Obama And His Liberal Fascists Want To Ban Guns. Why Don’t We Ban Anti-Christian Worldviews Instead?

Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, Newtown.  Liberals love to bring up these massacres as “evidence” that we need to ban guns.

But the thing is that, apart from some bizarre Hollywood film, there has NEVER been a single documented case of a gun EVER rising up by itself and deciding to start shooting people.

Liberals are free to try to refute me by documenting cases of guns developing independent consciousness and choosing to go on murderous rampages.  Until then, my statement stands as fact.

But now let’s briefly consider the worldviews of the people who actually pulled the damn trigger of those guns.  Let’s look at the belief systems of the PEOPLE who committed those murders.  You know, rather than contemplating the worldviews of guns that non-liberals understand DO NOT HAVE WORLDVIEWS.

The Columbine killers were atheists who glorified in their atheism.  One of their quotes haunts me to this day.  They recorded themselves claiming, “We are no longer human, for we have evolved beyond human morality.”  In one of their notes they scribbled – and pardon the language – “Why give a fuck what Jesus would do?”  And, “I blew off his head with one shot.  I am god.  He died.”

I welcome atheists to explain in detail how it would be impossible for mankind to ever “evolve” into the kind of alien cultures that wickedly prey on the weak and kill every sentient being they can get their tentacles on that we watched in movies like Independence Day.  Remember that signature line from the film:

President Thomas Whitmore: I saw… its thoughts. I saw what they’re planning to do. They’re like locusts. They’re moving from planet to planet… their whole civilization. After they’ve consumed every natural resource they move on… and we’re next. Nuke ‘em. Let’s nuke the bastards.

Given that liberals love to demagogically and slanderously characterize conservatives in these terms, I demand that evolutionists explain to me how human beings could never so “evolve beyond human morality.”

I remember the exchange from the movie Alien:

Ash: You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.

Lambert: You admire it.

Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor… unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

I challenge the atheist with his implicit faith in evolution to demonstrate how it could never possibly happen that human beings could so “evolve beyond human morality” that we would likewise be “unclouded by conscience” and “delusions of morality.”  Especially given the sheer number of human beings who have clearly DONE so.

I submit that there is little question that we are in fact as a culture “evolving beyond human morality.”  Just take a look at the Supreme Court openly considering imposing sodomy in place of marriage while we re-elected the first openly pro-sodomite president.  Which openly flies in the face of the entirety of human civilization and all previous “human morality.”

Liberals WANT the morality that was based entirely on Judeo-Christianity and the Judeo-Christian worldview to “evolve.”  That is their most cherished goal.

Now, on my worldview of Judeo-Christianity, I have a very firm rebuttal to the Columbine killers.  You did NOT “evolve” beyond human morality.  Rather, you were created in the image of a holy God.  And you will be held accountable to the morality that God created you to live out.  What do you have in your moral arsenal to respond to this crisis, atheist?

Right now, according to Judeo-Christianity, the Columbine killers are screaming in hell.  In a trillion years, they will be screaming in hell as God imposes the justice upon them that they denied to their victims.  In a trillion times a trillion-trillion years, they will be viscerally screaming in hell in refutation of the vile atheist crap they believed that motivated their actions.  They were profoundly and wickedly wrong; and all eternity will attest to that FACT.  What punishment do YOU have to deter these moral monsters from committing these terrible crimes, atheist?

It is with this in mind that I recall the famous words of the liberal Supreme Court Justices expressed their opinion that the Ten Commandments – including the one about “Thou shalt not murder” – be forcibly taken down from shcools for the following reason:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all,  it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to  venerate and obey, the Commandments… [which] is not a permissible … objective.”

Was it worth it, liberals?  Was Columbine and all the other horrors that have followed worth your adventure into godlessness?  Are you glad that Eric Harris and Dyland Klebold were never allowed the opportunity to read, meditate upon, and yes, perhaps even to venerate and obey, the Ten Commandments?  Was it a good thing that disturbed people with an urge to mayhem were never exposed to the one reason NOT to indulge their murderous fantasies?  If you have a superior reason not to murder than the Judeo-Christian one that you purged from society, perhaps it is time to share your secret.

Let’s take Jared Lee Loughner and his massacre at Tucson, Arizona.

Jared Loughner was, according to those who knew him, an atheist and by consequent a nihilist:

As Loughner and Tierney grew closer, Tierney got used to spending the first ten minutes or so of every day together arguing with Loughner’s ”nihilist” view of the world. “By the time he was 19 or 20, he was really fascinated with semantics and how the world is really nothing—illusion,” Tierney says. Once, Tierney recalls, Loughner told him, “I’m pretty sure I’ve come to the conclusion that words mean nothing.” Loughner would also tell Tierney and his friends that life “means nothing,” and they’d reply, “If it means nothing, what you’re saying means nothing.”

And of course it DID mean nothing – expect to those famous secular humanist atheist thinkers who basically share in Loughner’s moral idiocy.

I’ve described precisely WHERE the belief system - that words mean nothing, that the world is really an illusion – of Jared Loughner originated from: it came from the philosophical systems and worldview of the left – from existentialism, from postmodernism, from secular humanism.  And I’ve pointed out that these leftist ideas have CONSEQUENCES.  These systems of thought don’t sit in the ivory towers of the secular humanist liberals who invent them.  They spread like the malignant thought cancers that they are.

I’ve similarly posted this refutation of this mindless atheist evolutionary nihilist crap by Dr. Gleason Archer many times, so it isn’t hard to find:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”

Go ahead, secular humanist liberal.  Go ahead, atheist.  Show me how what Dr. Archer is saying doesn’t follow.  Show me how the more you scramble something with random and by definition arbitrary evolutionary “progress,” the more ORDER you’ll get.  Show me how you’re correct in asserting that mind necessarily comes from mindlessness rather than from Mind.  Show me how your drivel is anything other than pure degradation – as St. Paul so eloquently states in Romans chapter one (in which St. Paul also points out that some cultures can sink so low into the moral sewer that it will welcome sodomy just as we are doing RIGHT NOW).

Let us also, through the writing of Dinesh D’Souza, consider what would happen to two tribes if one was religious in worldview and the other was atheist:

The Reverend Randy Alcorn, founder of Eternal Perspective ministries in Oregon, sometimes presents his audience with two creation stories and asks them whether it matters which one is true.  In the secular account, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell  of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago.  You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces.  You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance.  You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe.  You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba.  You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely.  In short, you came from nothing and are going nowhere.

In the Christian view, by contrast, “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God.  You are created in His image, with capacities to think, feel and worship that set you above all other life forms.  You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind.  Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind.  Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He has a perfect plan for your life.  In addition, God gave the life of His only Son that you might spend eternity with Him.  If you are willing to accept the gift of salvation, you can become a child of God.”

Now imagine the two groups of people – let’s call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe – who subscribe to these two worldviews.  Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper and multiply?  The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose.  The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all.  The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every thought and action as consequential.  The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. — Dinish D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity, pp. 15-16

We’ve actually seen this experiment played out in actual human history as we’ve seen the rise of an America founded upon the Judeo-Christian worldview versus the society of the godless French Revolution and its resulting Reign of Terror; versus the rise of godless Marxism and its degeneration into state atheist Stalinism with over forty million of its own people murdered during peacetime; versus the rise of state atheist Maoism and its murder of over sixty million of its own people during peacetime; versus the crushing of the human spirit in state atheist Cambodia where over a million were murdered in the Killing Fields; and versus the godless tyrant regime of state atheist North Korea and the fact that the entire nation is dark at night.

But since when did FACTS ever matter to the left?  Even when there have been more than 100 million “facts” murdered by their official state atheism.

“State atheism” equals “communism”:

State atheism has been defined as the official “promotion of atheism” by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice.^[1]

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Only communist states and socialist states have done so since.

Which is precisely why we are moving in the direction of socialism and communism today.  Because the Democrat Party consists of secular humanists, liberals, atheists who all have the same agenda: to reshape society by reshaping the economies of the world in their image.

You want to ban something?  I suggest we ban a godless left-wing State that has all the guns versus a disarmed and oppressed people who were promised Utopia but have nothing but misery and the very sort of propaganda that we are seeing right now in America to feed them the manure of self-serving lies.

I would suggest banning that instead of going the opposite direction as Democrats demand.

Let’s continue our tour to Aurora, Colorado and the warped worldview that perpetrated it.  He went from murderer to Muslim.  Which given the rabid tendency of Islam to produce terrorists isn’t that far of a stretch.

Let’s look our show to Newtown/Sandy Hook and consider the worldview of the ghostly little creep who murdered 26 people in a school that had no armed security of any kind:

The Sandy Hook gunman worshiped the devil and  had an online page dedicated to Satan, a former classmate revealed, as his  childhood barber recalls Adam Lanza never spoke and would stare at the floor  every time he had his hair cut.

Lanza’s worshiping page had the word ‘Devil’  written in red, Gothic-style letters against a black background, Trevor L. Todd  told The National Enquirer, something which he said was ‘weird’ and ‘gave him  the chills’.

The FBI are trying to piece together his  smashed up hard drive to see if his online footprint will reveal any motive for  the killing, but they strongly believe he made use of devil-worshiping and  suicide sites and boasted of his murder plans on message forums.

I actually saw claims by atheists that this turd was a “Christian” because his desperate, troubled mother took him to church a few times.

You moral idiots, I can not only walk into a garage, but even lie down on the concrete and start calling myself a “car.”  If Adam Lanza was a “Christian” because somebody else took him to a church and he sat in the pew, I guess that makes me a “car.”  Let’s see four of you moral imbeciles climb into me and start driving me down the road on my nonexistent wheels.  I hope I’ll get really crappy gas mileage, just to irritate you.

Let’s get one thing straight.  Rather than banning guns, let’s try banning all these idiotic and depraved worldviews instead.

Now, some of you are shouting that that would violate the Constitution.  But that never stopped you leftists before.  Just as it’s not stopping you now as you stomp all over the 2nd Amendment.

The day that you secular humanist liberals manage to melt every gun down and turn it into ploughshares – as the Holy Bible declares that Messiah will one day do during the Millennium when He reigns as King of kings and as Lord of lords – then you won’t be a crazy fascist nutjob.  Until then, you are crazy fascist nutjobs.  Because the simple fact is that you CAN’T ban guns; you can only pass laws that prevent LAW-ABIDING citizens from being able to legally buy them as criminals couldn’t give less of a damn about your stupid laws.

I pointed out this inconvenient truth about other Dianne Feinstein attempts to stop crime by criminalizing legal products.  Thanks in large part to liberal Democrat Feinstein, it is now incredibly difficult for anyone to purchase pseudoephedrine – a prime ingredient of “meth” and “crank” – except for the criminals who have explodied meth production as a result.  Her proposed ban on assault weapons does little more than treat law-abiding citizens like criminals even as liberals treat criminals like law-abiding citizens.

Secular humanist liberals stupidly think that human nature is something infinitely malleable, something they can mold and shape by replacing God with “the State.”  They foolishly think that the GUN has the depraved worldview rather than the mind of the person who is pulling the trigger.  They think that they can control human behavior by controlling human environment.

In reality, they are the very ones who are producing these sick, evil minds.  In reality, when you criminalize guns you only allow the criminals who don’t give a damn about your stupid laws to possess them.  In reality, when you criminalize guns, you only keep law-abiding citizens from having the means to protect themselves.

By the way, Adam Lanza parked his vehicle in a fire lane.  I know that’s impossible, because it’s illegal to park in a fire lane.  But that’s what he did.  That’s the “respect” psychos have for your stupid laws.  That’s how successful all your stupid laws are in deterring crime.  And in the same way, NONE of the bans or regulations that Obama is proposing as he hypes and demagogues Newtown would have done ANYTHING to prevent the very mayhem that he is so cynically exploiting.

A pro-2nd Amendment rape victim asked the question, “How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?”  I demand that question be answered.

How does it?  How does abrogating the right and the ability of self-defense to the government – a government whose president literally fearmongered to take away the police as he deceitfully demagogued the sequester - do that?  Why should I surrender my own security and protection as a law-abiding citizen to a president who literally threatened to withhold the police protection that I would as a result of his policies depend on for my survival unless I agree to his massive tax hikes?  Why should the American people make themselves hostages to an incredibly cynical political agenda?

Under secular humanism, i.e., under liberalism, no one is responsible for their actions – just as no one is to be given any credit for their hard work or the wealth that they earn as a result of their efforts – and therefore ANYBODY can go nuts at any time and therefore NO ONE should be allowed to possess a gun even as no one should be allowed to work hard and keep the wealth they earned.  Except liberals and the government they erect to advance liberal fascism.  Society is to blame when murders murder; society is to be credited when rich people work hard and become rich.  Individual responsibility and individual credit alike are anathema to the left.  We are herd animals; only the herd matters.

And liberals – who invariably manage to exempt themselves from all their edicts – hypocritically view themselves as having some sole mandate to rule over all others and crush all opposition to their rule.  Society is all that matters; and they get to dominate that society.

We find that Obama has been the WORST president when it actually comes to enforcing the gun laws already on the books.  Just as his home city of libturd Chicago is the worst city in the nation at enforcing the laws already on the books.  These people don’t want to protect the defenseless; they want to exploit the tragedies that their policies create in order to impose more fascist control over the people and render them more and more and more powerless to defend themselves and defend their Constitution from government tyranny.

Every single tyrant regime on earth – whether it be Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or Kim Jong-Un’s North Korea – seized guns from the people before they imposed their godless agenda.  Every single one.  And now we’re following the same path toward slavery and the ultimate crushing of the human spirit.

That was the whole point of the 2nd Amendment: it was to be the people’s protection against future government tyranny.

Since we’ve already seemingly decided that the Constitution isn’t worth its weight in bovine manure, why don’t we just cut to the heart of the matter and ban something that will actually stop the mayhem???  Why don’t we ban secular humanism?  Why don’t we ban atheism?  Why don’t we ban murderous political systems masquerading as religious systems like Islam does?

In reality, over 55 million innocent human beings have been murdered by Obama’s demonic abortion hell pits.  As opposed to the relatively miniscule number of children killed in gun homicides.  If you care about children, why do you smile sweetly at the millions of precious babies murdered by your abortion???  Why should anybody give one damn when holocaust baby murdering liberals demand children be “protected” by fascist gun laws?  And why is it that it is LIBERAL cities like Obama’s home city of Chicago - rather than the pro-gun conservative areas – where all the children are being murdered as law-abiding people are rendered defenseless and helpless?  Why is it that the murderous policies of liberalism become the basis for even more murderous policies of liberalism?

We’ve got a Democrat doctor right now on trial for delivering numerous babies alive so he could have an easier time slashing their little spines and throats with his scalpel.  Just as we have a Democrat professor demanding that his students stomp on Jesus and everything Jesus stood for.

Why don’t we ban Obama?  Why don’t we criminalize the Democrat Party?

But of course we’re not going to do those things, are we?

The beast will be celebrated, worshiped and praised by the Democrat Party that actually voted to remove God from its Party platform.  He will be celebrated, worshiped and praised by the same Party whose representatives demanded that the idiot youth whose morally-warped minds Democrats have captured stomped on the name of Jesus.  He will be celebrated, worshiped and praised by the same Party that is now exalting in the homosexual sodomy that God in His Word declared to be an abomination.

That’s why when the beast of the Book of Revelation comes, there will BE no guns for people to protect themselves with.  And every single Democrat will eagerly worship the beast and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.

You’ll get yours, Democrat.  In the exact same place where the Columbine killers are already getting theirs.  Your day is coming.

As a P.S. of how liberalism is to blame for these savage murders, it turns out that thirty years ago, a family could petition a court to declare a family member crazy and have him or her committed.  But guess who decided that was inhumane?  You guessed right: ACLU liberals.  Liberals, understanding that liberalism is a mental disease, figured that it was better to keep these psychotic lunatics outside where they could vote Democrat than locking them up and putting them in rubber rooms where they belong.

As a P.P.S. of how liberalism is to blame for these savage murders, it similiarly turns out that Hollywood liberalism is responsible for both the violent movies – which glorify violence – and the video games that literally teach kids how to kill while desensitizing them to the violence they commit.  And again, liberals, apparently understanding that they are entrenching a violence-laden culture, could do something about this problem they created if they wanted.  But they would rather cynically exploit their culture of violence by blaming it on guns.  And of course, on Republicans.

Should I add a P.P.P.S. about liberals and rap music that glorifies violence, hostility toward women and the lowest form of gang-banging nihilism???

Obama Violated The Constitition, With Said Federal Court Ruling Almost Immediately Following Obama’s False Oath To Keep And Defend What He’d Already Violated

It wasn’t even a week ago that Obama took the oath of office and swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  He actually did it twice, once officially and the second time as a show for Martin Luther King Day.

Here’s the thing: Obama twice took the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  And the weasel turd had already broken his promise from the first time when he’d taken that oath back in 2009.

So it’s not like his stupid oath means anything, under than giving him more points for the sheer size of his elephant balls.

According to the Constitution of the United States of America, there are three separate but equal powers (the executive, legislative and judicial branches), and no branch has power to dictate to the others.  Hence the Senate gets to set its own rules and procedures, and no president – regardless of how fascist he is or what a power-grabbing thug he is – cannot supplant those rules and replace them with his own.

As an example, no president can tell the Senate, “You’re in recess” when the Senate according to its rules and procedures says its in session.  If you make an appointment in such a circumstance, that’s not a “recess appointment”; it’s a fundamental violation of the Constitution.

Obama has already repeatedly said piss on that and piss on the Constitution.  He made sure we all knew it was a “deeply flawed document,” too.  So that we’d understand that Obama is wiser and smarter and better than our Constitution, you see.

Like I keep saying over and over again, the man is a fascist thug to go along with being a crony capitalist fascist thug.

One thing the story below immediately gets wrong:  the federal appeals court did NOT rule that Obama violated the Constitution in making recess appointments.  They ruled that the Senate was not in recess and that the appointments WEREN’T recess appointments at all, but rather an unconstitutional power grab of one co-equal branch of government over another.  According to the rules of the Senate, enacted BY the Senate, the Senate was NOT in recess.  They were conducting business on the day that Obama overruled them as pharaoh-messiah-god-in-chief – in the style described by the words of fawning liberal “journalist” Evan Thomas (the editor of Newsweek), “he’s sort of God“ - when he decided that he alone actually had the sole right to decide when the Senate was or was not in session.

One of Obama’s appointees revealed Obama’s philosophy when he said:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my  philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude  and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell  you what I said:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer  villages in the Mediterranean.  They’d go in to a little Turkish town  somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify  them.

“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

Pretty soon we’re going to have exactly that philosophy enacted by the coming Antichrist who will step in after Obama ruins the world.  So cheer up, liberal.  You’ll get the fascist dictatorship you’re dreaming about.

But until then, that damned Constitution, you know, that document having “deeply flaws”  which in Obama’s demonic mind “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day,” is still an obstacle to you.

Appeals Court Says Obama Violated Constitution With Appointments
By SAM HANANEL The Associated Press
Published: Friday, January 25, 2013 at 2:06 p.m.
Last Modified: Friday, January 25, 2013 at 2:06 p.m.

WASHINGTON | In an embarrassing setback for President Barack Obama, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that he violated the Constitution in making recess appointments last year, a decision that would severely curtail the president’s ability to bypass the Senate to fill administration vacancies.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board because the Senate was officially in session — and not in recess — at the time. If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions made over the past year.

The court said the president could only fill vacancies with the recess appointment procedure if the openings arise when the Senate is in an official recess, which it defined as the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress.

The White House had no immediate comment but is expected to appeal the decision. The same issue is currently before several other federal appeals courts.

The ruling also threw into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made on Jan. 4, 2012, has been challenged in a separate case.

The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members.

“With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration’s flimsy interpretation of the law, and (it) will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

GOP House Speaker John Boehner welcomed the ruling as “a victory for accountability in government.”

Obama made the recess appointments after Senate Republicans blocked his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats had done in the past — specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board and the consumer board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions — some lasting less than a minute — were a sham.

The three-judge panel, all appointed by Republican presidents, ruled that during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the Constitution.

“Either the Senate is in session or it is in recess,” Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. “If it has broken for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in ‘the Recess’ described in the Constitution.”

Simply taking a break of an evening or a weekend during a regular working session cannot count, he said. Sentelle said that otherwise “the president could make appointments any time the Senate so much as broke for lunch.”

The judge flatly rejected arguments from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.

“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” Sentelle wrote.

Sentelle was joined in the ruling by Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

“I think this is a very important decision about the separation of powers,” said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the Virginia’s University of Richmond. “The court’s reading has limited the president’s ability to counter the obstruction of appointments by a minority in the Senate that has been pretty egregious in the Obama administration.”

If the ruling stands, it means that hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year would be invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

Obama used the recess appointment to install Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the labor board, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, urged the NLRB to continue conducting business until the Supreme Court rules on the issue.

“Today’s circuit court decision is not only a radical departure from precedent, it ignores the fact that President Obama had no choice but to act,” Harkin said. “Throughout his presidency, Republicans have employed unprecedented partisan delay tactics and filibusters to prevent confirmation of nominees to lead the NLRB, thus crippling the Board’s legal authority to act.”

If Obama’s recess appointment of Cordray to the newly created consumer board is also ruled invalid, all the regulations the consumer board has issued, many of which remake the mortgage business, could be nullified.

This fascist board that fascist Obama violated the Constitution to create has been involved in literally hundreds of fascist judgments.  And at the moment all of those fascist judgments are in danger of being tossed out, much the way criminals shouldn’t be allowed to profit from their crimes and fascist police departments shouldn’t be allowed to use evidence that was obtained via illegal means.

What’s funny is that upon hearing of the verdict, his White House propagandist Jay Carney immediately dismissed and trivialized the decision.

Because Obama doesn’t give any more of a damn about the judiciary branch than he does the legislative branch.

Pretty soon Antichrist is going to come to complete what Obama began.  And Democrats will vote for him even more and worship him even more than they did Obama.

So don’t worry, liberals.  By the time the Antichrist comes, you’ll get everything you want.  And there won’t be any court or any one with the right to keep and bear arms to say otherwise.  You’ll get every demonic dream you ever had, then.

Fascists Playing Fast And Loose With The Constitution Before They Abolish It Entirely: Since When Did The 2nd Amendment Just Allow People To HUNT?

Barack Obama said something really, really stupid while he was demonizing the so-called “assault weapons.”

He called them “weapons of war” and declared that the American people don’t need them and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to have them.  Even though he demands that his Secret Service have fully automatic machine pistols to protect him and his family and his top political advisers.

First of all, however, Obama is either ignorant or lying about the “assault weapons” being “weapons of war.”  Because no they aren’t: they are strictly semi-automatic civilian versions of “weapons of war.”  The assault rifle – after which the so-called “assault weapon” is modeled – is a weapon capable of selective fire from semi-automatic to full automatic fire.  Actual “weapons of war” have not been sold in the U.S. outside of a rare few gun dealers for generations.

The reason Democrats coined the term “assault weapons” to describe these legal, civilian versions of guns was because they knew they could use the similarity of terms (“assault rifle” vs. “assault weapons”) and deliberately confuse and conflate the two in the minds of the public.  Democrats thrive best at games of rhetorical slandering.  It is all they know how to do well, given the fact that they are clearly incapable of governing or leading when they slander their way to power.

Obama was factually lying when he called the weapons we can buy in gun stores “weapons of war.”  That is simply a fact.  And sadly, it is the consistent, characteristic tactic based on lies and half-truths that the left has chosen in its campaign to join Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R., and the worst regimes on earth that have banned and confiscated guns.

That said, Obama’s demagogic term – “weapons of war” – was EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment guaranteed us the right to keep and bear.  Unless you are so breathtakingly stupid that you actually believe there were different types of guns in the America of the founding fathers, and that they only allowed some and specifically forbade the “weapons of war.”

When the founding fathers said that the right to keep and bear arms was a sacred one, THEY SPECIFICALLY INTENDED THOSE ARMS TO BE “WEAPONS OF WAR.”  And the liberals who deny that fact are either abject liars – or they are just the stupid people who are infamously called “useful idiots” in their desire to naively and stupidly help fascists and tyrants.

And no lying, slandering demagogue can change that fact – even if he deceives the people into surrendering their weapons the way Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot deceived their people into surrendering their weapons.

This brings me to the point that many other lying, dishonest Democrats have been stating: that they aren’t out to take away hunting rifles and thus somehow are preserving the 2nd Amendment if they take away every OTHER kind of gun.

The 2nd Amendment was a reaction against government tyranny in the minds of the founding fathers.  They did not want America to be a repeat of the Britain they had just won their independence from.  They wanted an armed citizenry that the government would have to fear and respect.  They wanted a people who would be capable of rising up against tyrant government.  They wanted a people capable of rising up against abuses of power.

Obama and his ilk have been trying to take us back to the status of a disarmed and therefore helpless people ever since.

Patrick Henry in 1775 said, “They tell us that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.”

Noah Webster said, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”

Richard Henry Lee said, “Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Does that sound like he meant that Americans ought to have the right to shoot at squirrels but not the right to defend themselves from the far more dangerous vermin threatening them???

John Adams said, “Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.”  Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  And if that isn’t strong enough Jefferson also said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands.”

And Patrick Henry again said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

Thomas Paine said also in 1775, “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong.”

Which is another way of saying that if you don’t want to be a victim of a criminal thug or an even worse criminal thug government, exercise your right to keep and bear arms.  And anybody who tries to take away our guns is trying to take away our freedom and our security.

Samuel Adams said, “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”  We have seen how much Democrats value human life given the fact that they have butchered more than 55 million human beings conceived in America in their abortion mills.  And we have now seen that they don’t value the right to liberty, the right to property or the right to self-defense any more than these murderers value the right to life.

And which is to therefore to say that Obama and his ilk are precisely why the founding fathers enumerated the right to keep and bear arms in the first place.  Democrats are bad people who want to take away your ability to protect yourself so they can dominate and crush you with their totalitarian government system.  Period.  And they are the worst kind of liars who deliberately distort and fabricate history to get what they want.

There have been more than a hundred million human beings who could have told you that their governments first took away their guns and then took away their lives.  But alas, their governments murdered them and their voices are forever silent until Judgment Day.  But their silent testimonies scream to every non-fascist who yearns to be free from tyranny.  And to the extent that liberals give a damn about what Hitler did to the millions of disarmed Jews he murdered, to the extent that they care about the millions of disarmed Ukranians that Stalin starved to death, to the extent they understand how many tens of millions of disarmed Chinese Chairman Mao murdered with his incompentence and malevolence in his Great Leap Forward, well, one can only conclude that they want all that to happen here, too.  Because what liberals most cherish is the ideal of the American people being cowed and defenseless against giant government.

The founding fathers framed the right to keep and bear arms as a moral issue: you have a God-given right to defend yourself, your family, your home and your place of business.  Anybody who would try to take that right from you is an immoral person.  Liberals also frame gun control as a moral issue; but on their “morality” government is God, and if your god wants to deprive you and your family of liberty and life, you are an immoral person for wanting to have any means to protect yourselves from the State.  But they dishonestly bait-and-switch that their real moral argument with a different pseudo-argument: that guns kill people and if we take away the guns people won’t kill people.

It’s a lie no matter how you slice it.  Did you know that, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns”?????  Did you know that the Aurora, Colorado psycho who went to town in the movie theater chose the only movie theater among the seven that were close to him (he actually drove by movie theaters to get to his target!) that had been designated as a gun free zone???  Did you know that the states and the cities with the tightest gun control laws  lead the nation in gun crime???   Go to Obama’s and Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago and tell me what life is like there.  Why on earth do you think taking away guns from law-abiding people would do anything other than embolden the criminals and murderers to prey on the helpless victims???

The day that Obama succeeds in taking away your right to guns is the day that you declare that you, your spouse and your children do not deserve to live.  Because it will be the day that you agree with Obama that rather than being a human being with the God-given right of self-defense, you are nothing more than a farm animal – and if the government decides it is time to cull the herd, then off to the slaughter house you will meekly go.

Obama believes that only he and his family merit protection with guns.  The rest of you herd animals don’t deserve it.  The Journal News that published the names and addresses of gun owners along with a map showing how to get to their homes afterward decided that while the rest of the meat animals don’t have a right to be defended with guns, they do.  And they hired armed security like the hypocrite fascists that they as liberals are.

I made the point that liberals (a.k.a. fascists) have been playing fast and loose with the Constitution before they abolish it entirely.  Consider the recent liberal law professor from liberal Georgetown University who called on America to scrap its “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil” Constitution.  Consider the Obama judge who ruled that the Constitution doesn’t give Americans the right to bear guns even though the 2nd Amendment very definitely says “keep and bear.”  The Constitution is merely an inconvenient document that needs to be thrown aside for the left to exalt in the power it seeks over the people.  Consider the incredible attitude that liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has toward the Constitution.  Consider the cynical and manipulative attitude the collectivist Supreme Court liberals have displayed toward the Constitution.  Consider the mocking attitude that Democrats repeatedly displayed toward the Constitution in their ramming ObamaCare down the now-collectivist American throat.  Consider that Democrats don’t believe that their right to power by regulating the people has ANY constitutional limits.  Consider the Democrats who went on record boycotting the U.S. Constitution.  Consider how Democrats demand that government grow larger and more powerful and that religion grow smaller and more marginal when our founding fathers demanded the exact opposite.  Consider the abject dishonesty and hypocrisy of Democrats for refusing to allow ANY ID checks for voting so illegals can vote Democrat but demand restrictions up the whazoo for those who wish to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.  Consider that whereas our Declaration of Independence clearly says that all of our rights and liberties are based on GOD, Democrats actually took God out of their party’s platform last year.  Which is to state that Democrats declared that God has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights they want to take away from the American people or the new “rights” they want to impose on the American people.  Consider that similarly, Obama demands the government-forced redistribution of wealth whereas our founding fathers had said, “Over our dead bodies!”  And consider Obama’s dismissive attitude toward the Constitution as a flawed document by deeply flawed people.  And realize that our Constitution is headed for the dung pile of history as Democrats who have already largely killed the tree of liberty by a death of a thousand cuts are now increasingly demanding that the dead husk of that tree be chopped down once and for all.

If Obama really wanted to deal with gun violence, he would come clean on what happened in Benghazi, Libya where the first American ambassador since Jimmy Carter was screwing up the planet was murdered along with the three other Americans who died trying to keep him alive.  If Obama really wanted to deal with gun violence, he would finally explain why his government ordered thousands of the very assault weapons he most demonizes to be placed in the hands of drug cartel killers in Mexico.  The fact of the matter is that Obama doesn’t give a damn about gun violence; he just wants to finally end the ability of the American people to protect and defend themselves against his next wave of fascist abrogation of the Constitution and the American way of life.

Democrats’ goal is to make certain that you are powerless and helpless against the coming Antichrist.  Obama’s most cherished goal is, to put it in Orwellian terms, “a government boot stomping on a human face forever.”

Why Do We Go Through The Useless Pretense Of Bothering To Have Elections When Fascist Black-Robed Judges Are Really Our Masters?

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Ah, the hell with it: Let’s just let Judge Adolf P. Fuehrer decide everything.  I mean, people sheople.

Why do we bother to go through the sham of voting and having elections?  We really might as well just have one of those tyrant-regime-style “elections” where everybody gets to vote as long as they only vote for their “president for life.”  Because that’s what we’ve got here now:

Judge strikes down Wisconsin law restricting union rights
By NBC News staff and news services
September 14, 2012

A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down the state law championed by Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers.

Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled Friday that the law violates the state and U.S. constitutions and is null and void.

The law took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.

Colas’ ruling comes after a lawsuit brought by the Madison teachers union and a union for Milwaukee city employees.

For city, county and school workers, the ruling returns the law to its previous status, before it was changed in March 2011, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported. However, Walker’s law remains largely in force for state workers, it reported.

Walker’s law prohibited state and local governments from bargaining over anything except cost of living adjustments to salaries. Haggling over issues such as health benefits, pensions and workplace safety was barred.

Gov. Walker said in a statement Friday that he expected the ruling will be overturned on appeal.

“The people of Wisconsin clearly spoke on June 5th,” he said in the statement posted on his Facebook page. “Now, they are ready to move on. Sadly a liberal activist judge in Dane County wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process.”

“We believe the law is constitutional,” said Wisconsin Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck.

The proposal was introduced shortly after Walker took office in February last year. It sparked a firestorm of opposition and huge protests at the state Capitol that lasted for weeks. All 14 Democratic state senators fled to Illinois for three weeks in an ultimately failed attempt to stop the law’s passage by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

The law’s passage led to a mass movement to recall Walker from office, but he survived the recall election, becoming the first governor in U.S. history to do so.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I didn’t know that “collective bargaining” was enshrined in our Constitution.  Could somebody point out where?  I guess I must have slept through that lecture in that Civics class I took or something.

It’s probably in the same damn penumbras and emanations that the right to murder your baby is in, I suppose.

I’m all for workers having the right to form a union and I’m all for the right of that union to be able to “collectively bargain.”  As long as any employer – be that employer a small business owner, a CEO, a governor or a president – to be able to fire the ass of everybody who collectively bargained.

Again, where is it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that an employer loses the right to be able to fire workers?  Where is it stated that if workers want more money, and they “collectivize,” that he or she can’t fire them and get better workers who are willing to work for the wages that the employer is willing to pay???  Where the hell is it stated that an unemployed worker who would very damn much love to have a job cannot have the right to be able to work for that wage that the employer is willing to pay???  Where is it in our Constitution that only UNION workers ought to have the right to a job?

That’s what makes “collective bargaining” so evil; it arbitrarily gives a “right” to a union and takes away the rights of every single business and every single worker who would be thrilled to work for the pay that the union worker snubs his nose at.

And I want to know where that judge found that – other than by looking rather far up his own butt.

Damn I’m sick of these judges.  Just like I was sick of them not once but TWICE as a damn judge who believed himself above the will of the people overturned first Proposition 22 (which passed by 61% of the people’s vote) and then Proposition 8 (which passed by the same majority that gave Obama the damn presidency).

That’s what we need now – and will need even more if Obama gets reelected; we need a judge to look far enough up his own ass to “find” whatever penumbra or emanation and declare that Obama’s election is unconstitutional and throw his butt out of office.

This nation is no longer a democracy, a republic, a democratic republic, or anything remotely like any of the above.  It is an oligarchy of judicial activists and that is all that it is now.

A few other wise words of warning by Thomas Jefferson:

• “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
• “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.”
• “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
• “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
• “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

We are to the point where that last one has become an important reality: our country has been stolen from us by black-robed usurpers, and we need to take it back from them.

My Response To Liberals About Gun Control (It’s Really Conservatives Who Ought To Read It, Though).

Liberals can’t understand why anyone would want an “assault weapon” (which many literally think is a fully automatic machine gun rather than the completely SEMI-automatic version of the military assault rifles which are actually of a fairly lightweight caliber).

“You don’t need one of those to hunt,” they’ll say.  As if they think rightwing Republicans are all like Jed Clampett out in the woods “shootin at some food.”

Obama says, “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.”  Let’s leave aside the fact that the AK-47s that actually ARE in the hands of soldiers are capable of fully automatic fire – which documents that Obama is one of the demagogues who are deliberately trying to confuse and mislead the American people into banning guns that have ALREADY been banned so he can fool them into supporting new restrictions on their constitutional rights.  Another couple of questions arise: 1) Does Obama not know which military he commands?  Because in point of fact only COMMUNIST soldiers use AK-47s.  Have his Marxist economic policies left him confused, or is he simply that astonishingly ignorant about this issue he’s lecturing us about?  2) A further thing that leaves me scratching my head is why Obama thinks that gun laws are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals GIVEN THE FACT THAT “CRIMINALS” ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE BY DEFINITION WHO DON’T OBEY DAMN LAWS.  This takes us to the dilemma that if you criminalize guns, only criminals will end up having them.  Which is why in actual FACT liberal cities are far more violent than conservative cities.  Especially the cities like Chicago that have the most restrictive gun laws which prevent law-abiding people from protecting themselves.  And the only way to actually “ban” all of these “AK-47s” is to kick down every single damn door in America to confiscate them in what would be the most tyrannous day in the entire history of the republic (and keep reading to see below for WHY we have a right to keep and bear arms in the first place).

The reality is that the so-called “assault weapons” are excellent multi-purpose rifles, and many people who don’t have unlimited money particularly like these weapons for their multiple uses: you can use them for hunting; you can use them for home defense; you can use them to protect your rights as an American citizen against any who would seek to take those rights away; and boy are they ever fun to use for target shooting.  That’s what my dad would call a “four-fer.”  And add to all of that the fact that they are designed to be light weight.  If I weren’t a rich liberal like the ones who are trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves while they drive around in armored cars with their armed security details, and I could only afford to buy one gun, I would want an assault weapon.

I’d like to see a garden-variety liberal try to protect their property from a mob of looters during a riot with the sort of guns they say everyone should be limited to.  The term “neo-conservative” refers to “liberals who have been mugged by reality.”  If you are one of the people who have been forced to protect what you have spent your life building from those who want to take it away from you and burn what they leave behind, and when you look through the smoke there are no police around to protect you, then you are one of the people who understand that “assault weapons” have a very useful purpose, indeed.

Many of your self-considered “broadly tolerant” liberals believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the black powder smoothbore muskets that were in vogue the day the Constitution was signed.  Of course, there are plenty of liberals who would eagerly take even THOSE away from us.  The fact of the matter is that those black powder smoothbores that every American was not only allowed to have but encouraged to have when the Constitution was written were the most modern military firearms available at the time.  And the fact of the matter is that the 2nd Amendment – and think for a second why it would be the second most important thing the founding fathers believed in after they considered freedom of religion and freedom of speech – was a reaction against government tyranny.  The founding fathers wanted the government to fear the people rather than for the people to fear the government – which has as a matter of documented historical FACT been a terrible consequent of many states that have taken away the right to keep and bear arms.

Which is why James Madison said, “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.”

Which is why James Madison also said, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Which is why Noah Webster said, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

Which is why Alexander Hamilton said, “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…”

Which is why Alexander Hamilton also said, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

Which is why Richard Henry Lee said, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”

Which is why Patrick Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.”

Which is why Patrick Henry also said, “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

And which is why Patrick Henry also said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.“

Which is why Samuel Adams said, “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”

Which is why Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Which is why Thomas Jefferson also said, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

And which is why Thomas Jefferson also said, “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

Which is why George Washington said, “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.“

And which is why even the wise philosopher Aristotle said, “Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.”

It’s not like this is a matter of any question to any intelligent, educated person.  The founding fathers were crystal clear that the people have the necessary right to keep and bear arms.  And literally that any government that would try to take away those arms was a tyrannous government that in fact exemplified why arms should be in the hands of the people in the first place!

In fact, liberals, the very fact that you keep trying to use raw government power to take away our guns is why we should be all the more determined to keep our guns.  Because according to the founding fathers you are the very people that we should be armed against.

Liberals love to assert that the 2nd Amendment never really applied to “the people” but rather to a “militia.”  What is funny is that the very liberals who say that guns shouldn’t be in the hands of the people are also the most suspicious and intolerant of people in militias, too!  Which underscores the fact that these liberals are truly anti-gun AND anti-Constitution and merely cynically offer whatever pretense will get them what they want.  But leaving that aside, let’s example the argument:

The 2nd Amendment: “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.”

Here’s what’s wrong with that view: To whom do the rights accorded in the 1st Amendment belong: to “the people” or to “a well regulated militia”?

If liberals want to be logically and morally and historically and grammatically consistent with their 2nd Amendment view about gun rights only belonging to militias, they must therefore concede that “the people” do not have the right to peaceably assemble or to petition the government for any redress of grievances (1st Amendment) or to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment and see also the rights guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments) - because only those in a “well regulated militia” would possess those rights and any other rights the Constitution claims for “the people.”  It is completely arbitrary and in fact downright irrational thinking to suggest that “the people” means one thing for the purpose of the 2nd Amendment but something entirely different for every other usage of the exact same phrase in the very same document.

To return to what I previously stated that liberals become the very people that our founding fathers warned us about, in trying to take away rights that clearly belong to “the people” are by so doing denying and undermining every other right that similarly belongs to “the people.”  And thank God I have guns as long as there are people who think that way.

Let me further mention a typical liberal view that guns are dangerous because “guns kill people.”

You could give me a nuclear bomb and I would do everything in my power to ensure that that nuclear bomb was used responsibly – which is to say that I would never use it in any situation I could possibly envision.  You could give me a fully automatic machine gun to carry around with me at port arms and I would never mow down a crowd. Conservatives are people who can own guns and not murder innocent people.  Liberals – by their own views – are apparently not such people.  Rather, if they had a gun, that gun, being inherently dangerous and evil, would immediately begin to leach away at their feeble liberal intellects and their gutless liberal moral wills.  Liberals affirm that they are bad people, weak people, who should not be entrusted with the responsibility that the founding fathers provided for free men.

This gets to the heart of the issue between liberals and conservatives.  It comes down to something that John Adams said:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

In their views of guns and their attitude toward the 2nd Amendment, liberals implicitly if not explicitly admit that they are NOT the kind of people that the Constitution was made for; they are bad people.  They are people who have no morality and no religion; and the Constitution and its protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights are therefore wholly inadequate for them.

Our Constitution was written to create “a new nation, conceived in liberty” as Lincoln would later say.  It was to be a nation different from the nations of Europe, in which all men were equal and men were free to think and believe and decide for themselves.  And Madison’s point was that only a moral and religious people could exercise the necessary self-restraint to have those kinds of freedoms.  Amoral and irreligious people, on the other hand, could be controlled only by ever-increasing levels of totalitarian government tyranny.

George Washington – the father of our country – was even MOREstridently clear. Washington said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

And the point here is that liberals again and again on issue after issue reveal themselves to be the kind of people that George Washington and the founding fathers of this country would have labelled “traitors.”  They are NOT patriots; they are men and women who “labor to subvert these great pillars” such as morality and religion and, yes, the 2nd Amendment protections provided for “the people.”

Consider one particularly infamous and evil example of the fact that Democrats routinely demonize the very “religion and morality” that George Washington and our founding fathers said was the defining foundation of our Constitution.

Liberals have worked hard for the last fifty years to take away our morality and our religion.  In so doing, they have given us the very violence that is now spiralling out of control.  Liberals are the kind of people who have taken away prayer.  Liberals are the kind of people who have refused to allow the posting of the Ten Commandments because “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” and God-as-Government forbid that children be allowed to do something like that.  Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed godless abortion upon society to the tune of 54 MILLION innocent human beings butchered since 1973.  Liberals are the kind of people who have destroyed fatherhood, because according to liberals fathers did not father children, but strictly non-human lumps of biological goop such that they should not be allowed to have any influence whatsoever as to whether their own babies be allowed to even live.  Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed pornography on us because liberal justices are moral idiots who are morally incapable of differentiating between art and XXX-rated sex movies.  Liberals are the kind of people who imposed no-fault divorce without limit or condition upon us because breaking up families is more important than asking couples who took a vow to one another under God to work to resolve their differences.  Liberals are the kind of people who turned marriage itself into a perverted mockery by saying that the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman be adulterated to include whatever the hell politically correct understanding depraves the minds of the left next.

These are the people that George Washington said, “These people are NOT patriots.”  These are the people that the founding fathers said we needed to be armed to protect ourselves against as they take away the God-given rights of “the people” to protect ourselves against the very tyranny they continually seek to impose upon us.

If any liberal wants to regulate the guns which the founding fathers intended to protect ourselves against the very sort of tyranny that liberals continually seek to impose, let them first categorically affirm the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  By that, I mean require an Amendment to the Bill of Rights that for all time specifically states that the 2nd Amendment guarantees that the same people who have ever other right accorded to “the people” be allowed to be armed and to possess arms, with the further condition that ANY official whether he or she be a politician, a judge or a bureaucrat be IMMEDIATELY removed from his or her office with the forfeiture of all pay, all benefits and all responsibilities if he or she ever try to take away these rights from any law-abiding American citizen.

Until that day, “gun control” is a zero-sum game, with every limitation and restriction taking us one step closer to taking away ALL of our rights while those who believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and specifically the 2nd Amendment, receive NOTHING in return.  As long as there is one liberal who has any influence over the American people in any chamber of politics, any chamber of law, or any bureaucracy, who wants to take away our rights, the people need to continue to be armed to prevent that liberal from depriving them of their freedom.

If you as a liberal think I’m crazy to say that Democrats want to take away our guns, well, then, please join me in taking that issue I keep demagoguing off the table.  Demand that your party sponsor and vote for that constitutional amendment.  And then people like me will be forced to shut up, won’t we?

Liberals constantly demonize conservatives as the obstacles preventing every single nut from shooting somebody; I point the finger right back at them: because they are untrustworthy negotiating partners with too many having the open agenda that I described above.  As long as we have a president of the United States who appoints judges who say that citizens have a right to keep arms, but not to bear them – or to similarly brazenly deny the Constitution, you aint getting NOTHIN’ from me.  And frankly, if you don’t mind my saying so, you’re a slimebag for every trying.

When the 2nd Amendment as our founding fathers intended it is firmly engrained in American society once and for all time, I believe liberals will be surprised at how many conservatives will join them in enacting reasonable restrictions that will limit the abuse of guns.

But that day will not happen and should not happen until everybody who thinks like this is legally barred from holding ANY government office whatsoever.

And that is why this is true and has been true of Barack Obama:

I began this talking about Barack Obama not wanting AK-47s in the American peoples’ hands because he doesn’t trust us.  What is amazing is that this same president’s administration put those very AK-47s into the hands of Mexican drug cartel murderers.

Obama’s ‘Major Policy’ Speech Last Thursday Documents He Is A Failure. His Abrogation Of The Rule Of Law On Friday Documents He Is A Fascist.

I thought this blog article which cites USA Today hit part of Obama’s trouble right in the testicles:

“Major economic speech” by Obama planned for Thursday
Posted by: ST on June 13, 2012 at 9:20 am

Via The USA Today:

President Obama will seek to draw economic contrasts with Republican opponent Mitt Romney in what campaign aides are billing as a major speech on Thursday.

In announcing the address at a community college in Cleveland, the Obama campaign said the president will describe his vision as “ensuring that our economy is built to last and restoring economic security for the middle class.”

Obama also plans to condemn Romney’s vision, which the campaign said is “based on the same failed economic policies that brought on the worst crisis since the Great Depression.

“Romney Economics is familiar and troubling,” said the Obama campaign. “More budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy; fewer rules for Wall Street — the same formula that benefited a few, but that crashed our economy and devastated the middle class.”

Obama is not expected to unveil any new policy proposals of his own; the president is still trying to persuade Congress to adopt elements of a jobs bill he proposed last year.

(Bolded emphasis added by me)

Translation: there’s nothing new here. It’ll just more of the same old song and dance we’ve been hearing for the last three and a half years, jacked up on spinsanity with a generous helping of predictable Democrat class warfare and demagoguery – given in front of (presumably) a captive audience of college students (shocking).

In other news, dog bites man.

BTW, here’s Obama’s fundraising schedule for this week, in the event you actually thought his “presidential responsibilities” excuse for not campaigning for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in the Wisconsin recall election was legitimate. Just sayin’ …

Obama’s major speech is a giant bag of wind from the most prolific windbag who ever lived.  Check.

Obama is completely out of ideas.  Check check.

Ninety percent of Obama’s speech was just a slightly different way for Obama to demonize Mitt Romney.  And in what had been built up as a major policy speech at that.  Only ten percent of this speech Obama gave in Ohio on Thursday, April 14 AT BEST discussed what Obama would do if re-elected – which frankly amounted to a steadfast refusal to own up to ANY kind of responsibility for his last four years and a doubling down on what has already been demonstrated to have failed.  The bottom line is that we are currently cursed with a president who doesn’t want to talk about the past but doesn’t have any ideas about the future.

It’s not just me claiming Obama’s “major speech” was a major failure.

Consider leftist Jonathon Alter from MSNBC who said it was “one of the worst speeches I’ve ever heard Barack Obama make.”  And that was actually KIND, given the fact that “Before the speech was over, MSNBC’s Mike O’Brien begged the president to stop.”  While conservatives, of course, are saying, “Don’t you let them interrupt you, Barry Hussein.  By all means, please continue.  You were saying the private sector’s doing fine, right?”

That’s from MSNBC, which without any question is THE most überbiased überObama propaganda out there (see here and here for a couple quick examples).

The reliably leftist Washington Post’s leftist writer Dana Milbank – and this woman is a raving leftie – said that “instead of going to Ohio on Thursday with a compelling plan. for the future, the president gave Americans a falsehood wrapped in a fallacy.”  This in an article titled, “Skip the falsehoods, Mr. President, and give us a plan.”

I mean, thanks for confirming what I’ve been saying all along that Obama is a complete liar without a clue or a plan, but I can’t help but admit my surprise, Dana.  I mean, coming from a woman who once argued that if Obama comes across as stupid, it’s only because he’s just so incredibly brilliant that we frankly don’t deserve his greatness.  Which of course followed the liberal script.

It’s not adequate to say that Barack Obama is a failure; because Barack Obama is an epic failure.

Essentially, Obama’s campaign is about trying to recreate his now thoroughly disillusioned 2008 base.  And the only way that he can do that – because he is a completely failed leader who cannot legislate or compromise – is to issue a “jump the shark” series of executive orders that frankly abrogate the Constitution and the rule of law in America and set a terrifying precedent.  So he demonized his rhetoric of a bogus ”war on women” (see here and here and here and here for how that’s working out for him) and then jumped that shark to “come out” in favor of gay marriage in blatant contradiction of his previous posture (see here and here for how that’s working out for him) – and then he just jumped that shark on Friday to abrogate the Constitution in order to recklessly pander to Hispanics.

And what Obama did on Friday was directly related to the colossal turd he laid on Thursday.  Obama HAS to keep jumping the shark because this complete failure SOMEHOW has to keep the support of a base that would otherwise abandon him like a liberal mommy having her baby aborted.

Consider what Obama himself said in the exact context of what he proceeded to do on Friday:

“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

And:

“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. That doesn’t mean I don’t know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause. I share your concerns and I understand them,” he said Monday. “We work every day to make sure we are enforcing flawed laws in the most humane possible way.”

And:

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job,” Obama said in March 2011 at a town hall event hosted by the Spanish-language television network Univision. [...]

“Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws,” he said. [...]

“There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

Apparently, Obama has limited powers unless he a) gives a crappy speech and b) is losing an election.  Then there is no law, no Constitution, and no democracy.

Which all goes to say that what Obama did was a) un-American (“not the way our system works“); b) anti-democratic (“That’s not the way our democracy functions“); and c) unconstitutional (“That’s not how our Constitution is written“).

When I say Obama is a fascist – and I’ve said it before at length – I mean it as a highly accurate descriptive term rather than merely as a rhetorical ad hominem.  And Barack Obama is a fascist BY OBAMA’S OWN PREVIOUS ADMISSIONS ABOUT WHAT HIS ACT ON FRIDAY CONSTITUTED when he set aside the separation of powers and imposed by “Führer-fiat” what the Congress had explicitly refused.

Liberal progressive legal expert Jonathan Turley (along with a number of other constitutional experts) had this to say about Obama’s action in setting aside the rule of law for his political expedience:

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama. In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist - is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.

We are watching the unravelling of America as Obama that if his presidency doesn’t succeed, America won’t succeed.

America is losing steam on all economic fronts as we speak.  Europe is falling apart at the seams.  The Middle East is going to hell.  Scandal after scandal is erupting that directly involved the White House.  And Barack Obama is doing more fundraisers than the last five presidents COMBINED.

America doesn’t matter to this Turd-in-Chief.  He’s willing to sell out American foreign policy to the Russians as long as they’ll help him win in November.  And given that we already can see right in front of our faces that Obama is a fascist dictator in his first term, there’s no telling what will happen if he gets a second term and is answerable to nobody and to nothing.

There is absolutely no question that the constant stream of top secret leaks are coming directly out of the White House and that vital secrets are being revealed as a means to create propaganda depicting Obama as a “tough” leader.  General Jack Keane said that the only times that America had ever suffered this much damage to its security was when traitors were selling secrets to our adversaries.  We are literally talking about treason.  

It is VERY possible and even probable that Obama as president declassified vital secrets such as the existence of SEAL Team 6, such as the details of the bin Laden raid and precisely what America found in the compound, such as the top secret operation known as Olympic Games and the computer virus known as Stuxnet, such as the drone missions, such as his use of a “kill list.”  Why would he do something that depraved?  Why, in order to sell long-term American security in exchange for short-term votes, that’s why.  Even Diane Feinstein has publicly stated that no nation will trust America for years to come as a result of these leaks, and it is a fact that intelligence operatives who have cooperated with America have been captured and killed or imprisoned, with far more of that to come.  If Obama declassified these and other secrets that have been leaked in an avalanche unlike anything the American intelligence community has ever seen, Obama will have legalized treason.  As commander-in-chief, a president has the right to declassify secrets.  But no president in American history until Obama will have so despised America that he would see this nation burn if he doesn’t win his election.

Even the very left-leaning Daily Beast is outraged at our Traitor-in-Chief:

Last week, the Times ran two sensational front-page articles, one detailing the president’s personally administered list of terror suspects targeted for assassination—the so-called “kill list,”—the other a book excerpt about the origins of the cyberwarfare program, codenamed Olympic Games, out of which came the Stuxnet virus. Both pieces were widely seen as boosting the president’s credibility on national security just as the 2012 presidential race kicked into high gear. Both pieces cite anonymous current and former high-level officials in the administration. The White House has denied that the leaks were authorized, calling the suggestion “grossly irresponsible.” [...]

This is the nugget of the problem. If information is too dangerous to be public, it’s supposed to be classified. If it isn’t, then it isn’t—full stop. Information isn’t classified—at least it isn’t supposed to be—for political gain or to cover up wrongdoing, or so high-level government officials can unilaterally dole out secrets to their favorite reporters at elite media organizations, or so well-connected politicians can manage the news cycle, undermine enemies, or win allies.

Officially, there is no middle ground. Sadly, leaks out of the Obama administration are beginning to look like official policy. Days before the Stuxnet and kill-list stories in the Times, columnist Glen Greenwald highlighted administration leaks to Hollywood filmmakers for an upcoming production about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. This, amid the harshest crackdown on unauthorized leaks by any president ever—the Obama administration’s docket of six leak prosecutions under the Espionage Act dwarfs any previous administration’s persecution of loose-lipped officials.

One thing is obvious: Obama only goes after leakers who don’t politically benefit him.

Obama has a long history of personally demonizing people while doing the exact same thing that he demonized them for.  Think of Gitmo, when Obama demonized George Bush – only to keep Gitmo open himself in direct repudiation of his entire presidency by his very own rhetoric.  The same goes for the Patriot Act, for rendition, for military commissions, for domestic eavesdropping and for a long list of other issues.  The liberal New York Times literally accused Bush of “shredding the Constitution.”  Who is shredding it now by the very rhetoric of the left???  In the same way, it is none other than Barack Obama who has violated civil liberties in a manner that goes so far beyond anything that Bush ever did it is almost funny.  The very few liberals who are not abject moral hypocrites (eg., here and here) have pointed this fact out, but the vast majority of liberals who rabidly demonized Bush with froth drooling out of their mouths are nowhere to be seen now that the fascist in the Oval Office is the man they put in there.

Think of Obama’s demonization of Republicans being in the pockets of lobbyists and his lying promises that he would put an end to it.  In fact it’s worse under Obama than it has EVER been, and that according to the liberal Washington Post.  Obama demonized George Bush over the national debt and lied to the American people that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Instead the disgrace has given us more debt than all the previous presidents in history COMBINED.  Obama demonized Bush as irresponsible and even unpatriotic for his debt; now Obama’s debt dwarfs Bush’s.  Obama demonized George Bush as a failed leader for needing to raise the debt ceiling and voting against that debt ceiling himself; now Obama has THREE TIMES raised the debt ceiling to levels never seen in the history of the human race and demonizing Republicans who didn’t want to vote for it.

All again pointing out the fact that Obama leaking secrets that politically benefit him while at the same time attacking anybody who leaks secrets that doesn’t politically benefit him is par for the course.  Which reminds me of the fact that this man who is supposed to be working so hard to get America back on track recently completely his 100th round of golf – equivalent to taking four months off his job.

Barack Obama is a cynical liar and hypocrite without shame, without honor and without decency.  And that is simply a fact of history.  And so are his followers who will vote for him no matter what he does no matter how offended they were when the other side did a small fraction of what Obama has done.

That’s actually a big part of the reason Obama is pushing all of these leaks as a means of ”boosting the president’s credibility on national security.”  He KNOWS that liberals are abject moral hypocrites who will vote for him even if he is murdering American citizens without any kind of trial with predator drones and even if he is personally selecting which terrorists live and which ones die with his political adviser David Axelrod sitting with him.  Obama knows that the left will vote for him no matter what he does because he knows that they are as much fascist hypocrites as he is.  It’s the independents he wants – and these people WANT the president to be like Bush and be tough on terrorist murderers.

And if Obama has to betray America to sell himself to these independents, what is that to him???  Obama is a man who never saw himself as an American to begin with.

Barack Obama is THE most evil man who has ever contaminated the White House.  I saw that in what might even be called a vision the moment I first saw those Jeremiah Wright tapes and realized that Obama had sat for twenty-plus years under the “spiritual leader” and “mentor” Jeremiah Wright and remained for sermon after sermon of this anti-American and racist Marxist.  In my very first political article ever, I betrayed both my naivety and understanding all at once.  I predicted that Democrats would rightly reject Barack Obama in favor of Hillary Clinton due to the Jeremiah Wright revelations; I was wrong because I simply failed to understand how truly depraved Democrats and the Democrat Party had become.  But I also rightly perceived the evil of Obama.  My last words in that very first article of mine were:

If Senator Barack Obama’s presidential aspirations aren’t done for now, they should be. If he wins the nomination, I have every confidence that he will be destroyed in the general election when the Wright issue comes back with a vengeance. Until this week, I believed Senator Hillary Clinton was a far more beatable candidate than Senator Barack Obama. I was wrong.

Barack Obama is far more wrong for sitting under the teaching of such a hateful man for so many years. In doing so, the most liberal Senator in the nation underscores just how extreme his views actually are, and just how dangerous a Barack Obama presidency would be for this country.

Republicans would have had to nominate David Duke for president to even BEGIN to come close to what Democrats did in nominating Barack Obama.  And this nation was asking for it and has dearly paid for it ever since that evil day on June 3, 2008 when he received enough delegates to win the Democrat nomination prior to the economic crash. 

This is God damned America until Obama is thrown out of office.  Now that we’ve seen this failure in action for four years, America has no excuse.  The soul of this nation is at stake in November, and America needs God far, far more than God needs America.

Obama The Fascist Bringing America Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism

According to the American Constitution, power is shared by three separate branches of government that have different functions and were by design intended to frustrate one another’s ambitions.

But we now have a president who refuses to accept the constitutional mandate of the other two branches; Obama wants to be America’s first “Dear Leader.”

Consider that recently Barack Obama was demonizing Congress and literally saying, “I’ll impose my will on America without you.”

The following is not from some “right-wing ‘pseudo’ news source”; it is from the reliably leftist Atlantic:

Obama Rolls Out a Jobs Plan That Doesn’t Need Congress
By Fawn Johnson
Sep 1 2011, 8:56 AM ET306
The president has asked federal agencies to find solutions on their own. His message to lawmakers: We can do this without you.

President Obama is either fed up with Congress or he’s testing his own administration’s mettle. Or both.
 
On Wednesday, Obama took a now-familiar path in adopting a program–this time a jobs and infrastructure effort–that can happen entirely within his domain. Obama directed several federal agencies to identify “high-impact, job-creating infrastructure projects” that can be expedited now, without congressional approval.

One week before he will make a major address to Congress on jobs, Obama is making sure they know he plans to move forward without them. The president has also directed the Education Department to come up with a “Plan B” updating the 2001 No Child Left Behind law in the absence of congressional action. The message to Congress is clear: Do your work or we’ll do it for you.

On all sorts of fronts, Obama has blatantly ignored the Constitution as he has made one power grab after another.  The Foundry provides one example:

“Congress hasn’t been able to do it, so I will.” With this bold statement, President Obama announced last Friday that he would unilaterally replace the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) with conditions-based waivers. Obama’s waiver strategy is an alarming misuse of executive power that undermines the separation of powers.

In and of itself, the use of waivers is not unconstitutional. Congress has the authority to create laws with provisions that allow the President to grant exceptions in certain circumstances. NCLB does, for instance, authorize the Secretary of Education to grant waivers to applicants that meet certain criteria. However, waivers are not written as blank checks of authority for the President to bypass Congress and enact new policy.

In this case, the President is using waivers to rewrite the law. The Obama waivers go far beyond the measures allowed by NCLB. To receive a waiver, states must agree to implement a new set of goals and programs determined not by Congress, but by the White House.

For months, President Obama and Congressional Republicans have disagreed on how to reform NCLB. There are major problems with the law’s intrusive regulations. But the Obama administration decided that the “do-nothing Congress” could not be trusted to act and so the President is acting without them.

But co-opting the waiver power to craft a new laws designed in and implemented by the White House is a departure from the constitutional separation of powers.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to craft the nation’s laws and to reform those laws when they do not work as planned. The executive is authorized to carry out the laws passed by Congress. But this can be quite bothersome for a President if Congress doesn’t see things his way.

According to the New York Times:

HONOLULU — President Obama is heading into his re-election campaign with plans to step up his offensive against an unpopular Congress, concluding that he cannot pass any major legislation in 2012 because of Republican hostility toward his agenda.

[...]

However the White House chooses to frame Mr. Obama’s strategy, it amounts to a wholesale makeover of the young senator who won the presidency in 2008 by promising to change the culture of Washington, rise above the partisan fray and seek compromises.

After three years in office, Mr. Obama is gambling on a go-it-alone approach. In the coming weeks, he will further showcase measures he is taking on his own to revive the economy, Mr. Earnest said, declining to give details.

I can’t go on without pointing out that what Obama is doing is hardly merely a “wholesale makeover”; it is a fundamental lie and betrayal of the American people in the form of a willfully broken “core promise” Obama made to them.  Barack  Obama is a liar.  He is a genuinely evil man.  He despises this nation and the more sacred the institution, the more he despises it.

The Associated Press points to the incredibly cynical Obama strategy and the depraved and self-centered partisan motivation behind it:

Posted: 11:01 AM Dec 31, 2011
Obama to press ahead without Congress
The Associated Press

President Barack Obama is entering his fourth year in office having calculated that he no longer needs Congress to promote his agenda and may even benefit in his re-election campaign if lawmakers take little action in 2012.

Devoid of any major policy pushes, much of the year will instead be focused on the biggest goal of all: winning a second term.

Obama has also recently ignored the Constitution and the Senate by making a NON-recess “recess appointment.”

That’s one branch of Congress the President of the United States no longer needs and feels free to demonize, ignore and usurp whenever it benefits him politically.

Here’s the other: The Supreme Court of the United States.

You should be familiar with Obama’s attitude toward the SCOTUS because it is still so fresh in the news.  But here are a few of my articles on the subject:

White House Explains Obama’s Fascist Supreme Court Gaffe: You’re Just Too Dumb To Understand Obama’s Brilliant Legal Mind

Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Reacts To Obama’s Fascist Statements Undermining The Constitution’s Separation Of Powers And Role Of ‘Unelected’ Judiciary

Would Conservative Court Striking Down ObamaCare Be ‘Judicial Activism’? Only According To Liberal Relativism

Fascist-In-Chief Obama Demonizes Supreme Court YET AGAIN (‘WAAAAH! They Won’t Let Me Have My ObamaCare! They’re Traitors To My Regime!!!’)

Scalia ‘Benchslaps’ ObamaCare Mouthpiece: ‘Those Cases Dealt With Commerce; THIS Case Is Aimed At People Who AREN’T Participating In Commerce (people without insurance)’

Left Shocked And Panicked That Supreme Court May Not Like ObamaCare Fascism

Key SCOTUS Vote Kennedy: ObamaCare ‘Changes The Relationship Of The Federal Government To The Individual In A Very Fundamental Way’

Obama literally tried to argue that the Supreme Court of the United States did not have the authority to overturn a law passed by a “strong majority of Congress” (how about the slimmest possible majority rammed through in the dead of night with no one even having the opportunity to read the damn bill?) in spite of the obvious historical fact that the Supreme Court has had that declared authority since 1803 with Marbury v. Madison.  Obama tried to argue such an overturn would be “unprecedented” in spite of the glaring historical fact that not only has the SCOTUS overturned MANY laws passed by Congress, but has even overturned two laws that used the “commerce clause” as their justification for unconstitutional mandates since 1999.  And on top of that, Obama argued that ObamaCare shouldn’t be overturned whether it is unconstitutional or not because it does a good thing and the ends ought to justify the means.  Which is to say that the president was demonizing the Supreme Court for “judicial activism” even as he demands that the SCOTUS practice judicial activism.

With that preamble that serves to point out that everything that is cited in the following article is simply factually true, here it is:

Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism’?
Posted 04/05/2012 06:34 PM ET

Power: Given the president’s end-runs around Congress, his shredding of the Constitution and his assault on the authority of the courts, a second term free of electoral restraints may be a frightening prospect.
 
Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News commentator, raised the question on Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” show Wednesday. And while it seems fanciful in light of the safeguards built into our democracy and its institutions, it recognizes the threat posed by the president’s policies and actions if left unchecked.
 
“I think the president is dangerously close to totalitarianism,” Napolitano opined. “A few months ago he was saying, ‘The Congress doesn’t count, the Congress doesn’t mean anything, I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation.’
 
“Now he’s basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they think. They can’t review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing.”
 
Some would consider this borderline hyperbole. But this is, after all, a president who has said he can’t wait for Congress to act and will govern by executive order and regulations if necessary. He has questioned the Supreme Court’s “unprecedented” review of ObamaCare.
 
As the Department of Justice turned in its homework assignment on the judicial review of the constitutionality of laws, it was a reminder that this is an administration that’s already been found in contempt of court by a federal judge.
 
In February of last year, Louisiana Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman found that the Obama Interior Department was in contempt of his ruling that the offshore oil drilling moratorium, imposed by the administration in 2010, was unconstitutional. After Feldman struck down the initial drilling ban, the Interior Department simply established a second ban that was virtually identical.
 
Judge Feldman was not amused. “Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in his ruling. “Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second moratorium … provides this court with clear and convincing evidence of its contempt.”

As for Congress, we see the same dismissive tone. “Whenever Congress refuses to act, Joe and I, we’re going to act,” Obama said in February at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, with Vice President Joe Biden off to the side. “In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.”
 
When cap-and-trade failed to make it through Congress — a Congress that had specifically denied the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate so-called greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act — the Obama administration, with the support of the usual suspects in the media, went ahead, unleashing the EPA to make war on coal and other fossil fuels.
 
In April 2009, Time Magazine ran a piece titled, “EPA’S CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress’ Head.” The New York Times editorialized that if Congress fails to ram through cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA should ram it down our throats. And that’s what the administration has been doing.
 
The whole thrust has been the acquisition of power by the federal government centered on the White House. That is the theme of ObamaCare, which is not about health care but about making people as dependent on government benevolence, if we can use that word, as possible.
 
Those who stand in the way, whether it be the Supreme Court, Congress or institutions such as the Catholic Church, are to be either ignored when possible, or intimidated and bullied into silence and acquiescence in the proud tradition of President Obama’s mentor, Saul Alinsky.
 
What is at stake here is freedom and whether we shall be governed by a document that begins with “we the people” or whether we shall be ruled, in totalitarian fashion, by a bill that says “the secretary shall determine” what our rights and freedoms are.

The Constitution and the American way of life is teetering on the edge of a cliff.  And Barack Hussein is doing everything he can to push it over and finish the job of “fundamentally transforming America.”

Consider just how godawful Obama’s ObamaCare abuse of power truly is:

Another $17 trillion surprise found in Obamacare
By Neil Munro – The Daily Caller | The Daily Caller – Fri, Mar 30, 2012.

Senate Republican staffers continue to look though the 2010 Obamacare law to see what’s in it, and their latest discovery is a massive $17 trillion funding gap.
 
“The more we learn about the bill, the more we learn it is even more unaffordable than was suspected,” said Ala. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Republican’s budget chief in the Senate.
 
“The bill has to be removed from the books because we don’t have the money,” he said.
 
The hidden shortfall between new Obamacare spending and new Obamacare taxes was revealed just after Supreme Court judges grilled the law’s supporters about its compliance with the constitution’s limits on government activity. If the judges don’t strike down the law, Obamacare will force taxpayers find another $17 trillion to pay for Obamacare’s spending.
 
The $17 trillion in extra promises was revealed by an analysis of the law’s long-term requirements. The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leaves taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion over the next 75 years.
 
The federal government already owes $15 trillion in debt, including $5 trillion in funds borrowed during Obama’s term.
 
That $82 billion in unfunded future expenses is more more than five years of wealth generated by the United States, which now produces just over $15 trillion of value per year.
 
The $82 trillion funding gap is equal to 28 years of the the current federal budget, which was $3.36 trillion for 2011.
 
The new $17 trillion funding gap is five times the current federal budget.
 
Currently, the Social Security system is $7 trillion in debt over the next 65 years. Medicare will eat up $38 trillion in future taxes, and Medicaid will consume another $2o trillion of the taxpayer’s wealth, according to estimates prepared by the actuarial office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
 
The short-term cost of the Obamacare law is $2.6 trillion, almost triple the $900 billion cost promised by Obama and his Democratic allies, said Sessions.
 
The extra $17 billion gap was discovered by applying standard CMMS estimates and models to the law’s spending obligations, Sessions said.
 
For example, Session’s examination of Obamacare’s “premium support” program shows a funding gap $12 billion wider that predicted.
 
The same review also showed the Obamacare law added another $5 trillion in unfunded obligations for the Medicaid program.
 
“President Obama told the American people that his health law would cost $900 billion over ten years and that it would not add ‘one dime’ to the debt… this health law adds an entirely new obligation—one we cannot pay for—and puts the entire financing of the United States government in jeopardy,” Sessions said in a floor speech.
 
“We don’t have the money… We have to reduce the [obligations] that we have.”

Remember what Nancy Pelosi infamously said as Speaker of the House of Representatives?  “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Fascists frankly don’t give a damn about anything but naked power-grabs.

Either Obama wins and America dies or America wins and Obama is removed from office.  It’s that simple.

I wrote an article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist” a full year ago.  And he has done so many vile and un-American things in his God damn America since then it is unreal.

Fascist-In-Chief Obama Demonizes Supreme Court YET AGAIN (‘WAAAAH! They Won’t Let Me Have My ObamaCare! They’re Traitors To My Regime!!!’)

If the Supreme Court votes against ObamaCare, it is an illegitimate body of unelected conservative hacks; but if the same Supreme Court supports ObamaCare, then it is forever validated and the ruling should be set in stone.

If the American people weren’t degenerating into a nation of dumbasses, then they would frankly rise up and demand that Barack Obama be impeached and removed from office  for his fascist attempt to usurp the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Ostensibly the Supreme Court is supposed to be above and beyond the realm of politics.  As we know, that clearly isn’t true given the fact that political presidents get to nominate judicial appointees and a political Senate gets to exercise its role of “advise and consent.”  And as we know, sometimes there are more liberal justices on the court and sometimes there are more conservatives on the court.  And as we know, the last time a president attempted to delegitimize and stack a Supreme Court, it was a damn Democrat then, too.

Barack Obama is beneath nothing; which is why he has now repeatedly politically attacked the Supreme Court of the United States.

Apparently Obama got a secret phone call tipping him off that the Supreme Court decided to protect the last tiny shred that was left of the Constitution.

April 02, 2012
Obama Takes Aim at Supreme Court, Calls Them ‘Unelected Group of People’

Previously, Obama invited the Supreme Court to attend his State of the Union speech just so he could demonize them over the Court’s protecting 1st Amendment guaranteed speech in their Citizens United decision:

Somehow the “constitutional scholar” who taught at an elite university fails to understand that a bill being passed – particularly a bill being passed with basically no Republican votes whatsoever – in absolutely no way makes it “constitutional.”  It wasn’t very long ago that Obama sicked his attorney general on a duly and lawfully passed law in the state of Arizona.  It wasn’t very long ago that the California voters passed by a substantial majority Proposition 8, only to be shot down by a single judge who then quickly retired so he could be beyond the reach of the people.  And Obama cheerleaded those decisions.  And the US Congress does not rise above the law any more than the states or the people do, Barry Hussein.

And how many times did Republican presidents publicly demonize the Supreme Court in open contempt for the constitutional separation of powers???  That’s right, just like what Obama is: ZERO!!!  Because that’s a loathsome act that only an abject disgrace to the presidency would sink to.

Hint: Obama has picked two Supreme Court Justices (Kagan and Sotomayor) himself  for this “unelected body.”  They are both clearly illegitimate according to Obama’s own attack.

There had been a long precedent of Supreme Court justices attending the speech as a symbol of the three branches of government being united together under a common Constitution.  But Obama’s demagoguery pretty much put the kibosh on that.  Supreme Court justices risk being singled out and attacked if they attend such a politicized event.

Please remember that if the Supreme Court decision goes in Obama’s favor, the Court will be every bit as “unelected” as if it had ruled against Obama, and it will be every bit as illegitimate.

Please also remember that the murder of innocent babies is also illegitimate.  The difference between Republican conservatives and Democrat fascists is that the former respect the rule of law even when they firmly believe the law is wrong.  Democrats take to the street and violently riot as we have seen them do with the fascist Occupy movement and very recently with the Trayvon Martin episode.  If Democrats can’t make the laws and then shove those laws down other peoples’ throats, they don’t believe they should be accountable to it in any way, shape or form.

And please remember that the very Constitution itself is illegitimate according to Obama.  After all, it was that document that Obama decried when he attacked the Court as “unelected.”

Mind you, he’s no different in that view than pretty much any other liberal ideologue - as documented recently by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s pissing on the Constitution.

Obama said:

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

Let’s also not forget this Hypocrite-in-Chief has now repeatedly used the power of his courts to undermine the DULY PASSED LAWS OF NUMEROUS STATES.  Let’s not forget how Obama trampled all over the Constitution when he made recess appointments while the Senate was STILL IN SESSION.  Let’s not forget how Obama spoke to a racist Hispanic “rights” group called “La Raza” (“the race”) while they were asking him to unilaterally stop deportation proceedings against illegals. Obama said:

“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

Let’s not forget that Obama did precisely what he himself had just called un-American, undemocratic and unconstitutional when he essentially pardoned illegal immigrants who had already been caught and were awaiting deportation.

Let’s not forget that this is THE most unconstitutional presidency in the history of America.

It’s not the Supreme Court that is invalid: it is the president and the presidency of the United States that is invalid. 

And what do you expect in God damn America???

Obama Judge Says Americans Have The Right To Keep Arms, BUT NOT TO BEAR THEM As The Constitution Says

Okay.  You can keep arms.  As long as you never get to touch them.  See how the left is willing to compromise when it comes to your “constitutional protections”?

Oops: Obama judicial appointee says we have right to keep arms, but not to bear them
By AWR Hawkins, Ph.D. Published: 10:58 AM 02/13/2012 | Updated: 2:02 PM 02/13/2012

When Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), spoke at CPAC on February 10th, he predicted that if Barack Obama wins a second term it will usher in an all-out attack on the Second Amendment. In so many words, he said the same people who brought us Fast and Furious, “a criminal enterprise” for which there has yet to be prosecutions, will use four more years to gut constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms. And anyone who wonders what this assault on the Second Amendment might look like need look no further than Illinois, where a judge that President Obama appointed has just ruled that we have the right to keep arms, but not to bear them.

That’s not a typo. Rather, it’s an unbelievable decision recently delivered by U.S. Judge Sue Myerscough, in a challenge which the Second Amendment Foundation filed against Illinois’s ongoing prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in that state. Said Myerscough, in rendering her decision: “[Although the] plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public … [the] Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.”

This is troubling for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Myerscough has completely disregarded the fact that our natural, God-given rights are not subject to court approval for viability. Rather, our Founding Fathers used the Bill of Rights to build a hedge of protection around those rights with which we were endowed by our Creator. And one of those rights was the right to self-defense, and therefore the right not only to keep but also to bear the arms necessary to defend ourselves. On this point, the language of the Second Amendment couldn’t be clearer: “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.” (Italics mine)

Moreover, in 2010, after the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against Chicago’s handgun ban in McDonald v. Chicago — a case which grew out of Chicago citizen Otis McDonald’s desire to be able to defend his life and property — the court ruled against the handgun ban, citing the fact that “self-defense is a basic right.” The court also pointed out that “self defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” (Italics in original)

Clearly, there is a chasm of understanding between the Founding Fathers and U.S. Judge Myerscough, for the Founding Fathers recognized that God endowed us with the right not only to keep arms but also to bear them. Likewise, there is a near-inexplicable gulf between the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision and the one Myerscough just handed down. For the Supreme Court understands that the inalienable right to self-defense — “a basic right” — is foundational to the Second Amendment while Myerscough believes arms are to be kept not borne (a decision which necessarily limits our ability to defend ourselves).

If Obama manages to get re-elected, be ready to see more of these Myerscough-like decisions come down the pike. Decisions where judges give lip service to the Second Amendment on the one hand, while stealthily undercutting it on the other. In doing this, Obama judicial appointees will only be following their master’s lead. (For it was Obama himself who, in 2008, told us he supported both the Second Amendment and gun bans like those we’ve seen the Supreme Court strike down in Chicago and Washington. D.C.)

AWR Hawkins is a conservative columnist who has written extensively on political issues for HumanEvents.com, Pajamas Media, Townhall.com, and Andrew Breitbart’s BigPeace.com, BigHollywood.com, BigGovernment.com, and BigJournalism.com. He holds a Ph.D. in U.S. military history from Texas Tech University, and was a visiting fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in the summer of 2010. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.

It’s an attack on the Constitution by Obama and his surrogate army of cockroaches, of course.

But given that liberal Supreme Court Justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg say that the Constitution is an outdated and irrelevant document in our time, it’s really no surprise that the Obama left would so flagrantly trample on the Constitution.

And let’s not forget that while Obama is indirectly doing everything he can to undermine our 2nd Amendment rights, he is also personally hard at work to destroy our 1st Amendment rights, too.

Obama Keeps Governing By Crisis; Used ‘Fast And Furious’ As Ploy To Take Away Our Right To Keep And Bear Arms

First of all, it is simply a fact that Barack Obama has been seeking to take away our constitutionally-guaranteed right to guns.

I pointed out in April of 2009 that Obama was using a crisis that we now know that HE CREATED to abolish guns.  What did I say back then???

So the obvious question is, why is the American media, and why are Democratic politicians, blaming America and blaming American guns for the problems in Mexico?

And the answer is as obvious as it is disturbing: because they despise the American Constitution, and in particular they despise the 2nd Amendment which guarantees the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Barack Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, is just one among many Democrats citing the situation in Mexico to impose gun controls in the United States. Fortunately, a small cadre of Democrats have joined Republicans in their opposition to using the lies over the deteriorating situation in Mexico to impose anti-Constitutional laws on American citizens.

We need to point the finger at Obama, at his attorney general, at his secretary of state, and at every other politician who is demagoguing and lying to take away our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms.

We have recently had a series of terrible mass murders involving guns, and many liberals will invariably cite these as proofs that we should take away gun rights from Americans. I know three things: 1) that the founding fathers guaranteed the right of citizens to keep guns as a deterrent against tyranny, and that – given the unprecedented power-grabbing of this government – this right is more crucial than ever; 2) that taking away guns from law-abiding citizens will merely ensure that only criminals have them to terrorize the innocent; and 3) that the unarmed victims of the shooting rampages wished they had weapons when the psychopaths came in shooting. Wishing that the psychopaths didn’t have guns is as much wishful thinking as wishing that there weren’t any psychopaths to begin with. In times of danger and uncertainty, Americans don’t need wishful thinking; they need the means to defend themselves and their homes and families.

Please also see my article here.

This was an Obama-regime manufactured crisis, we now know.  Barack Obama, Erick Holder and Hillary Clinton – among numerous other Democrats and members of the Obama administration – demonized gun dealers for selling guns that ended up going to Mexico.  But what we now know for a documented FACT is that the same people who were demonizing those gun dealers were in point of fact the ones who were making them do the very thing they subsequently demonized them for doing.

New e-mails: ATF officials discussed using Fast & Furious to … push gun control
posted at 4:15 pm on December 7, 2011 by Allahpundit

The logical extension of Rahm’s famous remark about never letting a serious crisis go to waste. If a grave problem is an opportunity to push your agenda, imagine how much farther you can push it by making the problem graver.

Another F&F bombshell from CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson:

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”

Follow the link and read the e-mails from a participating gun dealer to the ATF asking for a letter affirming that he was only selling these weapons at the agency’s behest. He was worried that the sales were shady and wanted legal cover in case the bureau later turned around and decided that the dealers were “irresponsible” or whatever in making the sales — which was awfully prescient given the ATF’s subsequent political opportunism. But then, none of this is surprising: Congressional Democrats and even Eric Holder himself have already used F&F as a pretext to call for more gun control. I thought the sleaziest bit of White House scandal spin we’d see this year was the Energy Department asking Solyndra to hold off on layoffs until after election day in 2010. Nope: Per the new F&F e-mails, they’re actually using their own scandals now as a pretext for greater regulation. Says Dan McLaughlin, “Obama Administration once again lives down to every paranoid caricature of itself.”

Darrell Issa said today he’s going to press Holder at tomorrow’s hearing to “clean house” at the DOJ. Chuck Grassley, for one, knows just where to start.

What does the 2nd Amendment say?

“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.”

Democrats – who frankly don’t give one flying damn about the Constitution – have fixated on the word “militia” and ignored the words “the people.”   They claim that only a “militia” can keep and bear arms.

But since the 2nd Amendment also clearly includes the words “the right of the people,” it seem obvious to me that we should take away other rights given to “the people” and only apply those rights to a militia, such as the right to peacebly assemble (we’ve already seen what damage liberals do when given such rights at the Occupy Movement disasters anyway, right?) or to petition the government for the redress of greivances (1st Amendment).  Or to have the right not to have their persons, papers and effects unreasonably searched (4th Amendment).  And of course I could go on.  Only militia members should get such rights.  Only THEY count as “the people” according to Democrats’ understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

Basically, Democrats should have all of their rights and freedoms denied to them, because if only a militia has the right to keep and bear arms, then only a damn militia has the right to do anything ELSE “the people” have a right to.

We could have a “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs and Burn Them Alive Act,” and then allow our rightwing militias to exercise that duty.  Because only such militias count as “the people” by the Democrats’ own dumbass reasoning, and it’s way past time we were finally consisitent, isn’t it???

Meanwhile this same son of a bitch who is trying to take away our 2nd Amendment rights is trying to take away our 1st Amendment rights even as he demands rights for militant homosexuals.

I am beyond sick of Obama and his “govern by crisis” fascism.

Jonah Goldberg nailed it in his Liberal Fascism, which was published before Obama took power and which describes his style of governance to a ‘T’:

“The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisis.  Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation.  Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.” — page 42

I am beyond sick of Obama creating one crisis after another as one after another of his policies totally fails, and then demanding that because of all the failures he’s created we should do even MORE to destroy our country.

This is and will continue to be God damn America until this weasel and everyone who thinks like him is out of our government for good.