August 18, 2019

Obama’s Disdain For The Constitution Means We Risk Losing Our Republic

*Editor’s Note* – Below is a link to an article I just read that I find a bit too late and also a bit “snickerable.” (Yeah, I know.) The writer of the piece, M. Northrop Buechner, seems to be claiming that Barack Obama wrote the book on how to tread on the Constitution and circumvent it with Executive Orders and any other crooked legal and non legal finagling to get his way. In short, claiming this president is a tyrant, a despot, a dictator, monarch, choose your poison.

Of course he is all of the above but he did NOT write the book on this but I do believe he is contributing several chapters for future dictatorial puppets to follow.

What is interesting is that whatever Obama’s “approval” rating is, (40%ish) – that percentage of people, and I’m being generous in attributing them with enough brains to understand that their president is actually sidestepping the Constitution – love his illegal maneuverings because they agree with his agenda (lies), and they probably falsely believe it is of some benefit to them.

Ignorant as ignorant can be, what happens when Obama is gone, and during his despotic reign, nothing is done to correct the breaking of laws because a president refuses to accept the rule of law that he doesn’t agree with? Simple! The next president, should he or she have a different fake party designation, I can pretty much guarantee will be a tyrant with a pretended “different” agenda, and Obama’s 40% of fans will now come in line with those demanding that the new president be impeached, or something, because he or she is abusing executive authority, etc.

It will happen as it has in the past. This is what happens when people ignorantly and eagerly follow a “party” over the cliff. How’s that working out anyway?

From the article in reference:

“The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?

The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).”

Share

The Nanny State Can Get You Killed

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago Move to Restrict Devices that Help Smokers Quit

New York, NY – On the same day the Los Angeles City Council moved to regulate e-cigarettes, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Jeff Stier testified at a New York City Council Health Committee hearing on a similar measure being rushed through the New York City Council.

In his testimony, the New York-based Stier, who heads the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division, encouraged council members to think twice about whether it is in fact “prudent” to extend New York City’s ban on smoking in public places to include e-cigarettes:

“I would caution you that this is not the prudent thing to do. The prudent thing to do here is to help cigarette smokers quit. Rushing to judgment here could have serious, unintended consequences that you need to be aware of. It will stop people from quitting smoking. E-cigarettes are not a gateway to smoking. The data does not show that. E-cigarettes are a gateway to quitting smoking.”

E-cigarettes, which do not produce smoke, have been a boon to those who have tried to quit smoking but have failed.

“Nicotine,” Stier explains, “is addictive, but not particularly harmful, especially at the levels consumed by smokers or users of e-cigarettes, who are called ‘vapers’ for the vapor, rather than smoke, emitted by e-cigarettes.”

“Nicotine’s bad reputation should be attributed to its most common delivery device, cigarettes,” says Stier. “Nicotine itself is about as dangerous as the caffeine in soda. Along the same lines, while too much soda can cause weight gain, nobody seriously suggests that caffeine causes obesity. Similarly, e-cigarettes provide the nicotine and the habitual activity of smoking, without the danger of burning tobacco.”

“Mayor Bloomberg and his nanny state allies in New York City and Los Angeles have steam coming out of their ears about e-cigarettes. Here is a product created by private-sector innovation that is doing what many hundreds of millions of dollars of government spending, costly litigation, addictive excise taxes, warning labels and punitive regulation have been unable to do: help cigarette smokers quit happily. ”

“Regulators understand that in order to maintain not only their huge budgets, but their basis for authority to control both private-sector businesses as well as personal decisions, they must demonize, delegitimize, and defeat e-cigarettes every step of the way,” Stier says.

“Some, without any basis in science, allege that e-cigarettes are a ‘gateway’ to smoking. But initial studies, as well as empirical evidence, show that e-cigarettes are a major gateway away from, not toward, smoking. For all the heated rhetoric, there’s little dispute in the scientific community: those who quit smoking cigarettes and switch to e-cigarettes reap immediate as well as long-term health benefits. And those improvements are dramatic.”

Stier concludes: “Regulations that treat e-cigarettes the same as their deadly predecessor will have the unintended consequence of keeping smokers smoking. Quitting nicotine use altogether is the best choice. But for those who chose not to, or find it too difficult, e-cigarettes are a potentially life-saving alternative.”

Outgoing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, nicknamed “Nanny Bloomberg” by many for his use of government tools to influence what private citizens eat and drink, supports the New York proposal. Bloomberg’s administration imposed New York City’s ban on public smoking in 2003.

Like Los Angeles and New York, Chicago is considering banning the use of smokeless e-cigarettes anywhere in the city tobacco smoking is banned. The proposed ban is supported by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The sale of e-cigarettes to minors is already appropriately illegal under Illinois state law.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Seventh Grader Kicked Out of School For Shooting Air Gun in His Own Yard

Here it comes America. Still thinking some of us are nuts and insist on burying your head in the sand because truth hurts?

We have officially become more than a police state, I believe, and proof of that comes from an expulsion from school of a seventh grade boy because he was seen on his parents’ property, waiting for the bus, and shooting a toy air pistol. He didn’t bring the toy gun on the bus nor to school and yet the Virginia Beach City Public School System kicked him out of school anyway.

<<<Read More>>>

Share

What Would Barack Obama Say to Thomas Jefferson?

At Ohio State University, May 5, 2013, President Barack Obama, the only president that I am aware of who told a reporter during an interview that the Founding Fathers got the Constitution all wrong, continued in his willful disregard and ignorance toward the foundation of America, by telling graduating students that they should “reject these voices”; that is those who warn of government tyranny. Here is the text of his comments:

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us, it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.

What I have not heard or read anyone pointing out is the terrible, incorrect and deliberately misleading statement the President makes right after he tells graduates to reject the voices that warn of governmental tyranny. The only focus seems to be on the fact that President Obama dared to swim against the flow, much like his statement of the error of the Founding Fathers, and tell young and influential graduates, to disregard, nay, “reject” any voice that might warn of tyranny.

President Obama attempts to tell the world that those of us who continuously warn of the dangers of despotic rule, believe that what, “they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.”

This is so much not the truth! Those of us who remonstrate the dangers of dictatorial/despotic/tyrannical rule are the ones who understand and cherish the actual foundation of this country. Barack Obama is falsely placing himself as one who affirms self-rule, while having done all he can so far in his nearly 5 years in office to destroy that self-rule and put it into the hands of government – himself to be exact. Few will argue that Government is too big. Such statements certainly supersede any philosophical notions of what the role of government should be.

The President’s tactics might work on some people in this country today but what about our Founding Fathers, who the President claims got it all wrong because they DID NOT give the Executive Branch of Government all the power.

Our current President has shown little respect for the foundation of this country, namely the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. His comments at Ohio State University once again bring to the surface his real feelings about what made this country great, crafted its identity, and most importantly why the United States even exists today.

Let’s turn the clock back a bit. When it came time to sever ties with King George of England, Thomas Jefferson began work on the Declaration of Independence. It took time and much debate but it was finally signed in Congress on July 4, 1776. What was it that went on in Colonial America at this time that the people felt the need, knowing war would be imminent, to declare their separation from England, their desires to be free of tyranny? The Declaration of Independence tells us.

The people in America had lost all say in how they could govern. They were being taxed without any kind of representation. In short, it was decided that King George was a tyrant and people didn’t come to the New World to be ruled by a dictator. Many people warned of a tyrannical government in England who controlled Colonial America.

Were the citizens of this country in 1776 told to reject the voices claiming tyranny? If Barack Obama was alive during this age, would he have stood up to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, and all the rest, and told them to reject the voices of these men and so many others warning to tyrannical rule? Could he have convinced the Founders that King George’s tyranny was no threat?

The threat and reality of tyranny was important enough and prominent enough in 1776, that no fewer than 4 times does the actual document of the Declaration of Independence state that King George was a tyrant.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

He [King George] has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Surely, these men understood that free people cannot exist under the rule of a tyrant. Americans sought to be free. Those in this country, the United States of America, who lift up their voices against tyranny and expose all efforts for governmental rule that runs against freedom and self-rule, are doing the best public service possible. Any political leader, president included, who would willfully tell American citizens to reject the voices that warn against despotic rule, is, in fact, a tyrant and should be rightfully exposed for that.

Share

Words of Communist Despot Michael Bloomberg

This is a quote taken from comments made by Michael Bloomberg, Big Brother mayor of New York City. I got news for Mr. Bloomberg. Watching the actions of the Gestapoesque police during the manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, someone(s) in law enforcement threw the constitution on the ground and pissed on it.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Share

Day 87 – No Executive Orders

TYRANNICAL!

87 Days and there are no executive orders on gun control posted on the White House website. We do have gun confiscation underway in New York – this notification to you people who continue to repeat the message drilled into your head through brainwashing, that we need “reasonable” gun control and that confiscation could never happen in America.

Christians are now labeled terrorists.

And Big Sis notifies banks that DHS can have access to safe deposit boxes and confiscate belongings, including gold, silver, guns, etc.

Keep your eyes closed and continue to pretend nothing like this will happen in this country.

obamaconstrained

“I am constrained by a system the Founders put in place.” These are the words of President Barack Obama. Such a statement tells us at least one of two things: He either really dislikes the republican form of government that purposely put restrictions on the Executive Branch for the very reason we now have Barack Obama residing in the White House. Or, he is nothing more than a tyrant, ruffling his feathers when he can’t have his way by making slaves of us all for the purpose of serving him.

I will serve no man!

Share

Day 64 – No Executive Orders

ASTOUNDING!

It is now Day 64. President Barack Obama, even in his love of the executive order pen, has not provided the details of, what he stated on television and was reiterated by the press, his 23 executive orders he said would provide a pathway in which guns and gun ownership could be controlled in order to make Americans safer. These 23 executive orders cannot be found on the White House website and therefore we can only be left to conclude one of two things: They either exist and are being withheld from public scrutiny or they do not exist and President Obama lied to the American people and performed his dog and pony show in front of cameras for other, perhaps more sinister reasons. Either way his actions are despicable and should be unacceptable to the citizenry.

Looney Gun Haters

If we examine the reasoning given us by the anti gun lobby, we can find it quite absurd; so much so that it becomes so obvious the aim of anti gun zealots is a mere disarming and abduction of Constitutional rights of the people. After all, any sane human being understands that a gun is a mechanical, inanimate object and doesn’t have a will to go kill somebody. It requires the assistance of a human being, and unfortunately, all too often, it ends up being a deranged human being.

If we were to use this kind of mental gymnastics, as is demonstrated by the emotional gun haters, and sort of reversed it, then it jumps out at us as to just how absolutely preposterous, their perverse reasoning is. Here’s and example of what I mean.

You may recall that last February T.J. Lane walked into a Cleveland, Ohio high school cafeteria with a .22 caliber pistol and a knife and killed three people, wounding others. Yesterday he was sentenced to life in prison for his actions.

But that doesn’t tell the whole story. As Lane entered the courtroom for his sentencing, he displayed his T-shirt, in which he used what appears to be a black marker, that read, “KILLER.” During sentencing Lane laughed at his demise and the things people were saying about him. As well, he turned in his chair and flipped his middle finger at the families of those classmates he’d murdered. Obviously this replica of a human being is seriously deranged and was at the time of the killings.

To use the same thinking and logic of gun haters, if guns didn’t exist in this country, T.J. Lane wouldn’t be insane and therefore wouldn’t have given the finger and laughed at his own court sentencing, because he wouldn’t have ever done any killing.

One has to ask who is actually the insane ones.

Police State

It has come to this. Often, as a supporter of a person’s right to self defense, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for protection against those wanting to cause harm and destruction to our person and property, I state that the one reason almost never given to the importance of the Second Amendment is that the people need some kind of protection against tyrannical behavior. Some of that tyrannical behavior was on display yesterday when a New Jersey State Department of Children and Families worker and four local police from Carneys Point, New Jersey, went to the home of the Moore family wanting entry into the house to look for guns because of a picture that had been posted on Facebook, by Shawn Moore (father) of Josh Moore (son) holding a rifle he had gotten for his birthday.

The guess is that someone who might have seen the photo, called Children and Families, who in turn responded. If that’s not bad enough, once at the house, the police, without a search warrant, wanted to be let into the house and be given access to Mr. Moore’s gun safe in order that they could copy the serial numbers and verify they had been registered. New Jersey law does not require mandatory gun registration.

According to an article on CBS Philly, the Department of Children and Families tried to explain why they went to the Moore’s home.

State child welfare spokeswoman Kristine Brown said that when it receives a report of suspected abuse or neglect, it assigns a caseworker to follow up. She said law enforcement officers are asked to accompany caseworkers only if the caseworkers feel their safety could be compromised.

While all of the explaining was going on, in an attempt to exonerate Children and Families from doing anything wrong, there is no explanation as to unethical (tyrannical?) behavior of the local police in attempting to wrongfully gain entry into the Moore’s house. As Shawn Moore put it:

“I don’t like what happened,” he said. “You’re not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that’s not freedom; it’s like tyranny.”

And that’s the point of today’s discussion. It is “like” tyranny and how long will it take before it actually becomes tyranny? If we continue to disarm the American public, not very long at all and then there will be a lot of second guessing.

executiveorders

Share

Day 47 – No Executive Orders

SRATAGEM!

Day 47 and there is no information posted on the White House website about 23 executive orders to ban guns. The charade was all part of Obama’s bigger plan.

We wait!

The Colorado House has passed a bill that will ban shotguns!

Big Sis’ predator drones equipped with the technology to see if a person is armed.

wake-up-america

executiveorderarecoming

Share

Day 44 – No Executive Orders

ARTIFICE!

jamesmadisonexecutiveorders

44 days ago, a tyrant walked into a staged room, with children as his backdrop, stared into his teleprompter and lied to the American people….nay, the entire world. In his quest to spread fear and division among the people, he played a shell game of pretending to sign 23 executive orders on gun control. It was a lie! Nothing was signed and nothing has been posted on the White House webpage for executive orders. Why do we let this man continue his onslaught of perpetual deceit? The exact details of the President’s 23 orders can give us insight into the thoughts and intents of this man.

Field and Stream Magazine, interviewed Vice President Joe Biden, the man who claims to be the gun owners’ best friend for the past twenty some years and offers advice to women to buy a double-barrel shotgun for protection. Field and Stream asked Biden this question: “What do you think is the meaning of the Second Amendment? Do you think it is to allow citizens to be armed only to protect themselves from criminals, or was it written to allow the citizenry to offer defense against foreign invaders or oppressive, tyrannical government?”

And this was the V.P.’s answer:

It was written primarily for self-defense. The argument about whether or not it was, you know, that famous phrase of Jefferson’s, “The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots,” which is often used by people who are super-enthusiasts—the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s an individual right. It is not a corporate right. It is not related to a well-established militia, a well-regulated militia. But it also has ruled that it is constitutional to own a gun individually for purposes of sporting, hunting, and/or self-defense.

Isn’t this man amazing? Not only is he a liar and gives poor advice to women about gun protection, he doesn’t understand history nor can he interpret a Supreme Court ruling. The Second Amendment was created for two purposes and I dare contend that the main purpose was for the defense against invaders and tyrants, both foreign and domestic. Over the years, lawmakers and crooked judges, politicians and lawyers worked relentlessly to show that the Second Amendment was ONLY for the purpose of maintaining militias. When the Supreme Court ruled in Heller v. District of Columbia that the Second Amendment was for the right of an individual, contrary to the lie V.P. Biden is promoting, Heller v. District of Columbia did not rule that the Second Amendment was NOT about protection from tyranny. It only clarified that it ALSO applied to the individuals rights, not exclusive of it. To think so would be admitting that only a tyrant, oppressive government, and/or foreign invader would come after individual owners of guns and not an armed militia.

We now have a case of wanting it both ways as far as a tyrant goes. If Biden can convince enough ignorant voters that the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment is only for individuals and that the Government, meaning Obama and Biden, are the only ones who can decide what brand, how many and number of bullets that can be used, he is one step closer to filling the role of the very tyrant the Second Amendment was intended to defend us from.

Continue to heed my words. The Second Amendment is the last remaining deterrent from full scale takeover of One World Government.

Share

Media’s Allusion to Second Amendment and Hunting Intentional

In an earlier post this morning, I linked to an article about how Maine’s governor, Paul LePage, signed emergency legislation to stop access to personal information about gun owners. It is what was written and not written in this article that is doing more long-time damage to the Second Amendment. Let me explain.

The article read this way:

The measure was aimed at preventing publications from releasing personal information about gun owners, who comprise a major constituency for Democrats as well as Republicans in a rural state where hunting is common. (Emphasis added)

It is difficult to know whether this is written as an intentional means of wrongfully redirecting the thoughts of readers, is a product of the author’s willful and/or agenda-driven ignorance or the result of years of indoctrination received from various sources of our society but can be blamed mostly on our education factories designed to mislead and deceive.

Why these things are there is left for another article and for those with a bit more interest in that subject, a few minutes spent reading an article I wrote addressing some of this can be found here.

In its simplest form, what is being intimated here is that the Second Amendment is for those who hunt. Perhaps the author knows no better and believes this to be true, especially because the subject at hand is gun ownership in the state of Maine. Would the same author have made the same ignorant statement had the governor of New York signed a similar emergency piece of legislation? Perhaps and under many circumstances I would have said no. Today, I would say that the author, in his or her perverted perception, would make a similar statement but substantiate it by believing that nobody hunts in New York, or at least like rural Maine, therefore why do New Yorkers need guns at all.

I believe what is written in this article about guns and its association with hunting is a deliberate attempt at misleading people as to the purpose of the Second Amendment. Those who hate guns know that it’s a small percentage of the population of the United States that hunt and the more people they can convince of this the more people will ignorantly see no reason to own guns.

Which brings me back to why a seemingly innocent statement, like the one being addressed here, can and does create much misguided animosity toward gun rights, i.e. the right to keep and bear arms, if perceived as being a part of the privilege of sport hunting.

I have heard estimates as high as 300-400 million guns are owned by Americans and clearly those 300-400 million guns are not owned by people who hunt. Nor was the Second Amendment devised for hunting. It was devised for the purpose of self defense/protection and to ward off governmental tyranny.

While it is most often that those who oppose gun ownership will adopt and perpetuate the guns-are-for-hunting dogma, occasionally some will submit to a person’s God-given right to defend and protect themselves, seldom though does anybody talk about our rights to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government both from at home and foreign governments. When the masses of people have come to disregard any notion of the existence of any sort of threat from their own government, it may, in fact, be a glowing sign of the existence of tyranny and thus all the more reason for the right to keep and bear arms in an unlimited fashion. Such manipulation of the mind in people becomes a very dangerous thing. None of this is new.

I am a native of Maine and I grew up with guns. They were just a part of my life and it happens I used them for hunting. Even as a young boy I understood that guns could be used for self defense and I must admit in my days of youth I don’t recall ever having need to think of, nor do I recall having discussions about, my government stealing away my rights and turning me into a slave.

The years I did spend in Maine, taught me, however, that Maine people don’t own guns to hunt. They hunt wild game with many tools and one of them happens to be a gun. Maine natives are fiercely independent, the ultimate in being free, and I happen to know that the overwhelming majority of them would list hunting as at least third on their list of why they should own a gun.

So, the next time you read or hear anyone making reference to the Second Amendment as something for hunters, politely set them straight but at the same time understand that this tactic is being used, sometimes knowingly and sometime ignorantly, by design; the design of which comes from a ruling class that cannot fully function until they have disarmed America.

Protect our Second Amendment. It is our last stronghold preventing despotic rule which will happen under a one world government.

Share