But as for me and my house ...
Who's an 'extremist'? According to the military's training Powerpoint:
[This list is given in the exact order and with exact spelling and notations.]
Of the 18 groups listed, 6/7 are 'Christian', 3 are Jewish, and 6 are Islam/Muslim. Notice the top three.
Yesterday, Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, suggested twice that "right-wing extremists" could be behind the Boston Marathon bombings. This, despite the fact that more than an hour later, CNN reported that Boston Police still did not have a suspect in custody.
Talk about trying to propagandize the public!
Bergen likened the perpetrator(s) to a 'group' in Oregon (2010).
Mr. Bergen: You, sir, are a propaganda-monger and have the brains of a dip-stick!
Update: Why were the people told to be calm before the bomb went off? See the second video below.
Science describes the child-mother biologic relationship as semi-allogeneic [al-oh-juh-nee-ik], which refers to tissue or cells that are genetically dissimilar and, thus, immunologically incompatible, even though they are from individuals of the same species. Therefore, from conception, the growing human is an individual, genetically similar to but different enough from it's mother to warrant attack by the mother's immune system, yet unable to subsist on its own. I will expound on this further below.
America Responds to the Murder of Live Babies
In response to recent revelations of abortion clinics actively killing live-born babies, the Florida Congress established a committee to look at proposing legislation that would require medical care presently denied babies born alive during ‘unsuccessful’ abortions.
On March 29, 2013, Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist with the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified before a committee hearing, stating, "Planned Parenthood condemns any physician who does not follow the law or endangers a woman's or a child's health, but we don't believe that politicians should be the ones who decide what constitutes the best, medically appropriate treatment in any given situation."
Ms. Snow contradicts herself in that this statement declares that the child's health should not be endangered -- but that is exactly what is being done in Planned Parenthood clinics.
Decades' long work by Planned Parenthood to obtain legalization of abortion that culminated in 1973, through the legal system, was proper then, but now it is not? As we know more about embryonic and fetal development and have proof of the true evil nature of man to commit murder, people are questioning where to draw the line.
It is important that you understand the eugenic motivations and progression of the Planned Parenthood program contained in the article on this site: 'The Truth About Planned Parenthood'. (use the search window)
Conflicting Supreme Court Rulings
The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that, although states have an interest in protecting fetal life, such interest was not "compelling" until the fetus was viable (placing viability at the start of the third trimester) which was established at six months prenatal. Third trimester abortions were declared legal only if the mother's life or health was threatened.
That same day, the Supreme Court also published its ruling in an another abortion lawsuit that is never discussed: Doe v. Bolton. This is possibly because the verdicts in Doe and Roe conflict in that the Doe ruling defines "health of the mother" in generously broader terms, essentially eliminating any prohibition to third trimester abortions.
According to Justice Harry Blackmun's opinion, a woman's health included her "physical, emotional, psychological, (and) familial" well-being, and should include considerations about the woman's age. "All these factors may relate to health," Blackmun argued, so as to give "the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment." The opinion effectively removes the mother from the equation in that he gives the doctor autonomy in judgment.
The Supreme Court relied on notions of living constitutionalism, invoking the doctrine of “substantive due process” to expand on a Court-created “right” that is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution. The Court has never had the privilege of making or expanding law (neither does the President) - only interpreting its meaning. But, that hasn't stopped the modern-day Courts from doing so.
Legalized abortion was established through these conflicting Supreme Court rulings. That alone should cause us pause!
It appears that the Supreme Court purposely paved the road that led us to where we are today. Otherwise, this conflict would have been corrected. After all, it's not as though the same Justices weren't involved in both rulings.
Could it be that the Doe ruling was the law which has been utilized but hidden from the American public that would not have agreed to broad privileges to provide practically limitless abortions? And, the more restrictive, more acceptable, Roe ruling was presented to the public in its place?
It is much easier to understand how Planned Parenthood defends abortion for any reason and at any time up to, and including, full-term birth. And, if the baby is born alive, Planned Parenthood facilities deny medical care or actively murder the infant.
If newborn infants can be murdered because they are not 'wanted', at what point will it become legal to kill children while they are minors under parents’ care?! This may sound incredible, but that is where we are headed should the self-conflicting laws not be quashed immediately.
Dangers to Women's Health from Abortions Evidenced
Contrary to what is revealed by Planned Parenthood (these are their clinics, after all), late-term abortions are dangerous to the mother. Case in point: Mrs. Jennifer Morbelli, who went to a Germantown, Maryland (just outside Washington, D.C.), abortion clinic on a Sunday afternoon for a late-term abortion. The articles' description of events (and reason for the abortion) will make you sick.
A quick search reveals that abortions are now sought for reasons as insignificant as the sex of the baby.
Knitted Together in the Womb
King David eloquently sang, "For you fashioned my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) David praised God for His continued work, creating each new life by 'knitting' the body and embedding the soul (i.e., consciousness) in private - where people could not see.
I submit, and am supported by ‘learned Rabbis’ who were asked the question of when does life begin according to the Tanakh (Old Testament): life begins at the moment of conception.
Proof: Scientific research, unavailable in 1973, has revealed the female body secrets a hormone to prevent the body from rejecting the ‘foreign’ cells of the embryo and fetus. Through the regulation of other biologic processes, the body maintains a welcoming environment until the birth of the baby; even though the body is designed to protect itself from perceived foreign invasion, until the immunological system is exhausted, and the body becomes susceptible to all manner of disease. (reproduction-online.org) In contrast, the average healthy mother practically insusceptible to virus and bacteria.
Reproductive immunologists have discovered that the fetal trophoblast is also responsible for some of the changes in the way the mother's body reacts by regulating maternal immune cells in its vicinity within the womb. Both mother and fetus contribute to developing and maintaining an environment in which the baby can develop, but obviously view each other as foreign threats. The fetus also develops its own blood vessels that are separated from the mother's blood supply by a thin membrane, since the infant has a different blood type in most cases.
All of these factors and many others, support the fact that from conception, the infant is a separate human being.
Life Begins at Birth - Or, Not
Even if you don't want to believe the facts presented, consider this:
Planned Parenthood's stated position for thirty years has been that life began at birth. That stated position is being mitigated to: life only begins at birth -- if the mother wants it to. They now state that the mother and doctor should be at liberty to destroy life post-birth.
To Planned Parenthood this is not a contradiction with their long-held precept because they do not believe in the inviolability of life. (At least, they don't believe in the inviolability of others' lives.) They shed more tears for the death of a stillborn puppy than for the murder of an 'unwanted' newborn.
Where there is no belief in the inviolability of life -- there is no acceptance of God. This is just one part of the deception overtaking mankind. It is the deception being used for Eugenics - not a new ideal - that was utilized by Nazis.
The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
Albert Gallatin, Congressman, Oct. 7, 1789
We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.
The states refused to ratify the Constitution of the newly formed United States unless the document we refer to as the Bill of Rights was appended thereto. The Bill of Rights and the Bills of Rights in the Constitutions of each and every state 'protect the rights of individuals from abusive or excessive government power' [Donald Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law], securing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, a free press, due process rights, trial by jury, the right to counsel, protection against self-incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure, and other fundamental human rights not contained therein (Amendments IX and X).
The Bill of Rights has never been amended by act of Congress; however, the actions of the last four administrations (most notably the present administration, via Executive Orders), Laws passed by Congress (among them, the Patriot Act), and the resulting governmental agencies created thereby, have had the same effect - to abridge and infringe upon the rights of this nation's citizens. The purpose: power.
Let us list our Constitutional rights and see which are not under attack:
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This does not sound anything like the 'separation of church and state' that is always touted. In fact, if you review statements of the founders, you will find quotes like this one by Thomas Jefferson:
'Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God?'
The Federal government has not yet established a national religion, however, free exercise of your religion is no longer protected. Citizens holding Bible studies in their homes have been arrested, or threatened with arrest. You can have a backyard cookout once a week, and no one cares how many cars are in the street or how many people are in your home, but a Bible study is somehow different.
The Department of Veterans Affairs was sued in 2011, alleging religious censorship, after the chapel had been closed at the Houston National Cemetery, the Bible removed, and prayers and references to God and Jesus were banned by the cemetery's director, Arleen Ocasio, because of a policy change from 2007.
Freedom of speech has been abridged, as well. In the October, 2012, Washington Post, George Washington University Law Professor, Jonathan Turley, reported evidence of a 'willingness to confine free speech in the name of social pluralism can be seen at various levels of authority and government.'
Members of the Tea Party have reportedly been under intense scrutiny by the IRS and founders of independent press sites have suffered numerous lawsuits for reports that were proven accurate.
Let us not forget what happened after Chick-Fil-A, President, Dan Cathy, answered a direct question by expressing his faith which results in his support for traditional marriage: several politicians promised to ban Chick-fil-A stores because their CEO doesn't support homosexual marriage.
Political correctness is evolving into prosecutable hate speech for anyone who voices another viewpoint. College campuses across the country have adopted 'speech codes'. And, there is a rising number of organizations whose sole purpose is to prevent speech that is 'politically incorrect'.
It is even more disturbing that reporters and editors are not exposing the threat to free speech, revealing their complicity. As Patrick Maines, President of the Media Institute, stated in a recent article: 'When theories and organizations arise whose goals are at odds with those American values, it's incumbent on all freedom-loving people, and the press especially, to shine a bright light on them and on the error of their ways.'
For proof of the government's control over the media, the New York Times reported last summer that the Obama campaign required review of all reports from the campaign trail. 'The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.' That is not a free press.
Amendment II: 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.
First, it is proven by the Militia Act of 1792 that the term 'militia' is not synonymous with the military, as proven by Sections 3 and 4 therein. Now, I will let the voices of the founders, and other wise people, speak:
'False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.' Cesare Beccaria, as quoted in Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
'When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually ... I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.' George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention
'The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the government, not to society; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.' Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93
'Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible. Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
'To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms...' Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress
'The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.' Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
'One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.' Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in times of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I can find no report of this occurring. However, the military has run exercises where they have taken over towns for short periods of time. This is in direct conflict with U.S. law.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There are increasing reports of unlawful search and seizure. This past week, a woman attending a tax meeting in New Jersey was removed from the meeting after making reference to the violation of her Constitutional rights. The taxable value of her family's home had doubled due to the fact that the woman had refused entry into her home, while her husband wasn't there (they are Orthodox Jews), to a man from the tax assessor's office. Upon arriving home from the meeting, she was met by police and arrested. The news reports should cause you alarm. The poor woman's Second and Fourth Amendments were violated. The authorities are hanging their case upon the claim by an employee of the tax assessor's office of threats made by the woman to him, yet no one else in attendance at the meeting heard those statements.
My advice? Every American should keep an electronic recording device with them at all times - for no other reason than to send a tape to the free media such as WorldNet Daily, Western Journalism, Newsmax, Washington Free Beacon, Infowars, and the like.
Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Drones violate the Fourth Amendment due to their ability to spy on American citizens. Further, the president has given himself sole authority, via Executive Order, to deem any person a threat to the government; and, thereby, violate the protections of the Fifth Amendment and usurp the powers of the Grand Jury, imprisoning or killing any citizen at any time! This despite the fact that no crime has yet been committed! (Sounds suspiciously like a movie where people were arrested for crimes they had not yet committed.)
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Just wait. This will be going by the way, as well.
Amendment VII: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Is this where we got double-jeopardy? I thought that was applicable in capital offenses.
Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.
This was just violated in New Jersey! I am sure this happens - frequently.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The government today doesn't agree with this statement. You don't have any rights.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where shall I begin here? What powers have not been 'delegated' to the Federal government by the Federal government over the last 230 years?
Never let a crisis go to waste. The September 11, 2001, attacks were used to create the environment we have today by allowing the Federal government to infringe (remove little by little) the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Every man, woman and child is deemed a terrorist threat to the government if they stand against the tyranny, as the above samples prove. The Constitution has obviously been suspended - or removed permanently - without cause.
The government is prepared and we are the enemy!
We live in the United Socialist States of America. Nikita Khrushchev was right!
(If you don't understand, look it up.)
'You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.'
Attributed to Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948)
Courtesy of New York Daily News
Diane Feinstein, together with several other Democrat lawmakers, held a press conference to show the types of semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips their proposed assault-weapons ban would make illegal for the average American citizen to own.
The proposed legislation is in addition to the Obama plan and bans the sale and manufacture of more than 150 types of semi-automatic weapons with military-style features. It also bans magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition and requires people who already own assault rifles to use secure storage and safety devices and bars them from selling high-capacity clips.
The sale, transfer, manufacture and import of all semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can accept detachable magazines and have at least one military feature would be prohibited if the bill became law.
Doesn't anyone notice the term 'military'?!?
The Democrats in Congress and the White House and some Republics, as well, want to remove your ability to fight against them if and when there is a revolt in this country. That is why the President, via executive orders, has given himself sweeping powers to indefinitely detain anyone he sees as a threat to the government, take over every aspect of the American economy at his discretion (including your car, home, and food in your freezer), etc. And, Congress has not stopped him!
They have committed treasonous acts, defying every protection of the Constitution.
These are not the Democrats of 100 years ago - or even 50. They have an agenda that mimics the United Nations agenda for a One World Government. There are Republicans who are in collusion with the globalist plan, as well. The Bushes, for example.
If a One World Government doesn't sound so terrible to you, remember this: there will no longer be a United States of America and its Constitution. There will no longer be freedom to practice the religion of your choice. They will dictate what you do as a career, where you live, what you will eat - IF you will eat. They will reduce the world's population, by force, if necessary. If people revolt, they will die. If people voice their disagreement, they will be removed - and die.
No - I have not lost my mind - I have studied this for far too long, in my opinion.
This is not 'conspiracy theory' - it is a global takeover that has quotes, books, and historical documents to prove it. As, David Rockefeller said,
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” [emphases added]
Removing all guns from the present generations that have not been indoctrinated into the globalist plan via the media and education system would cause a revolt; therefore, if the guns cannot be removed altogether, make the weapons citizens can possess impotent against the weapons the government controls.
America! You are soft! It's time to wake up! The Enemy is at the door (and he looks like us)!
The following was provided by a friend of my husband. It highlights only the last few years. Information further back than that would be appreciated!
"Why is it that none of the disturbed and evil men, who steal guns, then go and kill movie-goers and children in school, has ever been identified as a Conservative, NRA member?
Common thread is that all of these shooters were 'progressive', liberal Democrats. INTERESTING, isn't it?"
Jose Serrano, D-NY
Congressional Bill, H.J. Res. 15, introduced by Jose Serrano (first-elected, 1990) on January 4, 2013, proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment, to remove the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
This is not a joke! It's not partly true! This is real!
The 22nd Amendment reads as follows:
"AMENDMENT XXII, SECTION 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
SECTION 2.This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress."
Now, the Bill submitted by Jose Serrano:
"JOINT RESOLUTION. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: ``Article-- ``The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.''. "
There you have it! Short and sweet. They want King Obama! They want all your Constitutional rights removed! They want YOU as a serf, servant, slave - or dead!
I think we need a
[I am grateful to my niece, who is quite discerning and a joy, for all her assistance!]
I have been struggling with what God-fearing Americans should do under the present circumstances concerning the obvious attacks on our Constitutional freedoms by our own government. The latest push to limit and control firearms is is illegal according to the Bill of Rights which states that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringed: Act so as to limit or undermine.
I agree that there are people who will use guns to harm others. I agree they should not be allowed to purchase weapons. But, through the ACLU, the ability to confine people with mental issues has been seriously limited. And, somehow, they still get guns! They don't go to the store and purchase them!
Are semi-automatic weapons really necessary? Yes! Possessing the same kind of weapons which can be used against you is necessary. Nations in history who fought their sword-wielding enemies with only stones - LOST! Well, save King David - but that's another story and only one example, and he had God on his side. If the military (I include FEMA and the Reserves, et al) has semi-automatic and automatic weapons, a single-shot weapon would be useless against a military ordered to move against its own people (also forbid under the Constitution - but if one freedom is removed, so too will another be). Do you now see why the government really wants to limit semi-automatic weapons with larger than ten rounds in a clip?
A gunman doesn't need a semi-automatic weapon to do great damage against unarmed people! He can still wreak havoc. But, the military would have a great advantage against the American public if their weapons could fire more rounds per second. Imagine an automatic rifle vs. a single-round pistol!
History has taught us that the first step to establishing a dictatorship is removing guns from the people and limiting it to those under the dictator's authority and control (the army). But, if you can't remove guns from the people, you can make what they do have impotent! That is why the people of this young nation wanted the right to bear arms included in the Constitution without limitation!
So what do God-fearing, law abiding people do? Do we give them our arms in submission? Do we bow to the continued erosion of freedom?
God is good and He sent the answer!
The right to bear arms is in the Bible. While the firearm had not yet been invented in Biblical times, the right to bear arms (especially in order to protect the right to worship the Creator) according to our own conscience, is found in the Scriptures.
The motto “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God” and the American Revolution itself have strong parallels to the Rebellion of the Maccabees against the Greek tyrant, Antiochus Epiphanes. If God was not for them, then why did the oil, only enough to last one day, last eight, giving them enough time to make more lamp oil?
There were no prophets at the time when Antiochus levied unjust taxes, and outlawed the Israelites' religious observances, including circumcision and Torah (God's Law). Jews were forced, under threat of death, to sacrifice un-kosher animals on the alter, to rededicate the Temple to the Greek god Zeus, and to eat meat that had been offered up to idols. Adonai Elohim had specifically told the Israelites not to do all of these!
In reaction to this oppression a group of Jewish warriors (the Maccabees) fled into the wilderness and engaged in gorilla warfare against the Greco-Syrians, prevailing and gaining their independence. They won the right to practice their religion and rededicated the Temple to YHWH on the 25th of Kislev, establishing the eight day festival of Chanukah.
These truths were not lost on those who fought and died for freedom from England's unjust laws. In their day, the king held two positions: secular kingship and spiritual authoritarian. Observance of the king's 'religion' was mandatory.
God is a God of nations!
"He makes nations great and destroys them;
he enlarges nations, then leads them away.
He removes understanding from a country’s leaders
and makes them wander in trackless deserts." (Job 12:23-24)
Benjamin Rush, in his editorials denouncing the Tea Act, wrote:
"What did not Moses forsake and suffer for his countrymen! What shining examples of patriotism do we behold in Joshua, Samuel, [the] Maccabees and all the illustrious princes, captains and prophets among the Jews."
Countrymen and women: The Bill of Rights (read it!) was created to specify what the founders believed obvious. Remember that the states would not ratify the Constitution unless these simply-stated limitations on the government of the new Republic were included to ensure our continued freedom. They knew that power breeds the desire for more power and the American government might someday revert to the tyranny they knew.
That is happening! Noting the Book of Job above, a godless leadership does not have the wisdom God imparts; and is, therefore, leading by their own power and desires. That is where we are today.
The right to bear arms and the prohibition of a standing army being used against the citizens were protections against a government with too much power and the desire for more still: Tyranny.
Therefore, we should NOT lay down our arms lest we be 'imprisoned' under tyrannical rule as were our predecessors and people across the globe for millennia. (Name a free people that remained free.) If we lay down our weapons, who will protect us from the Neros, Antiochus', Hitlers, Stalins, Maos, and Husseins, et al, of history - and who now reside within our own government?
Limitation of weaponry equals infringement of our Constitutional rights.
Executive orders were meant for 'housekeeping', not establishing LAW! The President signed a treaty with the United Nations (the Congress is supposed to debate and ratify any treaty but this one was postponed from last Summer) for gun limitations. The recent events of Aurora Colorado and Sandy Hook coincidentally gave the president impedus to move forward on his own. But, he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to make laws! Remember the 'balance of power' your learned about in elementary school?
So, the UN Treaty is being adopted without the Congress ratifying the treaty!
May I remind you that the oath of office states that the president will uphold and defend the Constitution? And, that not doing so is an impeachable offense?
Many Americans died for our right to remain free from tyranny. Are you going to invite tyranny into your home?!?
I understand from others who have done the math that this president has issued more executive orders than the previous presidents of American history combined. Now the threat is being made by President Obama to undermine the Constitution further by limiting or abolishing lawful gun ownership by upright American citizens. Obama said:
“Well, my understanding is, the vice president’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence. Some of them will require legislation; some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I’ll be reviewing those today, and as I said, I’ll speak in more detail to what we’re going to go ahead and propose later in the week.
But I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president. And where you get a step that has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then I want to go ahead and take it…
I think that we’ve seen for some time now that those who oppose any common-sense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow the federal government’s about to take all your guns away. And you know, that — there’s probably an economic element to that. It obviously is good for business.
But I think that, you know, those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship — they don’t have anything to worry about. The issue here is not whether or not we believe in the Second Amendment.”
Are we in the movies?!? Is this Minority Report?!?
Are Americans being judged guilty of breaking the law before the law has been broken?!?
There is nothing in the Constitution which grants the President the authority to amend or change the Constitution! Nothing!!!
He's a Constitutional lawyer?!?
Anything that Obama states is "within" his "right" has been a dictate by executive order prepared by his people and signed by his hand. This is not the intent of executive order and is unconstitutional.
How can a President give himself the authority to be a dictator?!?
How can a President give himself the right to overrule the Constitution?!?
How can a President continually bypass the people's duly elected representatives in Congress?!?
I believe that if Obama violates the Constitution by executive order, he is guilty of treason.
Webster's definition: the betrayal of a trust; the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance. Therefore, Obama should be impeached for abdicating his oath of office: to uphold and defend the Constitution!
Please Post a Comment or Contact Us Below