plant seeds during my Inaugural Address, concerning the disparity between the Haves and the Have-nots. In other words, I would intentionally begin to divide the nation through the use of Racial Animus and Class Warfare.

Also, during that address I would push for a National Healthcare System, regardless of the fact that such a monstrous entity has never worked, anywhere it has been tried.

I would preach about hope and change, but like all Marxists, I would be hoping to bring subjugation and looking to “radically change” a nation, all in the name of “Fairness and Equality”.

The first thing I would do, when I took office, would be to send money around the world, to finance abortions. In this way, I would show the world that there is a new boss in the United States, who wants to radically change the Shining City on a Hill into just another country.

Next, I would push for the passage of an outrageous spending bill that would actually be a cover for paying back political favors.

I would invite the already-sycophantic Main Stream Media to come to the White House for closed-door meetings, where I would tell them to “get with the program”, if they wanted to receive any news stories from this White House at all.

I would makes speeches about how marvelous a Government-run National Healthcare  System would be, making hollow promises like,

If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

…all the while knowing that I was lying my hindquarters off.

Once I got my slaves in the Congress to pass this nation-changing National Healthcare Law, I would put the pedal to the metal and continuously push for other outrageous and expensive programs designed to grow the central government.

I would convince Americans that growing the central government is the only solution to a rapidly failing economy and that being unemployed and unable to provide for your family is actually a “fun-cation”.

And, while Americans were suffering through this Economic Depression, I would rant and rave about “Income Inequality”, while my family and I would take frequent vacations, costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and throw lavish private parties at the White House, in a manner reminiscent of the old Soviet Union’s Politburo.

Realizing that the Heartland of America was still Conservative in nature, I would reach out to those Americans who believe themselves to be a mistreated minority. I would reach out to those on the fringes of society. Those Americans, who because of poor upbringing, poor education, or simply making bad decisions concerning their lives, now consider themselves deprived of the American Dream.

These people would compose about 47 percent of the population. They would be my core supporters, much like Nikolai Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Having done a miserable job in my First Term as President, I would promise these Bolsheviks that if reelected, I would be their Santa Claus.

And, I would continue to blame my predecessor for the wretched state of the economy, even though, by now, it would be my responsibility.

Once I was reelected, there would be no stopping me. It would not matter to me what the popularity polls said, I would continue to claim that those who provide Americans with jobs were “the evil 1%” and identify their success in creating the Greatest Economic System in the World, as the “real reason” for the Economic Depression that America was in.

I would change the Moderate political stances which I “supposedly” held during the campaign for my first election as President, and show my true colors, following a political path pursuant to my true Far Left Radical Political Ideology.

Reverting back to the one job in my life that I was good at, that of being a “Community Organizer”, I would encourage an “Us Vs. Them” Racial Division in America, supporting out-of-control rioters over those who protect the Citizens of the United States, the Thin Blue Line, America’s Police Departments, because then, I could use the situation to create my own National Police Force.

I would alienate Conservative Christians living in America’s Heartland by vilifying them as “Bitter Clingers”, marginalizing them throughout my presidency, even to the point of lecturing them in my Easter Address, telling them to get off their “high horse”, basicially saying that the followers of Jeus Christ, the Son of God, are no better than the murderous followers of Mohammed, whose Ideological Brethren continue to murder Christians in the Middle East.

I would remove God from the Air Force Oath and forbid soldiers from speaking about Christ to others. I would also begin Military Training which would identify Evangelicals as “Terrorists”.

While I am at it, I would allow my wife to place the military on a diet plan that is similar to the one which would already be failing in America’s Public Schools.

I would push for “gay marriage”,  demonizing Bible-believing Christians, who might oppose it as “bigots” and “haters” and I would voice my support for the legalization of marijuana.

Through redefining the definition of the family unit, and eliminating Christianity from everyday American Life, I will eliminate the “backbone” of the nation…the two main barriers that will keep me from radically changing America into a socialist nation.

By legalizing marijuana, I would succeed in dumbing down the population and eliminating their desire to succeed as individuals, making them even more subservient and reliant on the Almighty State for their very existence, thus creating a new “Proletariat”.

Regarding Foreign Policy, I would bow in deference to other world leaders, demonstrating to them and the rest of the world, that I do not believe that the United States of America, whom I am supposed to be the Biggest Advocate for, is exceptional in any way.

I would not negotiate with America’s Enemies from a position of strength. Instead, I would blindly trust those who have sworn to kill us, even if they are on the threshold of building a nuclear bomb, simply because I identify with their Political Ideology, which masquerades as a religion.

I would pull out of still turbulent areas in the Middle East, encouraging the Barbaric Forces of Radical Islam to move in and conquer the very cities where our Brightest and Best sacrificed their lives in service to America.

On the 70th Anniversary of D-Day, I would sit at a solemn International Memorial Service, smacking my gum like a cow chews his cud, as if I was behind the bench at a Chicago Bulls Basketball Game, dishonoring our fallen and enraging our allies.

In other words, I would embrace America’s Enemies, and alienate America’s Friends.

I would use the finest military in the world as a subject for Social Engineering Experiments, ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and moving women into combat positions, even though their lack of physical strength would endanger the American Soldiers they are fighting beside.

I would trade 5 Murderous Muslim Terrorist Generals, for one useless, traitorous, American Army Deserter, who was discharged in 2006 from the Coast Guard for Psychological Issues, who later converted to the Religious/Political Ideology of his Captors, and whose Father’s Youtube Account praised the same Radical Muslims and their Political Ideology which poses as a religion, just because I wish to make a Political Point about closing the prison in which the enemies of our country were being held.

I would use the Judicial System, The Department of Justice, the NSA, and  Internal Revenue Service as my Palace Guard, using Activist judges to overturn the will of the people and harassing political opposition through uncalled-for Tax Audits.

I would use unmanned drones and blimps for unwarranted surveillance on American Citizens.

I would push for Gun Confiscation, calling it “Gun Control”, in the “name of the children”, all the while supporting the murder of the unborn in their mothers’ wombs, because having a baby is “a punishment”.

Because, after all, as Vladimir Lenin said,

One man with a gun can control 100 without one. 

I would imperiously announce that if Congress did not pass the laws that I wanted them to pass, I would go around them and rule by Executive Order.

I would open our Southern Borders, bypassing our immigration laws, encouraging millions of illegal aliens to enter our nation, including unaccompanied minors, spurred on by propaganda intentionally leaked to their Latin American Home Nations in support of this Mexican Munchkin Migration.

All the while, pushing Congress for “Immigration Reform”, i.e., “Amnesty”, in order to assure that my Political Party would hold onto their Political Power, in order to finish the intentional “Radical Change” of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

And, if Congress refused to follow my wishes, I would attempt to grant Amnesty through “Executive Order”, bypassing the System of Checks and Blances that America’s Founding Fathers put into place, so long ago, in or5der to avoid a monarchy, such as they rebelled against.

Finally, if I were a Socialist U.S. President, I would blame others for my incompetency. I would portray myself as a victim of a Capitalist System and a Racist Ideology that was still prevalent in a nation that was too narrow-minded to allow me to lead them to a Socialist Paradise, even though my wife and I were worth millions or dollars, I was the President of the United States of America, and we took numerous vacations and went on “fact-finding missions” at the expense of the American Taxpayers.

Of course, that could never happen HERE, could it?

Norman Matoon Thomas (1884-1968) was a six-time Presidential Candidate  representing the Socialist Party of America.  In a campaign interview in 1948, he said the following:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The San Bernadino Massacre, Barack Hussein Obama, and Misplaced Priorities

December 12, 2015

O-Casino-600-LIAs the FBI continues its investigation of the horrible massacre, perpetrated by Radical Islamists in San Bernadino, California, some new and distressing information has been brought to light.

Foxnews.com reports that

The former neighbor of San Bernardino gunman Syed Rizwan Farook reportedly spoke to regulars at his job about “sleeper cells just waiting” to attack the United States.

A frequent customer at Morgan’s Tavern, where Enrique Marquez worked, told The New York Times on Friday that nobody took Marquez seriously when he spoke of terror attacks and had no clue he was involved in the massacre at an Inland Regional Center office building that left 14 people dead.

“We took it as a joke. When you look at the kid and talk to him, no one would take him seriously about that,” Nick Rodriguez told The Times.

Federal authorities are expected to bring charges against Marquez, 24, who supplied Farook at least two of the weapons used in the attack. He legally purchased the AR-15 rifles Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik used on their killing spree on Dec. 2. He will likely be indicted after spending hours talking to investigators about Farook and Malik.

Authorities believe Farook and Marquez discussed executing an attack somewhere in the Los Angeles area in 2012, but decided not to go through with it after four people were arrested in nearby Riverside County in an unrelated terror case. Investigators believe Marquez bought the rifles and gave them or sold them to Farook in preparation for that planned attack. It’s unclear what the target of the attack would’ve been. 

It was not immediately clear what specific charges Marquez would face, but Fox News has learned that he is the only person expected to be indicted anytime soon in connection with the attack. However, authorities say that other subjects are being monitored.

Marquez began speaking with federal authorities after they raided his mother’s home over the weekend. Right after the shootings, Marquez called his mother to say he was safe, but that he wouldn’t be coming home, neighbor Lorena Aguirre told the Associated Press. He later checked into a mental health facility. It’s unclear where he is now.

Marquez is also related to Farook by marriage, having wed the sister-in-law of the gunman’s older brother, state records show. The Associated Press reported that Marquez and and his bride, Mariya Chernykh listed their address on the marriage license at the same Corona home where Syed Raheel and Tatiana Farook live. Viviana Ramirez, a friend of Marquez, told the Los Angeles Times that Marquez rarely spoke about his family or his marriage.

Azmi Hasan, the mosque’s facilities manager, said Wednesday that he understood Marquez had converted to Islam, but said he was not a member of that mosque. Marquez had only worshipped there three to four times over seven years, said Hasan, who hadn’t seen him in about four years.

Marquez had a security guard license in California for several years, but it expired last year. He had worked at Wal-Mart since May, but has since been fired, spokesman Brian Nick told the Associated Press.

He spoke of wanting to join the military, a fellow student at Riverside Community College told the Los Angeles Times. His brother-in-law, Raheel Farook, is a Navy veteran, serving from 2003 to 2007 and earning the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, among other awards.

Investigators were also examining the digital footprint left by the shooters, who tried to destroy their computer hard drives and cell phones prior to carrying out the attack. Investigators tell Fox News the data that has been recovered shows that Farook posted multiple messages online expressing support for Islamist groups like Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, while also expressing hatred for Israel. Investigators have also expressed concern that Farook may have been in contact with other terror groups.

Authorities used dive teams to search a lake in San Bernardino on Thursday and Friday. Investigators apparently found something in the lake, but have not announced what the object was. Investigators are looking for a hard drive that may have been dumped in the lake, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation told The Associated Press.

The FBI investigation into the mass shooting has been one of the most comprehensive in the bureau’s recent history. Law enforcement sources tell Fox News that more than 300 interviews related to the shooting have taken place in the U.S. An FBI team has also been dispatched to Europe as part of the investigation.

So, Terrorist “Sleeper Cells”, are standing by to perpetrate “Man-caused Disasters” on our Sovereign Nation” and its citizens.

Why is this happening?

It all starts at the top.

As we journey through this Quixotic Quest, known as our everyday lives, we come across windmills, which we must tilt with daily, known as “priorities”.

Priorities are unique, perplexing things, as they vary from individual to individual.

For those of us between employment, it is finding a meaningful, well-paying job, so that we may provide for our families. For other Americans, it could be the care of their elderly loved ones. For others, their priority may be to climb the Corporate Ladder at their place of employment.

For the parents of 30-year-old Liberals and “puff puff” “l”ibertarians, it may be that their priority is to get their slacker of a “kid” to move out of the basement.

But, I digress…

Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), the 44th President of these United States, has a problem.

(No, I don’t mean his overbearing wife, Mooch, and her desire to build shopping carts, which will tell us what “healthy” foods to buy. That’s a subject for another blog. Besides, it takes that heifer two trips to haul a.. …well, you know.)

Obama’s problem is one of MISPLACED PRIORITIES.

This problem started the very first time he took the Oath of Office, which clearly outlines his duties as President of the United States of America…

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Let’s examine the President’s MISPLACED PRIORITIES by using the three words which I underlined in the Oath of Office as topic headings, shall we?

To begin with, let’s examine the word PRESERVE.

It is a conflict of interest to swear to “preserve” a country which you have already promised to “radically change”.

As we have discovered, since Obama’s First Inauguration, all those long years ago, Obama has no intention of “preserving” the Land of our Founding Fathers and of hard-working Patriotic Americans, who sacrificed so much, for this Shining City Upon a Hill.

That includes his on-going attempt to strip Americans of our Second Amendment Right, by implementing more “Gun Control Laws” by Executive Order.

Because, after all, Muslim Terrorists’ number one priority is to obey our laws.

Yes, Mrs. Obama. Those before us, sacrificed “All this for a flag.”

Then, there is Obama’s Domestic Policy, in keeping with his promise to “radically change” this country, which has resulted in over 92,000,000 Americans  “dropping out” of our Work Force, because they cannot find meaningful jobs in a stagnant economy, controlled by a huge all-powerful Central Government, who rewards the slackers, by giving them FREE STUFF from cradle to grave and punishes those Entrepreneurial Americans who actually hire Americans,with onerous tax burdens, slifling competitiveness and creativity, literally bringing to a halt America’s Engine of Economic Growth.

And, finally, under this “PRESERVE” heading, there is Obama and his Administration’s misplaced priority of establishing a “Tyranny of the Minority”, when it comes to imposing the immorality and situational ethics of a very small minority of Americans on the overwhelming majority of the rest of us, through the use of “Push Polls” perpetuated by the sycophantic Main Stream Media and Liberal Activist Judges, including the Supreme Court of the United States of America, whose sole purpose, seemingly, is to further Obama’s original promise to “radically change” our country, including the definition of a word which has meant the same thing for thousands of years.

Next, Obama swore an oath to PROTECT America.

Obama started his presidency by bowing in front of  America’s enemies, during his World Apology Tour.

No President of the United States has every effectively protected our nation from a POSITION OF WEAKNESS.

Ask Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, whose milksop endeavors in Foreign Policy led to increased attacks by the Radical Adherents of the “Religion of Peace’, otherwise known as Muslim Terrorism, or as Obama’s staff immediately renamed these wanton acts of violence, “Man-caused Disasters”, like the subject of this blog, which are increasing in frequency on our very shores.

Also, how can you “protect” a nation whose Southern Border is WIDE OPEN, presently allowing entrance to our Sovereign Nation by our enemies and virulent disease, alike?

By allowing the ongoing Illegal Alien Invasion and the resettlement of the Syrian “Refugees”, Obama is saying to the world,

Hey, C’mon in! Our Estados Unidos es tu Estados Unidos! Sit a spell. Unstrap your sidearm. Take us over.

And, that leads us to our final topic heading, DEFEND.

How can the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave be defended by a President and his Administration who are so naive that they actually believe that they can effectively defend our Soverien Nation by cutting down our Military to pre-World War II Levels?

Our soldiers have been, even as I write this, being handed, their “pink slips” in the field. (And, no, I am not talking about the repeal of DADT. Our Brightest and Best have been receiving “Termination Notices” while on Active Duty).

Brilliant, huh?

Former Congressman and retired Lt. Col. Allen B. West thought so, too. He wrote that

For Obama and [Secretary of Defense Chuck] Hagel to believe taking the US Army down to pre-World War II levels is a smart decision evidences their abject stupidity in comprehending the global conflagrations in which we are embroiled — the enemy has a vote. This whole inane statement about “pivoting to the Asian-Pacific rim” is more empty rhetoric as we decimate our US Naval strength while China builds theirs.

Barack Hussein Obama cannot be seen as a Commander-in-Chief and I will never refer to him that way. His fundamental transformation of America means weakening our nation and leaving our Republic less secure. I can just imagine how appreciative and elated his Muslim Brotherhood friends are at this point, to include Turkey’s President Erdogan, as well as the mad mullahs in Iran.

I realize that I could have grown this Blog exponentially, by listing all of Obama’s MISPLACED PRIORITIES en masse.

However, I believe that simplicity in communication is the best way to get one’s point across.

The point I have been attempting to maker today, is a rather simplistic one, in deference to the Liberals whom I know read this blog on a daily basis, attempting to catch me in some sort of “lie”, which only they can see.

Obama’s MISPLACED PRIORITIES have not only tarnished this Shining City Upon a Hill, but it has endangered the continued existence of America and her citizens, with every day this past week, bringing a new example of Obama’s deliberate ineptness and shallow behavior, in the poor fulfillment of his Oath of Office, to the degree to which average Americans are concerned about their children’s’ and grandchildren’ sfuture.

Obama has failed miserably in his sworn duties as President of the United States.

But, then again, perhaps the only promise he intended to keep, was to “radically change” America.

…for the worse.

God protect us.

Until He Comes,

KJ


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,714 other followers