In a recent poll only 5% of the respondents cared about Gun Control legislation. Senators Warren and Cowan, of course voted to abridge your 2nd Amendment Right! However, the Senate as a whole, rejected the Legislation!
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress – 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
A group of retired Marines is asking Connecticut’s attorney general to allow the “Don’t Tread on Me” Gadsden flag to fly over the state Capitol on July 4 after Capitol Police refused the request saying it doesn’t fall within the state’s flag flying parameters.
The group says the yellow banner, which sports a coiled rattlesnake and its trademark motto, is the original flag of the U.S. Marine Corps and clearly fits into the section of the policy which states that the Connecticut State Capitol can fly “flags of recognized military organizations of the U.S.A.”
But Capitol Police have denied several requests to fly the flag — which has become a favorite nationwide among the Tea Party movement and a popular alternative to the stars and stripes – saying it is not the official Marines flag.
“The Gadsden flag was a personal standard used by one admiral during the Revolutionary War,” Capitol Chief of Police Walter Lee told FoxNews.com. “The Marine Corps never claimed that to be one of its organizational flags.”
Retired Marine Patrick Rubino says the Marines see it very differently.
“I’d learned about in the Marine Corps. It’s one of the first, if not the first Marine Corps flag,” Rubino told FoxNews.com. “They even flew it over our bases in Afghanistan and Iraq while I was there.”
Having heard that the police had denied a previous request to have the flag displayed at the Capitol, Rubino wrote a letter to lawmakers to find out why.
“I didn’t get any response from that so I just went down there and submitted a request to have it flown on Memorial Day because my brother was coming home from the Army so I thought it would be a great thing,” he said. “They denied it before I even filled out the form.”
The reason given for the rejection, Rubino said, was that the “rules were going to be changed” so they were denying it preemptively.
“And now I’m finding out they’re not even changing the rule so that the flag would be denied, they’re just denying it,” he said.
A follow up request from Rubino’s mother, Katheryn Brown, to fly it on July 4 was also denied.
But the policy wasn’t always so strictly interpreted.
The Society of Cincinnati, a historic group dedicated to preserving the ideals of the American Revolution has flown its flag over the Capitol every July 4 since at least 1968. It was denied this year amid the Gadsden flag flap.
Capitol Police even approved an earlier request to fly the Gadsden Flag over the Capitol in April, but reconsidered after lawmakers dubbed it a political symbol due to Tea Party connections to the request and said it didn’t fit the state’s requirements.
In hopes of settling the dispute, a group of former marines and supporters plan to gather at the state attorney general’s office to issue a final decision on the issue,.
“We’re going to be going down on the 30th to put the paper work in,” retired Marine Tim McCall told FoxNews.com. “The Capitol Police are the ones in charge of granting or denying the request, so the idea for the 30th is to go to AG Blumenthal’s office and request that he issue a directive for the Capitol Police to comply with the law as written and stated just to get some resolution on the issue.”
McCall added that if it’s not in the cards to have the flag on display July 4, he hopes the matter is at least resolved in time to see it fly on October 23 to commemorate the 1983 barracks bombing of the Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, where he served.
“Historically, it’s like when you look at a picture of George Washington; he was the first president of the United States so as a patriotic American you look to George Washington as kind of representation as the forefather of the country,” McCall said. “The Gadsden flag is the original flag of the Marine Corps, so it’s the forefather standard of the Marine Corps.”
Rubino says that’s what the Connecticut government needs to keep in mind above anything else.
“I know the flag has been adopted by another group, but what it is and who decides to use it are two different things,” he said. “We know what it is and we know why we want it to be up there. … It’s a really important way to pay tribute to our history and that’s a great message.”
“No Labels” on Gun(Citizen) Control. I guess this is more of the “common ground -outside the choir- bridge building -across the isle” type of rally (effort)the infiltrators are mounting. Fellow defenders of the 2nd Amendment and Article 17 look sharp this is the same road they took on family values, immigration and yes big misgovernment. Can not wait for the latest twisted explanation from the twisted infiltrator ministry of propaganda.
“No labels” Proud Of Second Amendment Infringements – Starting The Gun Control Debate – Bill Would Expand Federal Background Checks – Amendment Infringement
I just got kicked out of the Greater Boston Tea Party group for questioning the wisdom of inviting the co-founder of the ‘No Labels” group, Ron Shaich , to speak.
I was told that he was invited because it is good to get opinions from all sides.
Then they kicked me out. See The Conversation Bellow
Michael McNeil – No Labels.
Anti-Tea Party No Labels Co-founder Unleashes Attack on Sarah Palin
John Avlon, the co-founder of the anti-Tea Party and establishment No Labels group, wrote a bizarre attack piece on Sarah Palin’s lean political action committee last week after completely misconstruing what Palin said at CPAC, where the former Alaska governor and Tea Party leader denounced the perm…
Top of Form
Like · · Follow PostUnfollow Post · Share · 4 hours ago
2 people like this.
Christen Varley It will be really interesting to hear from this group net week, won’t it?
Despite the differences, if we don’t start talking to people outside our own group, we’ll never accomplish nothing. I’m looking forward to hearing what they have to say. After all, wasn’t the tea party formed to work outside the established party system as well? We don’t have to agree on every position but it is nice to know there has become.
Michael McNeil I don’t know. The No Labels group is a far left group. Pretty sure they are using the Tea Party to push for their very liberal agenda. Have you looked at the people that belong to No Labels?
Christen Varley “Far left” is a mischaracterization – on any continuum. And so what if they are? Why is it a bad thing to let people hear what they have to say and decide for themselves? Sheesh! I really don’t understand this invented controversy. Since when has the tea party told people what they should think, what they should do, who they should listen to. GBTP has NEVER done that and isn’t starting now. Other TP leaders may think people need to be dictated to – GBTP doesn’t. Nobody gets harmed by hearing someone speak for 8 minutes out of two hours.
Finally, if someone who is in the tea party is duped into following an agenda that is contrary to limited government, personal responsibility and individual liberty, they’re not really “tea party” to begin with.
Christine Morabito Surely you are not going to let the behavior of one individual in a group taint the whole group, are you? Haven’t we learned that with attacks on the Tea Party? If people do their research before blindly reposting they would see that No Labels promotes things like “No Budget, No Pay,” making the president have regular press conferences, having the president meet regularly with congressional leaders, making the parties pay for presidential fundraising, making the president appear before Congress for questioning on a regular basis, and making Congress work 5 days a week, three weeks a month, with one week then spent in the district.
Christine Morabito You can find a conspiracy in anything if you look hard enough. I completely disagree that all Democrats are evil. Hey, some are even fiscally conservative. You know who else is fiscally conservative? The Tea Party!
ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Maryland’s already-strong gun laws will become among the strictest in the nation with a measure passed by the General Assembly Thursday, sending the bill to the Democratic governor who proposed the legislation in the aftermath of December’s massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.
The state Senate voted 28-19 for final passage, agreeing to a number of changes the House of Delegates approved Wednesday.
The measure would require people who buy a handgun to submit fingerprints to state police, bans 45 types of assault weapons, and limits gun magazines to 10 bullets. It also addresses firearms access for the mentally ill.
“Together, with a strong coalition of advocates, and the people of Maryland who overwhelmingly support policies to reduce gun violence, we’ve chosen to take action by advancing strategies that work to save lives,” Gov. Martin O’Malley said in a statement after the vote.
Maryland will become the first state in nearly 20 years to require potential handgun buyers to submit fingerprints to state police. Only five other states have a similar requirement: Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey.
Gun control advocates say the fingerprinting requirement will help keep guns away from criminals, because it will make people reluctant to buy firearms for those who are not allowed to have them. Opponents say the bill erodes Second Amendment rights and ultimately penalizes law-abiding citizens without focusing on lawbreakers.
Although the measure bans 45 types of assault weapons, people who own them now will be able to keep them. People who order the weapons before Oct. 1, when the law would take effect, also would be able to keep them.
People who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility won’t be allowed to have a gun.
Critics noted that Maryland already has strong laws, including universal background checks and a seven-day waiting period to buy a gun. The state doesn’t even have a loophole allowing for private sales at gun shows without the same background check that licensed dealers are required to obtain, said Sen. Allan Kittleman, R-Howard.
McCaughey: This Law Was Not Made For America Born Average Joe. It Was Made For The Immigrants & Immigrants Get A Better Deal Than Citizens!!!
McCaughey: Obamacare Setting Stage For Premium Default Crisis – Immigrants Get Better Deal Than U.S. Citizens
Government Hire Tens Of Thousands Of High-Wage Health Care “Navigators” -RPT Cavuto
2nd Amendment At Risk!!!!!!!
U.S. Sovereignty At Risk – Treaties Supersede The Constitution!!!
UN Arms Treaty Approved – US Voted In Favor – Texas Atty Gen Wrote To Obama Ask Him Not To Sign – Gun Control
U.N. Treaty Seeks To Regulate Global Arms Trade – Firearms Registration? – Gun Control
GOAL urges all affiliated clubs to organize a charter bus service to transport your membership to this rally!
Gun Control Debate – CT Lawmakers Agree To Strict Measures – 2nd Amendment At Risk!!
Gun Mandate – GA City Requires Homeowners Be Armed With Firearm & UN Treaty Alert!
UN adopts pact to regulate multibillion-dollar global arms trade
The U.N. General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved the first U.N. treaty regulating the multibillion-dollar international arms trade.
The resolution adopting the landmark treaty was approved by a vote of 154 to 3 with 23 abstentions.
The 193-member world body voted after Iran, North Korea and Syria blocked its adoption by consensus at a negotiating conference last Thursday. The three countries voted “no” on the resolution.
The National Rifle Association has portrayed the draft treaty as a threat to gun ownership rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and has lobbied to defeat the proposal at the U.N. The NRA last week praised the Senate’s passage of an amendment to the Democratic budget proposal that would prevent the U.S. from entering into the treaty.
UNITED NATIONS – Supporters of a U.N. treaty designed to regulate the multibillion-dollar global arms trade were optimistic that a final draft circulated a day before Thursday’s deadline will reach consensus.
Negotiators reconvened last week in a final attempt to reach a deal on the Arms Trade Treaty, which would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers.
U.N. diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because negotiations have been private, said Wednesday the United States was virtually certain to go along with the latest text.
Hopes of reaching agreement on what would be a landmark treaty were dashed last July when the U.S. said it needed more time to consider the proposed accord — a move quickly backed by Russia and China. In December, the U.N. General Assembly decided to hold a final conference and set Thursday as the deadline for reaching agreement.
“We need a treaty,” China’s U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong told The Associated Press. “We hope for consensus.”
Questions remain on whether Iran, Egypt, India and several other countries that had serious concerns about the text would go along with the draft, which requires agreement of all 193 U.N. member states for adoption.
There has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade. For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.
“It’s important for each and every country in the world that we have a regulation of the international arms trade,” Germany’s U.N. Ambassador Peter Wittig told the AP. “There are still some divergencies of views, but I trust we can overcome them.”
The draft treaty does not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers. It would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons if they would violate arms embargoes or if they would promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
The final draft makes this human rights provision even stronger, adding that the export of conventional arms should be prohibited if they could be used in the commission of attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
The National Rifle Association has portrayed the draft treaty as a threat to gun ownership rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and has lobbied to defeat the proposal at the U.N.
The NRA last week praised the Senate’s passage of an amendment to the Democratic budget proposal that would prevent the U.S. from entering into the treaty.
The measure, introduced by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., passed on a 53-46 vote.
“Thanks to the efforts of Senator Inhofe, we are one step closer to ensuring the U.N. will not trample on the freedoms our founding fathers guaranteed to us,” Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement released following the vote.
Ammunition has been a key issue, with some countries pressing for the same controls on ammunition sales as arms, but the U.S. and others opposed such tough restrictions. The draft calls for each country that ratifies the treaty to establish regulations for the export of ammunition “fired, launched or delivered” by the weapons covered by the convention.
The Control Arms coalition, which represents about 100 organizations worldwide campaigning for a strong treaty, and diplomats from countries that support them, said this wouldn’t cover hand grenades and mines.
India and other countries had insisted that the treaty have an opt-out for government arms transfers under defense cooperation agreements. The new text appears to keep that loophole, stating that implementation of the treaty “shall not prejudice obligations” under defense cooperation agreements by countries that ratify the treaty.
“Making this treaty was like making a sausage: Everyone has added an ingredient,” said Ted Bromund, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
“Unfortunately, that has produced a document that leans much too far towards satisfying the concerns of the Arab Group and Mexico. The former view it as a rebellion prevention plan, while the latter wants a text that edges towards its view that the domestic firearms market in the U.S. should be subject to treaty regulation,” he said.
But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the independent Washington-based Arms Control Association, said, “The emerging treaty represents an important first step in dealing with the unregulated and illicit global trade in conventional weapons and ammunition, which fuels wars and human rights abuses worldwide.”
He said the text could have been stronger and more comprehensive, but it can still make an important difference.
“The new treaty says to every United Nations member that you cannot simply ‘export and forget,’” Kimball said.
In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organized crime. The final draft would allow countries to determine whether the weapons transfer would contribute to or undermine peace and security.
Anna Macdonald, Oxfam’s head of arms control, said the scope of the weapons covered in the latest draft is still too narrow.
“We need a treaty that covers all conventional weapons, not just some of them,” she said. “We need a treaty that will make a difference to the lives of the people living in Congo, Mali, Syria and elsewhere who suffer each day from the impacts of armed violence.”
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
Dr. Ben Carson — who during his speech at this year’s National Prayer Breakfast criticized some of President Obama’s economic policies — hinted Saturday that he might be interested in a 2016 presidential run.
Dr Ben Carson Addressing CPAC – Outspoken Critic Of Health Care Law (Obamacare) – Part 1
Dr Ben Carson Addressing CPAC – Outspoken Critic Of Health Care Law (Obamacare) – Part 2
Speaking at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference, Carson resumed his sharp critique of Washington and the rest of the United States, which included his vision on how to fix the country’s problems.
“Let’s say you magically put me in the White House,” Carson, a Johns Hopkins pediatric neurosurgeon, said to a loud applause.
The remark was a bit unexpected, considering Carson has said his prayer breakfast speech — critical of higher taxes and Obama’s new health-care law – was to “serve God” and was not political.
However, Carson has since become so popular among conservatives that his name is on the ballot for CPAC’s straw poll for a 2016 presidential candidate.
OUR Declaration of Independence states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
Consequently, one can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights. They are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not underany circumstances be surrendered ortaken.All individual’s have unalienable rights.
Our Second Amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
There are today, people in our country, who are attempting to infringe upon our“right“to keep and bear arms and would thereby place our personal safety, our family’s safety and our country’s safety in jeopardy of being overrun by criminality and anarchists. However, our forefathers understood that our right to bear arms is so basic and intrinsic a right that not even Government can not eradicate it. Consequently, we have an obligation to future generations to guard this right jealously from Federal encroachment by Barack Hussein Obama and State encroachment by Deval Patrick and his minions in our Legislature.
The following are but a few of the multitude of writings by our forefathers regarding this subject:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. …Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.–Thomas Jefferson, quoting with approval a noted criminologist of his day.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
Today Megan Kelly talked to Judge Andrew Napolitano about Colorado’s blatantly unconstitutional gun law proposals:
Megan Kelly: Colorado is becoming a hot spot in the fight over second Amendment Rights today after a legislative committee approves a controversial bill that would make weapons manufacturers and sellers liable for crimes committed with their guns.
This legislation would become one of the most dramatic gun laws in the country and is polarizing the state. The lawmakers in Colorado believe that they have the votes. And what they are trying to do is impose criminal liability or civil liability?
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Civil liability for the manufacturer or the re-seller if the gun is used to commit a crime .
Megan Kelly: So if I have I’m in a gun shop business and I got a gun shop and I sell someone a gun and they use it and kill somebody, I could potentially get sued as the gun shop owner?
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Yes, as is could the manufacturer from whom you bought the gun. And if the person to whom you sold it sells it to another person, then the person to whom you sold it could be liable for the criminal behavior of the ultimate user. That’s why you heard in one of the clips you just ran, police saying, police testifying at this hearing; this is un- enforceable. You can’t possibly impose a burden on on-d the third person down the line.
Megan Kelly: How far down the line can you go?
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Think about it. Can we , we hold General Motors liable because an automobile kills someone even if its used recklessly, even if it’s used criminally? Of course not! We just don’t do that in America. This transference of liability is basically wrong and unfair.
Prior to the 1897 supreme court case Robertson v. Baldwin, the federal courts had been silent on the issue of concealed carry. In the dicta from a maritime law case the Supreme Court commented that state laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues … The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”
Heller was a landmark case because for the first time in United States history a Supreme Court decision defined the right to bear arms as constitutionally guaranteed to private citizens rather than a right restricted to “well regulated militia[s]“. The Justices asserted that sensible restrictions on the right to bear arms are constitutional however an outright ban on a specific type of firearm, in this case handguns, was in fact unconstitutional. The decision is limited because it only applies to federal enclaves such as the District of Columbia.
On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban enacted by the city of Chicago, Illinois, in McDonald v. Chicago, effectively extending the Heller decision to states and local governments nationwide. Banning handguns in any jurisdiction has the effect of rendering invalid any licensed individual’s right to carry concealed in that area except for federally exempted retired and current law enforcement officers and other government employees acting in the discharge of their official duties.
In a sweeping ruling on a Colorado case, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decreed that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. The broad wording of the decision in Peterson v. Martinez creates a far-reaching national precedent against carrying a loaded handgun outside the home.
consequently, one can be fairly certain that this case will make its way to the Supreme court. A court that in 2008 created the legal fiat that “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”
Should we be worried about a Supreme Court Decision? You betcha!
Remember what happened with ObamaCare! We can’t always trust the courts anymore because they have been packed with incompetent, unprincipled ideologues that can be easily manipulated When the Progressives can’t get their way with legislation, they use the courts to bypass the will of the people.
If Barack Hussein Obama has the opportunity to choose a Supreme Court Justice before this case is heard, our Second Amendment Rights will be in serious jeopardy!
Chicago Police Superintendent Says You Are Racist & Corrupt If You Support The 2nd Amendment Or If You Support Any Politian That Supports The 2nd Amendment!
Justice For Gun Owners – You Are Racist & Corrupt If You Support The 2nd Amendment – Jeanine Pirro Weighs In!
Chicago’s Top Cop: The Racist Roots of Gun Rights?
July 5, 2011
(GunReports.com) — Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, newly appointed by anti-gun Mayor Rahm Emanuel, has wasted no time in sharing his views on Chicagoans’ individual right to keep and bear arms, the NRA-ILA reports.
Less than a month after his approval by the City Council, McCarthy attended a service at St. Sabina’s Church (a parish led by anti-gun extremist Father Michael Pfleger) and made a speech claiming that a lack of restrictive gun control laws is “government sponsored racism.”
Those with a better understanding of history will find themselves confused trying to interpret McCarthy’s logic, as decades of scholarship have proven just the opposite; that gun control, rather than its absence, has often been used as a means of government sponsored racism.
In his 1995 Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy article, “The Racist Roots of Gun Control,” Second Amendment scholar Clayton E. Cramer outlines the historical case that “racism underlies gun control laws.” Cramer notes that racist gun control in America stretches as far back as 1751 with a French law in the Louisiana territory that required colonists to “‘[i]f necessary,’ beat ‘any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.’”
Though Superintendent McCarthy might be excused for not looking that far back, he should certainly be aware of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the case of McDonald v. Chicago. In a concurring opinion in that case, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that in the years preceding the Civil War, “Many legislatures amended their laws prohibiting slaves from carrying firearms to apply the prohibition to free blacks as well.” After the Civil War, little improved. Justice Thomas writes: “Some States formally prohibited blacks from possessing firearms… Others enacted legislation prohibiting blacks from carrying firearms without a license, a restriction not imposed on whites.”
Other Reconstruction Era (and later) laws were less candid. For example, an 1870 Tennessee law barred the sale of all but the most expensive pistols, effectively disarming newly freed blacks and the poor. New York’s Sullivan Law of 1911, requiring a permit for handgun possession, was largely targeted at Italians and other disfavored immigrant groups. (That law is still on the books.) And the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a concealed carry permit in Alabama under a similar discretionary permitting law—even after his house had been bombed.
We suggest that in the future, Superintendent McCarthy might do a little more research before conflating respect for a fundamental individual right with its antithesis, government-sponsored racism.
A Lesson On Firearms – Jessie Duff World Champion Shooter On The Range – Hannity
Jessie Duff is recognized as one of the most accomplished competition shooters in the world. Competing – and excelling – in five different shooting disciplines, Jessie has won both world and national championship titles, included among them are the prestigious Bianchi Cup and the Steel Challenge World Speed Shooting Championships. Over the last couple years Jessie has been a fixture in the shooting sports industry representing her many sponsors, chief among them Taurus.
In addition to her numerous duties for the Taurus Shooting Team, Jessie, along with husband Matt, co-hosts the popular Friends of NRA television show on the Outdoor Channel, where the the couple help promote the fun and excitement of the shooting sports to legions of new shooters.
“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”
New York’ Governor Andrew Cuomo and his Progressive Minion’s zeal to pass an anti-2nd Amendment comprehensive gun law not only reduced the number of bullets in a gun magazine from 10 to seven for legal law abiding gun owners but also made it a felony for police officers to carry more than a 7-round Magazine clip.
2nd Amendment Was Not Written To Protect The Rights Of Hunters !
2nd Amendment Was Written to Protect Against a “Tyrannous Government” & Self Defense”
Founders Wanted To Guarantee Protection!
New York Times Takes On Judge Andrew Napolitano For Defending The Constitution
White House Prepares 19 Executive Orders
Your Right To Bear Arms – Defending The Constitution – Judge Andrew Napolitano Vs New York Times
Obama vows to ‘vigorously pursue’ gun control, prepares to release proposals
Published January 15, 2013 FoxNews.com
President Obama says he plans to make public later this week the details of his plan to tighten firearms laws based on the findings of a White House task force he commissioned in the aftermath of the fatal Connecticut school shooting.
The task force was led by Vice President Joe Biden and held its final White House meeting Monday, talking with members of the House Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.
A source told Fox News that Biden explained at the meeting that he and his staff have researched various plans of action to reduce and prevent gun violence and have identified 19 different options the president could choose to implement through executive order.
Obama said Monday he planned to review the findings and will “vigorously pursue” the recommendations in the next few days. It’s unclear how many of the 19 options the president would eventually take up.
The president vowed after the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that he would look for ways to curb gun violence, including possible legislation to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips like those used in the attack, which killed 20 first-graders and six adults at the school.
Among the other potential proposals is tightening background checks on prospective gun buyers. The president said Monday some of his goals could be accomplished through legislation, while others could be done through executive action.
The White House meeting Monday included Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who have participated in several other talks.
“Our task force looks forward to working with … the Obama administration and all stakeholders to enact a comprehensive set of proposals that both respects the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens without a history of dangerous mental illness and helps keep our schools, streets and communities safe from gun violence,” said California Rep. Mike Thompson, chairman of the eight-member House task force.
Biden already has talked with individuals and groups supporting tougher guns laws, including the Brady Campaign, and gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, which opposes any legislation to again ban assault weapons and high-capacity clips. Biden also has spoken with governors and executives with the video-gaming industry.
Obama has suggested he will submit legislation after his Jan. 21 inauguration and Congress’ return to Washington.
Thousands Endure Long Lines To Get Into San Francisco Gun Show – New Gun Control Laws
California already has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Buying a handgun requires registration, a safety certificate, a 10-day waiting period and a rigorous background check. All direct person-to-person sales are banned and concealed-carry permits are rare.
But now, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, lawmakers in the Golden State have launched into a new legislative frenzy to restrict firearms further. And they’re confident the measures will pass, given Democrats have a two-thirds “super majority” in both chambers — which means they have the power to pass legislation and get constitutional amendments on the ballot without a single Republican vote.
Political analysts say the political landscape puts California in the pole position to test gun-control limits.
“Almost any idea that anybody in this country has, as to further regulate and limit access to weapons or ammunition, is probably going to get passed in California,” said Democratic strategist and USC law professor Susan Estrich.
Our “Bill of Rights” which constitute the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution was developed in response to an overriding fear by our “Founding Fathers” that there existed a clear and present danger that the proposed centralized Federal Government could negate the proposition that “all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people …”
Our Constitutional Lawyer and President, Barack Hussein Obama’s threatened unconstitutional attempt to create an Executive Order that affects our 2nd Amendment would have been seen by James Madison’s as precisely why the “Bill of Rights” were required. As a matter of fact Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts was one of the delegates that walked out of the Philadelphia Convention without signing the final Constitutional draft because he “demanded a Bill of Rights if he was to support the Constitution”.
It should be clear to all Americans by now that Barack Hussein Obama’s usurping of Congressional and judicial power is not enough to satisfy his appetite for power so as to denigrate and demean America and the American Dream. Obama has already bypassed Congress by usurping the powers in Article I. thru VII. Of our Constitution and he is now attempting to usurp the powers contained in our“Bill of Rights”.
“When Madame Roland, the moderate French Republican, was a prisoner in the hands of the radicals, she wrote; “Oh my friends. Heaven grant that you may reach the United States– that last refuge of liberty– in safety!” Two-hundred years later, her “last refuge of liberty” is under siege by the same power hungry fanatics who turned the French Revolution into a reign of terror. “
It’s up to YOU to protect our “Bill of Rights” lest Obama thrust us into “…the hands of radicals” and places us “…under siege by the same power hungry fanatics who turned the French Revolution into a reign of terror.”
Understand, Newtown is not the reason, it is the tool courtesy of Rahm Emanuel who quipped “…never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
“During his time teaching at the University of Chicago, Obama told then-colleague John Lott directly: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”
“As a candidate for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Obama promised to support a ban on “the manufacture, sale & possession of handguns.”
While running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama spoke in favor of federal legislation to block citizens nationwide from receiving concealed-carry permits. “National legislation will prevent other states’ flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents,” he said.
Senator Obama supported Washington, DC’s comprehensive gun ban, which prevented district residents from possessing handguns even in their own homes; required that long guns be kept locked anddisassembled; and lacked a provision allowing the guns to be reassembled in the event of an emergency.”
“the Socialist” Barack Hussein Obama, “Biden the Fool” and the Progressive Left want to remove our 2nd Amendment Constitutional Right to bear arms. What would have been the consequences if this GA mother of twins, wasn’t armed when a Home Invader broke into her home, went upstairs to her bedroom and opened the door to a crawl space where she was hiding clutching her children? The following video contains excerpts from a the 911 cal
The following article is from the Blaze:
RUSSIAN NEWS OUTLET PRAVDA PRINTS SURPRISING OPINION COLUMN WARNING USA: ‘NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS’
An LAPD officer stands before collected assault weapons during the LAPD Gun Buyback Program event in the Van Nuys area of north Los Angeles, on December 26, 2012. Credit: AFP/Getty Images
Back in November, the Russian news outlet Pravda (formerly the official press of the USSR), surprised everyone when it published a scathing opinion column labeling President Obama a “Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so.”
And they appear to have done it again, this time weighing on in the gun control debate currently gripping the United States.
Written by Stanislav Mishin, the opinion piece, titled “Americans, never give up your guns,” begins:
These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to [bear] arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.
Mishin has rocked the boat before, writing in 2009 about American capitalism being “gone with a whimper.” Like the current article, it was originally published on the author’s personal blog before being picked up by Pravda.
By and large, he uses Russian history as a warning for what could occur in a worst-case scenario:
One of the first things [the Soviets] 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 [to worry about] for soldiers.
Mishin also reminds that retired military officers and other armed citizens were initially promised that if they stayed out of the way, they would be left alone. When they objected, many citizens were asked to “register their weapons” and were “promptly shot.”
The article continues to examine the continuing denial of the “basic right” to self defense roughly two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union:
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 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…
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…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. [Emphasis added]
The surprising article concludes with one last warning to Americans: “…do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.”
The Demise Of The U.S Military By Obama Admin – “Why Hagel Was Picked” – Wake Up America!!!
Obama’s Pick Is Part of A Move to Decimate The U.S Military According To David Brook
“Chuck Hagel Has Been Nominated to supervise the beginning of this generation-long process of Defense Cutback. If A Democratic President Is Going to Slash defense, he probably wants a Republican at the Pentagon to give him Political cover, & he probably want a decorated war hero to Boot.” – David Books New York Times OP-ED
On June30, 2009, Rush Limbaugh warned that, “… I wouldn’t put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016…” Incredulous pundits attacked Limbaugh’s prognostication with statements like, “…Limbaugh, as usual, plays on the prejudices of his audience.”
In an October 2, 2012 Washington Post article,Why attacking Iran may give Obama a third term in the White House , Faheem Younus theorizes that if we were to attack Iran to remove their Nuclear threat and it leads to a wider conflict, then:
“Wartime presidents can sell a Double Whopper to a vegetarian. As the festinate decision of bombing Iran turns into a global conflict, don’t expect our constitutional law professor turned president to decline his party’s suggestion: if it can be ratified; it [22nd Amendment] can be repealed.”
“He can’t do that; we have the 22nd Amendment,” you quip. Yes, we do. But imagine the destabilization the Iranian war will cause in a region which is home to a nuclear Pakistan, a bleeding Syria, and a wounded Russia. Add to it the perpetual Arab-Israeli conflict, with China and Japan posturing over deserted islands to its right and a mercurial Arab Spring to its left and all you have is red meat.”
Will Rep. Jose Serrano’s legislative attempts to repeal our 22nd Amendment be a future model for its eventual adoption?
President Obama could get 3 terms if H.J.Res 15 abolishes term limits
The last President to serve more than two terms was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt served three full terms as President and was elected to a fourth term. Roosevelt died 83 days into his fourth term in office.
“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” -
– Winston Churchill
“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you– when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed.”
– Ayn Rand
Our Political Class is considering confiscating your private retirement accountknown as your 401k in order to “pay down the deficit?” A total deficit that is now being estimated at over $86 Trillion. Far Left Socialist professor, Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School of Social Research, describes 401(k)s and related plans as a failed experiment. For about ten years she has argued for government confiscation of 401k plans. In October 2008, Democrats were so enthralled with her unconstitutional confiscatory plan that they actually asked her to testify before their subcommittee.
After her testimony, James Pethokoukis wrote in Money on October 23d that:
“Ghilarducci would offer a lousy 3 percent return. The long-run return of the stock market, adjusted for inflation, is more like 7 percent. Look at it this way: Ten thousand dollars growing at 3 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with roughly $22,000. But $10,000 growing at 7 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with $150,000. That is a high price to pay for what Ghilarducci describes as the removal of “a source of financial anxiety and…fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets.” Please, I’ll take a bit of worry for an additional $128,000.”
Would you believe that Ghilarducci’s plan is now actively being discussed in the “Cliff Talks” . Not so good you say? It gets worse. Also being floated is the idea that when you pass on to your Great Reward, your annunity would terminate. There would be no payout to your heirs. If you already feel like the government has stolen your retirement through the Social Security ponzi scheme, you had better speak out before your 401k is seized and redistributed to freeloaders as a solution to ward off the fiscal cliff.
The following article from our friends at the Pittsburgh Tea Party Movement demonstrates statistics that indicates that Pennsylvania is already well on the road to Obam-Nomicsand a “Welfare State”.
Pittsburgh Tea Party Movement
The Blaze has an outstanding article ‘Welfare Nation’: The Sad Truth which includes a study by Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Please check out the study from our Secretary of Public Welfare.The article includes facts such as:
For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, one person receives welfare assistance;
For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, one person receives welfare assistance or works for the government;
It makes more financial sense for a single mom to earn $29,000 and get government subsidies than for that single mom to earn $69,000; and
It is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work, as shown below:
Citizens in over 30 states have so far started petitions at the White House “We the People” website seeking permission to secede from the Union. The number is more than double what we reported Monday morning. Two competing petitions seeking deportation and exile of everyone who signed the petitions have also appeared.
The states now include California, Kansas, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska, Ohio and Delaware. California, Ohio and Delaware voted for Obama in the recent election. The White House web site is not the only place where such petitions are showing up. “A massive number of petitions are currently circulating on Change.org, a website designed to call for action by the federal government or by private institutions on particular causes, calling for particular states to be granted permission to secede,” The Blaze reported Monday. als)