Posts Tagged ‘guns’

Leland Yee Hypocrisy On Full Automatic: EVERY Democrat Is An Abject Hypocrite On Guns. THIS Is Why Founders Gave Us 2nd Amendment

March 31, 2014

Do you know why the founding fathers guaranteed the right of the people to be armed?  Because in their wisdom they they that THIS is what fascist Democrats are like.  It is THESE Democrats who are trying to take your guns away so that you cannot protect yourself from them and from their fascist policies.

My favorite quote this Democrat cockroach is this one:

The complaint says Yee described his approach to arms dealing as “agnostic.”

“People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don’t care. People need certain things,” Yee said, according to the complaint.

And, yeah.  People need certain things.  DEMOCRATS need certain things: they need to be able “to control the people” with blatantly fascist and blatantly unconstitutional policies to take over the government and disarm the American people so that they can do NOTHING to fight back against their coming Antichrist.

This story is totally amazing in its revelation as to how personally dishonest and hypocritical Democrats truly are:

State Sen. Leland Yee indicted on arms trafficking, corruption charges
By Josh Richman, Howard Mintz, Jessica Calefati and Robert Salonga Staff writers
Posted:   03/26/2014 08:23:21 AM PDT385 Comments | Updated:   a day ago

SAN FRANCISCO — In a stunning criminal complaint, State Sen. Leland Yee has been charged with conspiring to traffic in firearms and public corruption as part of a major FBI operation spanning the Bay Area, casting yet another cloud of corruption over the Democratic establishment in the Legislature and torpedoing Yee’s aspirations for statewide office.

Yee and an intermediary allegedly met repeatedly with an undercover FBI agent, soliciting campaign contributions in exchange for setting up a deal with international arms dealers.

At their first face-to-face meeting in January, “Senator Yee explained he has known the arms dealer for a number of years and has developed a close relationship with him,” an FBI affidavit says, noting Yee told the agent the arms dealer “has things that you guys want.”

Yee, D-San Francisco, highlights a series of arrests Wednesday morning that included infamous Chinatown gangster Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow, whose past includes a variety of charges including racketeering and drug crimes. Targets of the early-morning raids appeared in federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday afternoon.

A 137-page criminal complaint charges 26 people — including Yee and Chow — with a panoply of crimes, including firearms trafficking, money laundering, murder-for-hire, drug distribution, trafficking in contraband cigarettes, and honest services fraud.

Yee is charged with conspiracy to traffic in firearms without a license and to illegally import firearms, as well as six counts of scheming to defraud citizens of honest services. Each corruption count is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000, while the gun-trafficking count is punishable by up to five years and $250,000.

The charges are particularly shocking given that Yee has been among the state Senate’s most outspoken advocates both of gun control and of good-government initiatives.

“It seems like nobody knew this was coming, and everyone is astounded by the allegations,” said Corey Cook, director of the University of San Francisco’s Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good. “I’m just astonished… Political corruption is one thing, but this is a whole other level.”

San Francisco political consultant Keith Jackson, a former school-board president, allegedly was the link between Yee and Chow, who federal prosecutors say is the current “Dragonhead,” or leader, of the San Francisco-based Ghee Kung Tong organization, spelled in court documents as Chee Kung Tong.

Chow introduced an undercover agent who had infiltrated his organization to Jackson, who with his son, Brandon Jackson, and another man, Marlon Sullivan, allegedly sold the agent various guns and bulletproof vests. The Jacksons and Sullivan also allegedly conspired in a murder-for-hire scheme requested by the undercover agent, as well as other crimes including sale of stolen credit cards and purchase of cocaine.

An FBI affidavit says Keith Jackson starting last August told one of the undercover agents that Yee was “associated with a person who was an international arms dealer who was shipping large stockpiles of weapons into a foreign country.” At later meetings in August and December, Jackson said Yee had agreed to help set up an arms deal; the agent first gave Jackson $1,000 cash for his help, and later cut a $5,000 check from a bogus company to Yee’s campaign.

Finally, Yee and Keith Jackson met Jan. 22 with the undercover agents at a San Francisco coffee shop, the affidavit says.

“According to Senator Yee, the arms dealer is ‘low-key’ and has been trafficking weapons for quite a while,” the document says. “According to Senator Yee, the arms dealer sourced the weapons from Russia.”

“Senator Yee said of the arms dealer, ‘He’s going to rely on me, because ultimately it’s going to be me,’” the affidavit says. “Senator Yee said, ‘I know what he could do. I have seen what he has done in the past on other products and this guy has the relationships.’ Senator Yee emphasized that the arms dealer took baby steps and was very careful.”

Yee told the agent that the arms dealer had contacts in Russia, Ukraine, Boston and Southern California, the affidavit says, and the agent asked Yee for a commitment. “Senator Yee said, ‘Do I think we can make some money? I think we can make some money. Do I think we can get the goods? I think we can get the goods.’”

The agent told Yee and Jackson he wanted any type of shoulder-fired weapons or missiles, the affidavit says; Yee asked whether he wanted automatic weapons, and the agent confirmed he did — about $500,000 to $2.5 million worth. Yee told the agent “he saw their relationship as tremendously beneficial,” the affidavit says, adding he wanted the agent and Jackson to make all the money because he didn’t want to go to jail. The agent replied he would pay Yee and Jackson hundreds of thousands of dollars over time, and more immediately would pay $100,000 for the first arms deal. “Senator Yee said ‘Alright, take care.’ The meeting ended.”

But by their next meeting on Feb. 25, Yee had grown spooked by the federal indictment of state Sen. Ronald Calderon; the two shared a desk on the Senate floor. “Senator Yee thought the other state Senator was a classic example of involving too many people in illegal activities,” the affidavit says. Pressured by the agent to arrange an arms deal, Yee encouraged the agent “to start off doing small deals with the arms dealer” with Yee as an intermediary.

“Senator Yee stated he was unhappy with his life and said, ‘There is a part of me that wants to be like you. You know how I’m going to be like you? Just be a free-agent out there,’” the affidavit says, adding Yee told the agent “he wanted to hide out in the Philippines.”

The agent met again with Yee on March 5, and Yee discussed a new potential arms dealer named Wilson Lim. The agent said his family in New Jersey wanted to support Yee’s bid for Secretary of State, to which Yee responded, “I can be of help to you for 10 months or I can be of help to you for eight years. I think eight years is a lot better than 10 months.”

Yee discussed specific locations in the Philippines and Florida that might be ideal for moving the guns, which he said would include M-16-type automatic rifles.

Yee, Jackson, Lim and the agent met again March 11; Yee said the arms deal wouldn’t be done until after this year’s elections. “Senator Yee explained, ‘Once things start to move, it’s going to attract attention. We just got to be extra-extra careful.’”

Finally, they all met March 14, where they discussed how they would break up the undercover agent’s money into legitimate campaign donations. The agent told Yee he was prepared to give Yee $6,800 cash and a list of weapons he wanted; Yee replied “he would take the cash and have one of his children write out a check.”

Yee ran for mayor of San Francisco in 2011 and now is a candidate for California Secretary of State. But the criminal complaint likely ruins his candidacy and further threatens Democrats’ efforts to restore their state Senate supermajority that already has been broken by two other lawmakers’ paid leaves of absence to deal with criminal charges.

Keith Jackson and Yee from 2011 until now allegedly solicited donations from undercover FBI agents in exchange for official acts and conspired to traffic firearms, the complaint says. Starting in May 2011, Jackson solicited an undercover FBI agent to give money to Yee’s mayoral campaign, including asking the agent for donations in excess of the $500 individual donation limit. The agent refused, but introduced Jackson and Yee to a purported business associate — another undercover agent — who they also solicited for at least $5,000.

Yee’s mayoral election loss left him with $70,000 in debt, the complaint says, and so Yee and Jackson allegedly agreed that Yee would call a California Department of Public Health manager in support of a contract under consideration with the second undercover agent’s purported client, and would provide an official letter of support for the client, in exchange for a $10,000 campaign donation. Yee allegedly made the call on Oct. 18, 2012, and provided the letter on or about Jan. 13, 2013; Jackson allegedly accepted the $10,000 cash donation on Nov. 19, 2012.

Yee had yet to appear before the judge as of 3 p.m., but earlier in the afternoon the judge ordered Chow be held without bail. Government attorneys called him a flight risk and danger to the community, citing his criminal history. Chow’s lawyer objected saying that Chow has been fighting with immigration authorities to stay in the United States.

Chow is not a U.S. citizen. He is being represented by public defender and lives in San Francisco with his girlfriend. He has been on electronic monitoring since he’s been out of prison and seeking legal immigration stays, even during the current investigation.

FBI agents and local police served arrest and search warrants throughout the Bay Area, with agents seen in San Francisco and San Mateo and Yee’s Capitol office in Sacramento. One of the searches was at the San Francisco Chinatown office of the Ghee Kung Tong Free Masons and is linked to Chow’s arrest.

Outside that building on Spofford Street — a Chinatown alley between Clay and Washington streets — FBI Special Agent Michael Gimbel would say only that “the FBI is executing numerous search warrants around the Bay Area.”

San Francisco firefighters carried a heavy rotary saw into the building late Wednesday morning; neighbors said they believe there’s a safe inside the building. Federal agents removed about 10 boxes of documents and several bags of material from the building at about 12:30 p.m., and the FBI left the scene soon after that.

Federal law enforcement officials have been chasing Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow for decades, branding him one of the longtime Bay Area leaders of a Hong Kong-based criminal syndicate called the Wo Hop To. Chow’s criminal rap sheet dates back to 1978, and includes federal racketeering indictments that have alleged attempted murder, murder-for-hire, gun trafficking and other crimes.

Chow was originally indicted in a federal racketeering probe that targeted the alleged leader of the Chinatown gang, Peter Chong. At one point, Chow cooperated with federal law enforcement officials against Chong, who had fled to Hong Kong after being indicted on racketeering charges but was later extradited and convicted in San Francisco federal court in a case marred by setbacks and delays. Chow’s original 1995 sentence of 24 years was cut to 11 years as a result of his cooperation, and he has been out of prison for 10 years.

During an afternoon press conference, State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said “Leland Yee should leave the Senate and leave it now.”

Yee represents San Francisco and a portion of San Mateo County. Before becoming the first Chinese-American ever elected to the state Senate in 2006, Yee was an assemblyman from 2002 to 2006; a San Francisco supervisor from 1997 to 2002; and had been a member and president of the San Francisco Unified School District board. While in the Assembly, he was the first Asian-American to be named Speaker pro Tempore, essentially making him the chamber’s second-most-powerful Democrat.

That power would have been exercised this year in Yee’s run for Secretary of State against state Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Van Nuys; Democrat Derek Cressman; Republican Pete Peterson; and nonpartisan Dan Schnur.

Upon pulling his candidacy papers in February, Yee issued a news release saying it was time for a Secretary of State “who will expand access to the ballot box, make our government more transparent, and strengthen California’s democracy.”

“I am committed to empowering Californians so that they can guarantee fair elections, expose special interests and prevent corruption, because it’s your California,” Yee said at the time.

Yee campaign spokesman Joaquin Ross declined to comment Wednesday morning, saying he would have to call back.

Yee is the state’s third Democratic legislator recently targeted in corruption allegations. In February, State Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, surrendered to authorities after being indicted on bribery charges. In January, state Sen. Roderick Wright, D-Inglewood, was convicted of voter fraud and perjury stemming from a 2010 indictment.

Cressman, who until last June was vice president of the nonpartisan government watchdog group Common Cause, Wednesday morning said that charges against Yee must be “a wake-up call” given other Senate Democrats’ legal problems.

“We are clearly beyond the point of looking at one bad apple and instead looking at a corrupt institution in the California Senate,” Cressman said. “The constant begging for campaign cash clearly has a corrosive effect on a person’s soul and the only solution is to get big money out of our politics once and for all.”

Schnur, a longtime GOP campaign strategist who more recently served as chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission and directed the University of Southern California’s Unruh Institute of Politics, said news of Yee’s arrest “is yet another in a series of reminders of why Californians have so little trust in their elected officials.

“My hope is that this will prompt the Legislature to take much more aggressive and meaningful action to fix a broken political system than they have been willing to do to date,” Schnur said.

Yee emigrated to San Francisco from China at age 3; his father was a veteran who served in the Army and the merchant marine. Yee earned a bachelor’s degree from UC Berkeley; a master’s degree from San Francisco State University; and a doctorate in child psychology at the University of Hawaii. He and his wife, Maxine, have four children.

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, served with Yee for several years in the Legislature but was never close to him. She said the senator is innocent until proven guilty but called the allegations “regrettable.”

“It’s always sad for all of us in the profession,” said Speier, “to see individuals who lose sight of what the public trust is all about.”

Check back later for updates to this story.

Staff writers Thomas Peele, Mark Gomez and Erin Ivie contributed to this report.


excerpts from criminal complaint

Now, I said something in your face about Democrats: I said EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is a Yee.  Why do I say that?

Here are people who live in comfy areas surrounded by armed security trying incessantly to disarm people who don’t have anyone or anything to protect them, their families and their property other than the guns that the Constitution guarantees them to keep and to bear “without being infringed.”

Obama wants to take away YOUR family’s right to protection while HIS family is constantly protected by his armed-to-the-teeth Secret Service.  And that is the same across the board for every single elected Democrat official.

Every elected Democrat is protected by armed security.  Why can’t YOU be???

Why does the State get to arm itself to the teeth while they strip you of your rights to protect yourself, your family, your home and your property???

Can you trust a Congress full of Leland Lees???

Democrats are brutally dishonest people who have now murdered more than five times more human beings than Hitler murdered in the Holocaust who keep saying, Trust us.”

The 2nd Amendment was a reaction against government tyranny.  It was the founding father’s way of seeing to it that the government would always fear its people so its people would never have to fear their government.  You can look around now and ask yourself if you fear the government of if the government fears you.  More than ever before in the history of this republic, the government is an instrument of naked force.  If you’re not a fool, the former is true; if you are a fool, you foolishly trust in the latter.

I’m saying it again: ultimately Democrats will win and win big.  I know that because it’s what the Bible teaches: the Antichrist is coming and the Democrats will prepare his way by disarming America from any and all ability to resist him.

Obama’s Visit To Hollywood Dream Works Shows That His Dream Doesn’t WORK

November 29, 2013

So Obama goes to überliberal Hollywood, home of the überrich white hypocrites who get paid millions, shirk on their taxes, take every tax dodge known to man on the taxes they DO bother to pay, while self-righteously declaring that the Middle Class should suck it up and render to Obama what is due to him (i.e. everything, because of course we owe everything to Obama and his big government State).  And the Los Angeles Times celebrates the moment with its title, “Obama visits DreamWorks, calls Hollywood a ‘bright spot’ of economy.”

Mind you, these are the people who make movie after movie making themselves rich glorifying gun violence only to tell us that we have to give up our guns - the same guns that Hollywood liberals and their Hollywood-Liberal-in-Chief rely upon to protect themselves while doing every damn thing they can to deny that protection to everyone else.

Which is why examples of Hollywood hypocrisy abound.  And so:

The American Federation of Musicians is fighting mad at their Hollywood paymasters. What could separate these two institutions of liberalism? Cash, of course. AFM is upset that Marvel’s Iron Man 3 decided to go abroad to use foreign musicians for cheap. John Acosta, vice president of AFM Local 47, summed up the case against Marvel: “Marvel is unfair to musicians because they take tax breaks from states but when it comes to doing a score for their movies, they outsource the work overseas. We’ve been protesting and raising the alarm about this over two years since Iron Man 1 and we feel those jobs belong in the US.”

For years, individual states have been reaching out to the film industry in an attempt to woo Hollywood dollars. Recognizing the business-hating climate of Los Angeles, even liberal governors are trying to outcompete the Hollywood locals by handing out tax breaks and incentives

To be a liberal is to be a hypocrite who says, “What I want to impose upon thee is not good for me.”  So I’ll follow the example of my hypocrite Democrat Party and pass a “health care reform” law that screws everybody else but vote myself safe from it’s grasp.

But there was this admission buried in the back of the LA Times article even as it attempted to glorify President False Messiah:

Obama’s visit and upbeat message about the entertainment industry come at a  time of widespread anxiety among the middle-class crew members in Southern  California who work behind the scenes on films and TV shows.

Many have seen job  opportunities and incomes dwindle as work has migrated to other  states and countries that offer film productions tax breaks and incentives better than  those available in California.

“Some indicators suggest that activity in the entertainment industry is up,  but that has not translated into jobs here in California,” said Robert Kleinhenz, chief economist with the Los Angeles  County Economic Development Corp. “In fact, the number of industry-related jobs  locally and in California has shown little improvement since the recession, even  as industry employment nationally has increased modestly over the past couple of  years.”

More than 50 visual effects workers held a rally outside the studio to call  attention to the plight of California’s visual effects industry, which has been  hard-hit by layoffs, foreign subsidies and the outsourcing of jobs.

DreamWorks itself, which employs 2,200 people, laid off about 350 employees  earlier this year after a decision to shelve production of the movie “Me and My  Shadow,” but that layoff was not tied to outsourcing.

“This is not an attack on DreamWorks Animation or Obama, but we do not have  jobs coming to us. They are all going to other countries,” said Tom Capizzi, a  longtime visual effects employee who in February lost his job at Rhythm &  Hues. “It’s having a huge impact on the workers of Los Angeles.”

Obama was in L.A. on the last leg of a three-day West Coast tour to raise  money for Democratic House and Senate candidates. His itinerary included two fundraisers Monday night, one at the home  of athlete and entrepreneur Magic  Johnson and another at the home of Hollywood mogul Haim Saban, who is  chairman of Spanish-language channel Univision  Communications Inc. On Tuesday morning, the president attended a Democratic  fundraiser at the Hancock Park home of Marta Kauffman, co-creator of the  television show “Friends.”

What happens when a socialist president imposes high taxes?  Hollywood liberals put their money in foreign projects so they won’t have to pay out their wazoos, that’s what happens.

It’s only wrong when the Koch brothers do it, though, in the minds of sanctimonious, self-righteous, pathologically hypocritical liberals.

Liberal-dominated California is too morally stupid to ever understand that high taxes equal low growth and low growth equals no damn jobs.

That’s the beauty of ObamaCare right now: all the quintessentially self-centered liberals who were fine with somebody ELSE getting royally screwed are now appalled – APPALLED! – that they’re the ones getting screwed, too.

Liberal labor unions are the worst (because they’re the most liberal, and the more liberal you are, the more despicable and depraved a human being you are): they are beyond outraged that they would have to suffer the results of their own damn FASCISM that they worked so hard to impose on everyone else.  How DARE you not exempt them???

Every liberal who votes that SOMEBODY ELSE pay higher taxes is nothing more than a hypocrite who is willing to undermine American productivity so they can feel warm inside.  They would do better to just pee in their pants instead; that way they can have all the feeling of “warmth” they want without inflicting their childish stupidity on everybody else.

If you want an industry to be able to succeed, LOWER THEIR DAMN TAXES so they can actually keep their profits.  If you want the American people to be allowed to prosper, LOWER THEIR DAMN TAXES.

It is so damn simple: Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.

Probation Officers’ Union Chief Demands Officers Do Their Surprise Visits To Criminals Without Guns. Officers Say Are You CRAZY?

August 22, 2013

Here’s an interesting story.  Basically, the chief of the probation officers’ union in Los Angeles County expects parole officers to do surprise visits of the 10,000 inmates that liberals released because liberals are evil and liberalism is the most suicidal worldview in the history of the world.  And he wants them to conduct these surprise visits unarmed.

Well, the parole officers don’t say no.  They say HELL no.  They say that would be incredibly dangerous and they don’t remember signing any suicide pacts.

What do you think?  Should they do these visits unarmed, or should they be allowed to be armed?

I’ll post the article in its entirety and give you my conclusion at the end.  First the article:

Probation officers clash with chief over monitoring ex-inmates
Probation officers’ union is fighting an order that officers should not be armed during unannounced checks on inmates released under prison realignment.
By Abby Sewell
August 21, 2013, 8:39 p.m.

Los Angeles County probation officers are at loggerheads with their chief over the way he wants them to monitor lower-level felons who have become the county’s responsibility as a result of state prison realignment.

The officers’ union is complaining that Chief Jerry Powers wants members to make unannounced visits to the homes of probationers, but without carrying weapons. Union leaders say that’s too dangerous and are threatening to sue.

The issue is the latest in a series of snags in implementing AB 109, the realignment law that took effect in October 2011 to comply with a court order to relieve state prison overcrowding.

Under the rules, some lower-level felons — generally, those whose most recent offense is nonviolent and nonsexual — are now sentenced to county jail instead of prison, and those paroled from prison are supervised by the county rather than state officers.

The Los Angeles County Probation Department oversees about 10,000 ex-state prisoners, although at any given time, 2,000 or so have fled from supervision. The department has hired 220 additional probation officers to handle those cases and is hiring an additional 143 — a process that the chief said was slowed by labor requirements to try to fill the positions internally but that the union said was slowed by the chief being too particular about whom he would promote.

Most of those officers are not permitted to carry arms. The department has 46 officers who carry guns and plans to eventually raise the number to 100, spokeswoman Carol Lin said.

The probation officers’ union cites a June incident in which a probation officer was grazed by a bullet and a Los Angeles Police Department officer was shot in the face while searching a house during a probation check in unincorporated South Los Angeles. A man hiding in the attic opened fire on them, marking the first time in the county department’s history that a probation officer had been shot on the job.

“We don’t want to go in to do an unannounced check and someone pops up with an AK-47,” said Sue Cline, second vice president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 685, which represents most probation officers. “What are we supposed to do, throw a BlackBerry at them?”

The union sent a “cease and desist” letter to the department in response to a training memo in late July. Those instructions said that after conducting an initial visit to a felon’s home accompanied by an armed officer, probation officers would be required to periodically make unannounced visits. During those first visits, officers were to walk through and draw a diagram of the home, and if necessary, handcuff residents or make them leave until the work was done.

A second memo issued last week clarified that the home visits should not entail handcuffing residents or searching the home, but still said probation officers would be required to return for unannounced visits “regularly without armed assistance.” The mind-set during the visits should be “engaging rather than enforcing/intimating/confrontational,” the memo said.

In response to the union complaints, Probation Assistant Chief Margarita Perez announced that she would get fitted for a safety vest and begin making unaccompanied home visits herself. And at Tuesday’s weekly meeting of the county Board of Supervisors, Powers fired back at the union.

“Field supervision is a core component of being a deputy probation officer,” he said. “You’re a peace officer. You don’t get peace officer status to sit behind a desk…. We need to get out, we need to engage. We will have a better success rate with our offenders.”

He said officers could always ask to be accompanied by one of the department’s armed officers or by an armed officer from another police agency — assuming someone was available.

In an interview, Powers said that in reviewing some of the high-profile crimes committed by AB 109 probationers after their release into county custody — including the recent fatal stabbing of a woman by a panhandler in Hollywood — the department found “missed opportunities” to connect with offenders before they committed a new crime.

Although the probation department is the lead agency in implementing realignment, other law enforcement agencies have been handling the bulk of so-called compliance checks, more invasive operations that may involve searching a parolee’s home for contraband such as weapons or drugs.

But that approach has occasionally created its own set of problems.

Some treatment programs and group homes for ex-offenders have complained repeatedly that the LAPD has conducted armed, SWAT-style compliance checks, often with several squad cars unaccompanied by a county probation officer.

A New Way of Life Reentry Project, a South Los Angeles home for women coming out of prison, brought up the issue publicly more than a year ago, and LAPD representatives attended community meetings to address the concerns, but A New Way of Life Executive Director Susan Burton said the practice has continued and even increased in recent months.

Burton said her residents have to comply with their probation or parole terms to stay at the home, and that the practice is disruptive to women who are trying to turn their lives around.

“The women have served their time in custody, and this is a time for rebuilding,” she said.

Resident Rasheena Buchanan, 30, said she was alarmed when an LAPD officer came to her room with a gun drawn at 7:30 a.m. during a compliance check in late June.

“That took me back to a place I really didn’t want to go. This was like my safe haven, and I felt like they violated that,” said Buchanan, who is on parole after serving 61/2 years for second-degree robbery.

Capt. Phil Tingirides of the LAPD’s Southeast Division said officers get a list of names and addresses of AB 109 offenders who are released, and have to check on all of them without the more in-depth knowledge of their background and risk levels that probation or parole officers would have. Given the officers’ limited knowledge and the violent situations that have erupted during some checks, he said, police have to treat all the ex-offenders as a potential threat.

“It just creates a very difficult situation for us,” he said. “…Trust me, we would prefer that [parole or probation officers] do it. It’s really not our thing. This is a community relations nightmare for us.”

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who was present at one of the compliance checks last year at A New Way of Life, said the continuing complaints fed his concerns that monitoring offenders is not as well-coordinated as it could be.

“Probation made a big push to be on the front line in terms of AB 109, so if compliance checks are such a huge issue …who’s supposed to be responsible for making sure it’s being done correctly?” he said at Tuesday’s meeting. In a separate interview, he said, “Frankly, all of them are supposed to be working collaboratively to make sure AB 109 works. If productive programs are being disrupted, then AB 109 is not working as it should.”

Okay, if you’re here, you either read the article or you just wanted to see what I’d say about it.  So here’s my wisdom of Solomon.

Ordinarily, I would be knee-jerk on the side of the probation officers being armed in these inspections.

But keep in mind this is the probation officers UNION.  And unions, as we know, nearly always support Democrats and likely gave money to Obama so he could be our fuehrer messiah.

Anyway, if it turns out that the probation officers union in Los Angeles gave its campaign money to Democrats, they want to take OUR guns away even if we’re law abiding citizens who just want to have the right to defend ourselves against the same predatory scumbags that the probation officers are living in fear of right now.  So in that case, let them be unarmed, and yes, they DID sign a suicide pact when they decided to support Democrats.

Now, if they at least stayed the hell out of politics, or better yet, gave their money to the political party that DIDN’T want to disarm Americans, then hell yeah they should be able to do those visits armed.

And what’s the story?  Well, it’s not easy to find out who gave what, but I did find this:

Los Angeles County Democratic Party: A Reliable Campaign Conduit

The Los Angeles County Democrat Party proved to be a reliable conduit for special interest contributions. Within days of accepting $137,250 in campaign contributions from seven special interest groups, the Los Angeles County Democratic Party distributed $127,200, or 93 percent of these received contributions, to Quirk-Silva’s campaign.

On October 10, the L.A. County Probation Officers Union, AFSCME Local 685, contributed $10,000 to the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. One week later, the Los Angeles County central committee contributed $11,700 to Quirk-Silva’s campaign in Orange County.

[For the factual record, Quirk-Silva is a Democrat]

So there you have it: Democrat hypocrites.  What I demand for thee does not work out very well for me.  So we should get an exemption or a waiver for what we forced YOU to do.  Which is Democrats’ stand on everything from ObamaCare to guns to everything else under the sun.

These union types ought to go into those criminals’ homes the way they want me to be in my home: completely helpless, defenseless and hoping nobody tries to attack me.

Hey, let’s disarm our police officers the way England has.  Let ‘em ALL try to do their jobs without the guns that the rest of us are told we don’t need.  It would take about two seconds to turn all those law enforcement unions conservative Republican rather than the liberal fascists they are now, wouldn’t it?

What’s good for thee doesn’t work for me has got to end because America is about to go the way of the Dodo bird.

Obama DHS: You Have A Right To Defend Yourselves From Armed Workplace Crazies With Scissors (But Not Guns)

February 2, 2013

Does this mean that Obama’s Secret Service detail has handed in their Uzis for pairs of scissors?  I sure hope they’re those safety scissors with the dull tips.  You sure wouldn’t want anybody accidentally putting an eye out while fighting to save Obama’s life, would you?

Under Obama, you have the right to perish miserably in the wake of workplace violence.  The story you are about to read is silent testimony to the fact that a crazed killer is out to murder you and your co-workers, you can’t have an actual weapon to protect yourself with – and there won’t be any cops coming anywhere NEAR in time to help you.  So grab your scissors.

And maybe you could grab a rock and a piece of paper and play with the murdering psycho for your life?

I know, I know.  That’s racist.  Thank you, President Hussein.  Praise you, messiah!  I feel so empowered with my scissors now.  While I’m waiting for my turn to be slaughtered I’ll be able to make arts and crafts!  Origami always did make me forget all about being gunned down by, you know, the only guy allowed to have a gun in your building.

Oh, origami doesn’t use scissors?  That’s okay; NEITHER DO I WHEN I’M CONFRONTING A MAN WITH A GUN.

I actually think it would have been a better idea to teach people to just give in to their terror and wet themselves.  Maybe the gunman would slip or something.

DHS Says: Confront Mass Killers With Scissors

From the New York Post:

Homeland Security has advice for confronting mass murders: scissors

By S.A. MILLER | January 31, 2013

WASHINGTON — Is your workplace getting shot up by a crazed gunman? No problem — just grab a pair of scissors and fight back!

That’s some of the helpful advice in a new instructional video from the Department of Homeland Security that was posted on the agency’s Web site just a month after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

“If you are caught out in the open and cannot conceal yourself or take cover, you might consider trying to overpower the shooter with whatever means are available,” says the narrator in the video, which shows an office worker pulling scissors out of a desk drawer.

The video, titled “Options for Consideration,” also advises that people who get caught in an “active shooter” situation should run away, hide under a desk or take cover out of the line of fire.

Thank goodness we have highly paid professionally trained bureaucrats available to give us great advice like that. This is right up their with the DHS’ advice about stretching before shoveling snow, and remembering to take off cold wet clothes.

The nearly four-minute-long video opens with chilling scenes from the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas, and the 2011 attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords.

But the video quickly shifts to hokey footage of office workers scampering under desks, crouching in corners and racing into closets to hide from a rampaging gunman on the loose.

“To protect your hiding place, lock the door if you can. Block the door with heavy furniture,” recommends the male narrator, speaking in measured, authoritative tones.

Other survival strategies promoted in the video include hiding “behind large items such as cabinets or desks. Remain quiet. Silence your cellphone or pager. Even the vibration setting can give away a hiding position.”

They might also recommend taking down any ‘gun free zone’ signs.

Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, said he has a better option for consideration than a pair of scissors when confronting an armed mass murderer — a legal firearm.

“That’s why I prefer a gun, and I usually do carry a gun when it is lawful to do so,” said Feldman. “Clearly, you use whatever you can” to fight for your life, he said…

What kind of crazy talk is that? We hold Mr. Feldman’s doctor contacts the authorities so that he can be put away.

The video is part of the Obama administration’s ongoing campaign to reduce firearm violence in the wake of the horrific mass murder last month of 20 children and six teachers in Newtown, Conn., said a Homeland Security official…

The video was released to coincide with President Obama’s sweeping proposals to curb gun violence in America, said the official…

The only trouble is, all the scissors in that Sandy Hook school would have been ‘safety scissors.’

Besides, once people starting hurting each other with scissors, they will have to be banned as well.

Nobody with one of the 400 million guns already in America will ever dare to attack my workplace now.  I’m armed with scissors.

Now, I guess all I need is to figure out how to do this:

Edward Scissorhands

Mind you, I’d kind of rather have a gun.  For one thing, judging by all the scars on poor Edward’s face, it would be quite a bit safer than the alternative pair of scissors that Obama says I can fight back with.  But because I live in the Obama States of America, I am now a farm animal.  And if the slaughterer comes, it is my duty to meekly comply with my turn to be slaughtered.

Wait a minute, what’s that, Obama?  I can’t have these scissors?  Because they’ve been classified as “assault scissors”?  Well, dang.  That just figures.

Dianne Feinstein’s Liberal Solution For Guns: Treat Criminals Like Citizens And Lawful Gun Owners Like Criminals

January 28, 2013

One of the bright, shining examples of liberalism in action has been our treatment of criminals in society.  The ACLU and most Democrats believe that it is better for a hundred guilty violent predatory criminals to go free than for one innocent person to be falsely convicted of a crime.

This piece from the Congressional Record gives us the perspective that liberals would now like to accord to lawful gun owners: criminalize them.  And it is better that a thousand lawful gun owners have their rights violated and usurped than it would be for one violent criminal  predator to be shot by a homeowner defending his or her property and family.

It will be an uphill battle–all the way. I know this.

But we need to ask ourselves:

Do we let the gun industry take over and dictate policy to this country? Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop the carnage?

Or should we empower our elected representatives to vote their conscience based on their experience, based on their sense of right and wrong and based on their need to protect their schools, their malls, their workplaces and their businesses?

This legislation is my life’s goal. As long as I am a member of the Senate, I will work night and day to pass this bill into law. No matter how long it takes, I will fight until assault weapons are taken off our streets.

Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.

So I ask everyone watching at home: please get involved and stay involved.

The success or failure of this bill depends not on me, but on you. If the American people rise up and demand action from their elected officials, we will be victorious. If the American people say “no” to military-style assault weapons, we will rid our Nation of this scourge.

Please, talk to your senator and your member of Congress.

By Mr. FEINSTEIN (for herself,) Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BENNET, Mr.

It’s all summed up by the phrase that turns liberalism completely upon its head and proves once and for all time that liberalism stands for nothing but convenient hypocrisy: “we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all.”  Unless it helps Democrats, of course.

Tell you what, Democrat, if you want to take away “rights,” then please take away the “right” of the government to grow in size and power and debt.  Take away the “rights” of the government to practice Marxist class warfare and demonize and attack people for the crime of working harder to advance themselves and their families.  Take away the “right” of non-citizens and dead people and ineligible citizens the ability to vote.  Take away the “right” of foreigners to cross our border and enter our country illegally.  Take away the “right” of unions to collectively bargain and collectively strike and collectively shut down businesses while businesses have no right to collectively fire the useless lazy bums who keep demanding higher pay in exchange for less and less work.  Take away the “right” to have unemployment benefits forever.  Take away the “right” to enjoy welfare for five generations.  Take away the “right” for homosexuals to pervert marriage.  And please, PLEASE take away the “right” for a woman to decide to murder her baby and force the father of that baby to stand passively by while his son or daughter is brutally tortured and killed.

And if you really want less gun murders, geez, PLEASE take away the “rights” that the ACLU and Democrats have provided to proven violent animals by executing them like the monsters they are and instituting hard sentencing guidelines that liberals have banned.

There are PLENTY of “rights” you could take away that are not specifically cited in our Bill of Rights.

Just so you understand how incredibly cynical Democrats truly are, and how much they truly do not give one freaking DAMN about saving the lives of innocent children (55.7 million of whom they’ve already murdered in the abortion mills, fwiw), just look at liberals’ reaction to the Fontana Police Department buying a few AR-15s to protect schoolchildren in the event of a targeting of a school in their jurisdiction: outrage.  Liberals are outraged that good and decent people – even police officers – would be capable of protecting themselves against well-armed violent criminals.

This sentence from the LA Times sums up the crazy insanity that will manifest itself in trying to ban all guns:

The rifles are kept either in the trunk of the police officer’s vehicle or in a safe on campus.

“Still, Garcia worries that bringing such a weapon on campus could lead to it falling into the wrong hands.”

If even police departments can’t pass adequate muster to be armed, then what chance do the rest of us have to keep guns if Democrats are allowed the power to ban guns from us???

Mind you, some guns are stolen from gun owners’ homes by criminals because fascist liberals who would never publish the names and addresses of child molesters decided that legal gun owners were a far greater threat than the child molesters or the rapists or the violent murderers.

Police can’t bring guns on campuses that are “gun free zones.”  The mass-murdering psychos know that.  Which is why in every single case but ONE since 1950 in which three or more people were killed in a gun shooting, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM OCCURRED ON A GUN-FREE ZONE.

Democrats have turned our schools into well-stocked preserves where crazy murdering psychos can have plenty of helpless targets.  And they actually have the blue-whale-sized balls to demonize us for trying to prevent them from creating even more carnage as they pass laws to keep law-abiding citizens from defending themselves knowing full-damn well that the criminals won’t bother to follow their stupid and immoral and unconstitutional laws.

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely NO relationship between confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens and gun crime.  The so-called “assault weapons ban” had ZERO effect of reducing gun crime of weapons that were largely arbitrarily banned.  And therefore what IS now a proven fact is that Democrats are fascists and hypocrites who want to take away the people’s rights to be safe from their government that is under the Democrat Party walking roughshod all over the Constitution.

Why target assault weapons – which was a deliberately misleading title with the intent to falsely connect fully automatic military “assault rifles” with their semi-automatic civilian counterparts so that Democrats could falsely demagogue a straw man?  Because the left is looking for precedents: if they can take away these weapons, they can go after the next batch of guns using their success against “assault weapons.”

You should realize that most of the weapons on Democrats’ confiscation lists are only different by weapons they currently allow by shades of degree.  For example, a Mini-14 rifle is completely legal; but it is virtually identical to many weapons that share the exact same platform that are on the ban list.  The Democrats are savagely attacking what amounts to cosmetic differences such as a pistol grip and a flash suppressor.  The pistol grip was never on any rifle until the first assault rifles.  Why not?  Because it only provided any help for a shooter who was spraying a target with full automatic fire; it is virtually useless for semi-automatic fire that all “assault weapons” have.  To this day, most hunting rifles have a traditional stock simply because the traditional stock provides for greater accuracy and thus greater deadliness.  Flash suppressors were placed on assault rifles so that a soldier fighting at night on a dark battlefield would not night-blind himself with his own weapons fire.  They do NOT make you invisible to detection by others.  If you’re shooting an assault weapon in a city or in daylight, a flash suppressor is useless to you.  All these things are for style, to make the weapons look like the ones soldiers use on the battlefields.  It’s a marketing gimmick, much the way people buy sports jerseys to look more like their favorite athletes.

Democrats are also targeting ammo magazines.  Their primary justification for doing so is to ask the question, “how many bullets do you need to kill a deer?”  As if the 2nd Amendment only somehow guaranteed nothing more than the right to hunt squirrels with an 18th century musket as opposed to its trule purpose to prevent government tyranny over a helpless people.  They are currently trying to ban any gun with more than seven rounds.  The thing is, they are knowingly setting up massive, MASSIVE collateral damage.  That’s because such a ban would criminalize 95% of all semi-automatic handguns.  Democrats are hoping they can ban handguns without even appearing to have tried to do so.

They view “assault weapons” as low-hanging fruit through which they can grab a branch and tear down the entire tree of the 2nd Amendment right.

If you allow them to do so, they will gladly tear down the tree of liberty while the rest of us stand there stupidly gawking.

Gun Control: Dianne Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Bill Reminds Of Her Abject Debacle To Control Meth Labs

January 15, 2013

Dianne Feinstein is in the news for being the senator who applied for and exercised a concealed weapon permit who also wants to take guns away from everybody else.

Her assault weapons ban is apparently the Democrats’ favorite monster to devour the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.  After Obama gets finished acting like a fascist and imposing gun control by executive order just like the worst leaders in history did.

As a result of Obama’s demagoguing and he and his Democrats’ lying and slandering to exploit the next crisis, gun sales have absolutely skyrocketed during Obama’s first term.  And that fever-pitch rush for the people to arm themselves now before it’s too late has only escalated as Obama begins his next term.

Let’s say Obama gets his overturning of the Constitution like he wants.  Explain to me how that fascist thug didn’t cause the greatest proliferation of guns as frightened people rushed to buy their guns before Obama’s new dictates took effect.

And a whopping load of those guns are so-called “assault weapons” – because everybody knows that Obama and the Democrats are fascists who are going to take our right to keep and bear arms away and they want to make sure they get the guns that Obama wants to seize from us first.

Hey, if you want to reduce the number of guns, do you think Obama’s presidency did a good job of that?  I mean, hell, Obama HIMSELF was dealing thousands of assault weapons by proxy to Mexican drug cartels.  That’s how you can know that gun sales under Obama have skyrocketed like nothing ever has skyrocketed before.

And this is going to make any kind of intelligent gun control so much more difficult.  Because there are 300 million plus guns in America.  And as long as a thug or a murderer can get his hands on one, I want to be able to get MY hands on one, too.  And gun laws disarm the innocent people while allowing the guilty people to buy guns illegally and then exploit the fact that they’re going to be the only ones with guns when they crash into your house and round up your family for their night of fun before they kill you all.

And Obama has now added massively to that giant stash of guns in America.  Since he was elected in November 2008, Obama has panicked Americans into buying 67 million more guns.  And I mean, to put it in perspective, in just the last two months of 2012, Obama panicked Americans into buying more than enough guns to arm both the 2.29 million active members in the Chinese Army AND the 1.13 million active members in the Indian Army.

Now, assuming that you’re not a rabid Obama worshiping ideologue but rather somebody who actually wants to see fewer guns on the streets, how can you argue that Obama did anything but create a mass panic???  How could you possibly argue that what Democrats have done was the right way to have a responsible discussion about gun control versus the 2nd Amendment???

Have we ever seen a failure like this before?

Yes.  And frighteningly, it was an even bigger failure because it started out as a giant success.

I want to point out a little bit of history.  Once upon a time shy of a half century ago, there was an illegal drug called “meth.”  Oh, you’ve heard of it?  And Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein decided to win that war with government regulation.  She made it harder than hell for all Californians to purchase any product containing pseudoephedrine.  Because pseudoephedrine was an ingredient in meth, you see.  And by exercising a fascist takeover of a private industry, Dianne Feinstein and Democrats believed that they could use raw government force shut down the meth problem.  You know, kind of like they think they can shut the gun problem down.

What happened?  Well, it’s interesting.  To begin with, you’re still a casualty of the war Democrats waged against pseudoephedrine.  You’ve got to fill our government paperwork and show ID up the whazoo.  And hence criminals will be unable to get the ingredient pseudoephedrine and the drug labs will shut down.  And of course they largely killed a thriving product by largely shutting it down so the government could solve the drug problem.

Was it a brilliant idea?  Is it a story that ought to give liberals hope about how good a job Democrats can be at taking away guns???  Nope.  Not even close.

You see, when meth labs had access to even more abundant supplies of pseudoephedrine, they used a process that generated an incredibly powerful ammonia odor that could be smelled from significant distances.  So the labs had to locate way out in the boonies to cook their product.  And that slowed down the manufacturing process considerably.

Then Dianne Feinstein and the Democrat Party stepped in with their government ban.  And helped the drug makers overcome their inability to manufacture their product in cities.

You want to know what happened?  The meth makers very quickly found a different way to make meth.  They now use a method that is virtually odorless – so the process can be kicked into high gear in ordinary households in ordinary cities.  And its so portable you can now manufacture meth in your car.  As a result, meth production and hence meth addiction have skyrocketed.  Now they can make it right across the street from your kid’s elementary school.  And so what if they blow up next door to you?

All because the same stupid Democrats who think they can solve the drug problem by attacking legitimate private industry can solve the gun problem by attacking ordinary Americans exercising their 2nd Amendment protection.

Here’s the story on what happened with the meth production:

More meth labs showing up in cities, suburbs
Not just a rural drug anymore: Experts say more meth labs showing up in cities, suburbs
By Jim Salter, Associated Press | Associated Press – Thu, Dec 27, 2012

ST. LOUIS (AP) — Methamphetamine lab seizures are on the rise in the nation’s cities and suburbs, raising new concerns about a lethal drug that has long been the scourge of rural America.

Data and interviews from an investigation by The Associated Press found growing numbers of meth lab seizures in cities such as St. Louis, Kansas City, Mo., Nashville, Tenn., and Evansville, Ind. Authorities are also seeing evidence that inner-city gangs are becoming involved in meth production and distribution.

“No question about it — there are more labs in the urban areas,” said Tom Farmer, coordinator of the Tennessee Methamphetamine and Pharmaceutical Task Force. “I’m seeing car fires from meth in urban areas now, more people getting burned.”

The increase in labs is especially troubling because meth brought into the U.S. from Mexico also is becoming more pervasive in urban areas. The Associated Press reported in October that so-called Mexican “super labs” are upping production, making meth more pure and less expensive, and then using existing drug pipelines in big cities.

Data obtained by AP shows that homemade meth is on the rise in metropolitan areas, too.

— St. Louis County had just 30 lab seizures in 2009, but 83 through July 31, putting it on pace for 142 in 2012. The city of St. Louis had eight in 2009 and is on pace for 50 this year.

— Jackson County, Mo., (which includes Kansas City) had 21 seizures in 2009 and is on pace for 65 this year.

— Meth lab seizures have tripled in the Nashville area over the past two years. In one case in late 2011, a man and his girlfriend were accused of recruiting more than three dozen people, including some who were homeless, to visit multiple pharmacies and purchase the legal limit of cold pills containing pseudoephedrine, a key meth ingredient. The couple and 37 others were indicted.

— The Evansville, Ind., area has seen a more than 500 percent rise in meth seizures since 2010, with 82 in 2011.

Authorities cite numerous reasons for meth moving into cities, but chief among them is the rise in so-called “one-pot” or “shake-and-bake” meth.

In years past, meth was cooked in a makeshift lab. The strong ammonia-like smell carried over a wide area, so to avoid detection, meth had to be made in backwoods locations.

As laws limited the availability of pseudoephedrine, meth-makers adjusted with a faster process that creates smaller batches simply by combining ingredients — mixing cold pills with toxic substances such as battery acid or drain cleaner — in 2-liter soda bottles. Shake-and-bake meth can be made quickly with little odor in a home, apartment, hotel, even a car.

“Bad guys have figured it out,” said Rusty Payne of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. “You don’t have to be as clandestine — you don’t have to be in rural country to lay low.”

Niki Crawford, who heads the meth suppression team in Indiana, said that with shake-and-bake labs, “the odors are not as strong. And they’re just so portable. We find them in backpacks and gym bags.”

And inside stores: A woman was arrested inside a St. Louis County Wal-Mart earlier this year with a meth-filled soda bottle in her coat pocket.

Another reason for the rise in urban meth is a process known among law enforcement as “smurfing” —the abundance of pharmacies in cities attracts meth-makers from surrounding rural areas, who can bring in friends to help purchase pseudoephedrine pills.

“We know the fuel for domestic labs is pseudoephedrine,” Farmer said. “The source for that is pharmacies and the majority of pharmacies are in urban areas.”

Farmer also has seen an increase in meth activity involving inner-city Tennessee gangs, which tend to be better-organized than rural cookers when it comes to marketing and selling the drug. For the most part, the gang members work as smurfers, though Farmer worries they’ll eventually become involved in the manufacture and distribution of the drug. Sometimes, gang members and meth-makers first connect while in prison.

“They see there’s a market there to make money off of pseudoephedrine,” Farmer said. “Pseudoephedrine has become as good as currency.”

Missouri State Highway Patrol statistics are indicative of the growing urban concern: All four of the top meth counties in Missouri were in the metropolitan St. Louis area — Jefferson, St. Charles, St. Louis and Franklin.

Ed Begley, a St. Louis County meth detective, said the drug is attracting users from all socio-economic levels.

“Lower class all the way up to upper middle class,” Begley said. “We’ve even had retired folks who have become addicted. It’s a brutal drug.”

You see, the problem is that you can’t completely shut down pseudoephedrine production.  Why?  Because it’s simply the best drug for congestion ever made.  And Democrat politicians get colds, too, you know.  Also, how are the drug makers getting their pseudoephedrine?  Largely by getting the welfare-slacking life-failures the Democrats subsidize to purchase it for them in exchange for a few bucks a month.  Let’s call that welfare from meth makers.  And it’s shockingly pervasive and the problem is exploding out of control.  Feinstein and Democrats did absolutely nothing to reduce the drug trade with their nanny-state fascism and instead made the problem worse.  In the same way, you ought to know that you can’t shut down gun production, either.  Because what would they protect Obama and his family with if they absolutely banned guns???  As long as Democrats can get colds and need some pseudoephedrine, and as long as Obama needs the guns to protect himself and his family that he wants to take away from you, we’re going to have the same sorts of government-caused disasters.  And don’t think for a second that guns won’t find their way across the border on the backs of the illegal immigrants who are streaming into America with Democrats’ abetting.

The Obama City of Chicago has a complete ban on handguns.  And there are so many gun homicides from the criminals who know that they can prey on helpless people shooting more people than are dying in our worst war zone.  310 Americans were killed in Afghanistan with a total of 405 Coalition deaths.  That compared to 532 homicides in the Democrat-owned city of Chicago.  That ought to tell you how well Democrats’ fascist power-grabs to seize all the guns will have on gun crime.

Democrat Gov. Cuomo gave a speech in which he said:

“No one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer,” Cuomo said. “End the madness now!  [...]

“Let’s lead the way once again in saving lives,” Cuomo said in an often rousing speech that some observers said better positioned the Democrat for a 2016 run for president.   [...]

“New York leads the nation, it’s time New York lead the nation in this,” Silver said. His priorities are bans on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines of ammunition.

Cuomo has also specifically said he supported the confiscation of legally-purchased and owned guns.

Well, first of all, where the hell does the 2nd Amendment limit the right to keep and bear arms in order to hunt and not to be able to defend yourself???  That genuinely idiotic statement dismissed, I can also personally testify as a hunter that I have seen a fair number of hunters using “assault weapons” to hunt.  They are excellent multi-purpose weapons and in fact they are excellent deer rifles.  As for Cumo’s statement about “ten rounds,” well, on that argument Cuomo’s fascist Democrats ought to ban all weapons but flintlocks on the view that “no one needs” more than ONE bullet.

But that said, Cuomo’s speech was also idiotic in claiming that New York “leads the way” in banning guns.  Chicago leads the way in banning guns.  And if Cuomo wants people to consider the effects of his stupid and immoral and unconstitutional and frankly fascist laws, they have only to look at that city on a hill for Obama’s policies, Chicago.

Oh, we just found a new way for criminals to get guns, by the way.  They can depend on liberals who staff newspapers such as the Journal News and the leftist blog Gawker to publish the names and addresses of gun owners.  So that criminals can break into their homes and steal the guns, we now know.

You still think these demoniacs can keep guns out of criminals’ hands, do you?

What Obama is demagoguing might seem to make sense to you.  I’m sure Dianne Feinstein’s takeover of the pseudoephedrine industry made sense to you, too.

Unfortunately, what Democrats are now demagoguing on guns not only won’t work, but it will make gun crime far, FAR worse than it ever was.

Which is why so many million Americans have rushed to buy their guns before Obama the dictator takes them away.

I believe that a great many Americans realize that something bad is coming.  The sheer number of gun purchases is unreal.  I think a lot of people realize that after Obama implodes America, the Antichrist from the Bible will come.

Second Victim Pushed To Death Under Train This Month. We Must Crimalize All Trains NOW! Oh, We Only Treat Guns That Way???

December 28, 2012

I know the left has been pushing trains as a “green” form of transportation, but trains kill people and clearly they’re another thing that’s just too dangerous for society to be allowed to have.

December 27, 2012
Man Is Pushed to His Death Under Train in Queens
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

A young woman pushed a man to his death under an oncoming train at the 40th Street-Lowery Street subway station in Queens on Thursday evening, law enforcement authorities said.

The woman walked behind the man along the platform, mumbling to herself, witnesses told the police, before shoving him into the path of a northbound No. 7 train just after 8 p.m. Witnesses said the victim did not appear to notice her. The woman, whom the police described as Hispanic, in her early 20s and heavyset, fled and was being sought by all police officers in the area.

She was wearing a blue, white and gray ski jacket, the police said, and gray Nike sneakers. The man, who had not been identified, remained underneath the subway train late Thursday evening, spokesmen for the Police and Fire Departments said.

It is the second time this month that a man has been killed after being pushed onto the subway tracks. Ki-Suck Han, 58, of Elmhurst, Queens, died under the Q train at the 49th Street and Seventh Avenue station in early December. Naeem Davis, 30, has been charged with second-degree murder in that case. A lawyer for Mr. Davis said that his client had been trying to push Mr. Han away after an altercation.

If liberals were honest, they’d say, “Of course guns don’t kill people; that’s asinine and anybody who thinks anything that stupid is asinine.  People kill people with pretty much whatever is convenient – including the damn oncoming train.  And of course the Constitution clearly guarantees that no cockroach shall infringe upon your individual right as a citizen to keep and bear your guns.  You’ve got to be a complete dumbass to try to argue otherwise.  And we need to come to an agreement on those two facts as a nation so we can come together and maintain our constitutional freedoms while doing something to keep dangerous weapons of ANY kind out of the hands of psychos.”

But they’re not honest.  So we have the political equivalent of World War I-style trench warfare on guns and pretty much everything else.

So let’s apply their “logic” and start banning all passenger trains because they can be used by psychopaths to commit murders.  Starting with Amtrack and the New York subway system.

Oh, we might start banning racial minorities, too.  The first “train-waving murderer” was a black man and the second one was Hispanic.  The same argument used to demonize guns actually works equally well with both of these groups, too.  And if you talk about the Nazis – which stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party” (hint: which party is the “National Socialist American Workers Party” again????) – let’s remember they did both and first took away all the guns and then rounded up all the Jews who suddenly discovered they were absolutely defenseless.

Yesterday the Democrat governor of New York (Cuomo) used the word “confiscate” to describe his position on guns.

You want to know what true liberals have had to say about guns?

Regarding disarming a nation as the Democrat Party wants to do:

Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” – Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography, page 446

Regarding the individual right to defend yourself against violence with a gun:

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” – Dalai Lama, Seattle, May 15th, 2001

I suppose you can pardon their attitudes as two great men who spent their lives watching an oppressive force systemically crush their people after said oppressive force took their guns away from them.

Here’s a third for the heck of it:

“As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of “self-defense.” In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.” – “Where Do We Go From Here:Chaos or Community?” by MLK Jr.

Said Dr. King, registered gun owner and registered Republican in addition to being a man who would have had his address published for public shame as if he were some kind of criminal if he’d lived in New York this week.  That of course was back in those good old days when “the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked was guaranteed through the ages by common law.”  Goof times, those ages past.  Missing them already since Obama fundamentally transformed America.

Oh, that’s right.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was another one of those guys who took about a hundred beatings too many from an oppressive system that had the guns to go along with all the other force it had.

True liberals understand that the society that comes after your guns is going to be able to come after you and you won’t be able to do a damn thing about it when they do.

Which is to say that  Gov. Andrew Cuomo – who has the virtue only of being more honest about his intentions than Obama is – is a fascist rather than any true liberal in any historically accurate sense of the term.

Outrage: Left Shows Why They Absolutely Cannot Be Trusted To Be Anything Other Than Fascists Even As They Call On Us To Surrender Our Arms

December 27, 2012

It was Christmas Eve, but liberals were neverthelesssssss – because they are serpents – trying to prepare the way for the coming big-government beast of Revelation.

Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners’ Names and Addresses
By Colleen Curry | ABC News Blogs – Mon, Dec 24, 2012

A newspaper in New York has received a wave of criticism from its readers after publishing the names and addresses of all of the individuals with handgun or pistol permits in its coverage area.

Hundreds of residents in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday. Users can click any dot on the map to see which of their neighbors has a permit for a gun.

The map sparked more than 500 comments from readers within a day of its appearance on the website, many of them voicing outrage at the paper’s decision to make the information public.

“This is CRAZY!! why in the world would you post every licensed gun owner information?? What do you hope to accomplish by doing this. This is the type of thing you do for sex offenders not law abiding gun owners. What next? should i hang a flag outside my house that says I own a gun? I am canceling my subscription with your paper today!!!” said commenter Curtis Maenza.

“How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families…,” wrote commenter George Thompson.

All of the names and addresses were compiled through public records. The paper also requested the information from Putnam County, which is still compiling the records for publication, according to The Journal News’ website.

In a statement to ABC News, The Journal News said its readers “are understandably interested to know about guns in their neighborhoods,” because of the conversation about gun control on its website after the shooting in Newtown, Conn., last week.

“We obtained the names and addresses of Westchester and Rockland residents who are licensed to own handguns through routine Freedom of Information law requests. We also requested information on the number and types of guns owned by permit holders, but officials in the county clerks offices in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties maintained that those specifics were not public record,” the statement read.

“New York’s top public-records expert, Robert Freeman, disagrees,” it added.

The paper declined to answer further questions about the map.

Try to imagine the outcry had a rightwing newspaper published the names and addresses of all the homosexuals.  Batter up, gay bashers: here’s where they at.  Go bash them and if they’re hiding out you go bash their cars and vanalize their homes.  Imagine if they had published the names of all the anti-gun zombies and made sure the public understood that these were the people trying to take away the security of their homes and threatening their families.

You know whose names WEREN’T in “the list” that liberals leaked hoping that other liberals would target these families with vandalism and other forms of intimidation?  Criminals who don’t bother with laws and who want to prey like the coyotes they are on defenseless homes and families.

The message of the left is this: surrender your guns to us or we will demonize you and expose you to physical assault and vandalism until you do.  And what they just screamed is that we need guns more than EVER to protect oursleves from these fascists for whom our God-given constitutional rights are nothing.

The fascist left – more technically known as the Democrat Party – have done this trick repeatedly.  They used the exact same tactic to target law-abiding Americans who exercised their free-speech rights to support Proposition 8.  Democrats blacklisted businesses, publicly boycotted them, publicly disgraced them and privately vandalized them.  To quote the exact words of the party of hell: “there will be hell to pay.”  And the party of hell knows how to unleash hell on their enemies (defined as anybody who disagrees with them).

Democrats and liberals are people who feel that “free speech” only applies to THEM.  If you are a conservative, they feel righteous to shout you down.  They feel righteous to go into churches and universities and shout down their opponents.

Democrats are Nazis who have already murdered more than nine times more babies in America than Germans murdered Jews in Germany.  If you are a Democrat, you will one day stand before a just and holy God and answer – while the fire and smoke of God’s wrath billows from His throne – for YOUR part in the murder of 55 million of the most innocent of all human beings.  And eternity isn’t long enough for you to suffer: you will burn for a trillion times a trillion times a trillion years for every nanosecond of each one of those lives you viciously snuffed out with your vote.

Did I say “vote”?  Democrats point at the Constitution and say that the right to vote is somehow sacrosanct.  They conveniently forget that the right to keep and bear arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”  And yet these same future citizens of hell tell us WHILE THEY’RE URINATING ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT that it is somehow a terrible thing to so much as ask for an ID in order to vote.

Does it matter to them that far more people have been murdered – because, for instance, the Nazis were elected to power by voters - by votes than have been killed in America by armed crazies???  Of course it doesn’t.  And that’s because “Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party” - and a perfect synonym for “Democrat Party” today is “National Socialist American Workers Party.”  And that’s because, just like the Nazis, modern Democrats are socialist to the core and modern Democrats demagogue “workers” the exact same way the Nazis and the Marxist communists did before them.

A tiny union shut down two of the largest ports in the nation last month during the busiest period of the year.  That strike cost the U.S. economy a billion dollars a day for a total of $8 billion that America will never get back.  And now Obama’s union thugs are about to exploit the system again on the other side of the country.  Because they are fascists nation wide.  As godawful terrible as Obama’s abject failure of leadership to preside over an actual deal regarding the fiscal cliff is, it is still just a drop of piss in Obama’s urine ocean of the ruination of America.

There are workers who would count their blessings to earn a THIRD of the salary and benefits of these union thugs; but businesses are as helpless against union terrorism as Democrats want to make the rest of America against criminals who know we’ve just had all our guns taken away.

Democrats can stomp all over the Constitution and still deceitfully call themselves champions of “freedom”; Republicans can’t even politely ask for IDs as Democrats exploit the same electioneering tactics that gave Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood and a fascist constitution based on sharia law.

It’s too late now; Democrats WILL take our rights to bear arms away because that will be essential to the beast of Revelation to come so his big government can utterly crush an unarmed and defenseless people.

The agenda of the Democrat Party is the agenda of Romans chapter one.  And God is damning this land even as He allows the world to have the Antichrist that it wants so damn much.

This has been God damn America for the last four years.  And we aint seen nothin’ yet.  Things will get worse and worse under this president; but he is a man who spent the last four years blaming everything on George W. Bush and is already showing that he will spend the next four years blaming everything on Republicans.  It’s all the House’s fault, Obama will say; forget the fact that when things went to hell under George W. Bush, Democrats dominated not only the House, but the Senate as well.

God said to America, “You don’t need Me; you’ve got Obama now.”  But wait, like in the game shows, there’s more: there’s four more years of abject God-damn-America misery cynically exploited by one of the most skilled demagogues in history.

Obama is going to exploit the impossible demands he gave to the House Republicans who also won the 2012 election by retaining control over the House and the purse strings that go WITH winning the House.  But he’s a liar;

I wrote an article well over a year ago titled, “Why I Call Barack Obama A Fascist.”  And that only scratches the surface of what we’ve seen from the left ever since.  The Antichrist to come will have the big government liberal system in the history of the world: he will so take over the economy that no man can buy or sell without a government-mandated mark.  Liberals will take over the economy just as they always dreamed of doing – and then use that power to crush anyone who gets in their way just as they always dreamed of doing.

Obama has publicly demonized so-called “assault weapons” as “weapons of war.”  It’s a rhetorical ploy intended to suggest the question, “Why does anybody need a weapon of war?”  It omits the FACT that WHAT THE HELL WERE GUNS WHEN THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENSHRINED US WITH THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR WEAPONS OF WAR???

Should our military lose the right to keep and bear those arms?  Should the Navy SEALs surrender their assault rifles?  How about the FBI and the police?  Why should THEY be allowed to carry such “weapons of war”???  Based on Obama’s rhetoric, aren’t our police at war with America?  If these guns are so evil, how are they not warping the souls of our military and our SEALs and our police officers???

If you’re going to suggest to me that our military and our police need to have those weapons to deal with evil people, well, dumbass, so the hell do American citizens.  We need to not only protect ourselves from violent criminal predators, but we need to protect ourselves from the fascism that Democrats are now shrouding every aspect of America with.  We need to protect ourselves against “the lists” that Democrats are publishing to target us.

A pissed-off Connecticut lawyer just published the names and addresses of all the fascist journalists who published the names of the people who legally owned guns in its New York coverage area.  I wonder if any of them are scared about what could happen as angry people try to take vengeance.  And I wonder if any of them realize that what they did is utterly and completely evil because THAT’S exactly what they were trying to do in publishing the names and addresses of gun owners.

Ultimately the left is going to win this political war that will result in the extinction of America.  And the reason is that – one lawyer aside – the right simply will not stoop to the vicious and vile level of the left.  No conservative newspaper will publish the names and addresses of anti-gun people and invite the ensuing carnage.  We’re just not that despicable or that evil or that depraved.  That’s why the left is going to win.  And that’s why the beast will be here soon.

And just like the Jews found themselves with no way to defend themselves against socialist Adolf Hitler when he began implenting his Final Solution, those left behind to face the Antichrist won’t have guns to protect themselves against the  most evil regime the world will have ever seen.

Interestingly, Obama has twelve armed guards protecting his daughters.  You get to protect your daughters with harsh language.  As long as none of it offends a liberal.

Also interestingly, it will be interesting to see which homes get targeted in the future: the ones where the robbers know the owners are armed and can defend their homes or the ones where the robbers know that the victims are unarmed and defenseless.

Obama’s Newtown Speech, Or Why Americans Won’t Have Guns To Protect Themselves From The Government Of The Coming Antichrist

December 17, 2012

The president who is responsible for the 55 million innocent babies in America butchered by abortion is exploiting the murder of twenty more to justify the goal that liberals have sought for America just as they sought it in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Kim’s North Korea, Castro’s Cuba, etc. etc.

I heard Obama’s Newtown speech yesterday evening.  He made it crystal clear he’s going to exploit the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut to go after the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, your guns and your ability to protect yourselves.

Obama basically blathered religious platitudes for the first third of the speech, then offered a transition that went from “we all want to protect our kids” to “but parents can’t do it alone” to “we need a Big Brother state to confiscate all the guns so children will be safe.”  Those aren’t quotes, but that was the logic of the speech.

A transcript of the speech will show what I am saying: Obama began by quoting 2 Corinthians 4:16-18.   And who can’t see how obviously that passage logically transitions to the statement, “so we’re coming after you’re guns now.”  Which is why Obama said this:

It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself, that this job of keeping our children safe and teaching them well is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community and the help of a nation.

And in that way we come to realize that we bear responsibility for every child, because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours, that we’re all parents, that they are all our children.

This is our first task, caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.

And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we’re meeting our obligations?

Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm?

Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know they are loved and teaching them to love in return?

Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?

I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer’s no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change. Since I’ve been president, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by mass shootings, fourth time we’ve hugged survivors, the fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims.

And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and in big cities all across America, victims whose — much of the time their only fault was being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. [...]

In the coming weeks, I’ll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents and educators, in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like
this, because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine.

You can’t keep your kids safe on your own.  You need your families and your neighbors.  And that means you need your Obama Big Brother State, too.  And the only way you can protect your children is to completely disarm yourselves and trust completely in Obama for your safety.  That’s the logic of Obama’s rhetoric.

Obama says America has to change to protect her children.

This is the thing: any fool can quote the Bible.  Obama and Satan both have this in common.  So let me quote it to so I can describe the real problem that is plaguing America.  And no, it isn’t our guns or our 2nd Amendment:

“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.  People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God–having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.” — 2 Timothy 3:1-5

That’s the reason we are suffering a plague of evil.  It isn’t guns; we’ve always had guns.  It’s last-days end-times evil that is metastasizing like the most aggressive form of stage 4 cancer under this president of God damn America.  But mark this: evil always exploits evil in order to perpetuate still more evil.

You want to change America, Obama?  How about if you have the moral wisdom to understand what John Adams told you:

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

How about if you had the moral wisdom to understand what George Washington told you:

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

How about if you truly respect morality and religion and stop warring on them?  That would be a change, too, you know.  And unlike what you propose, it would actually fix the problem and like icing on a delicious cake, it would not mean creating a police state to crush the people’s constitutional guarantees.

Liberals have given us a Holocaust nine times larger than Hitler’s with more than 55 million innocent human beings murdered since Roe v. Wade in 1973.  Obama said on December 14:

“The majority of those who died today were children — beautiful, little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.”

Let me ask you, liberal: how in the hell did the 55 million babies you murdered NOT have their entire lives ahead of them before you snuffed them out as if human life meant nothing at all?

And you have the moral idiocy to wonder how in the world a culture that has brutally murdered one-sixth of its entire population could produce someone who wouldn’t value the lives of children???

Liberals and Democrats and socialists have purged the Ten Commandments from our culture.  Their demonic judges have ruled that we cannot tolerate the Ten Commandments in public schools 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”

We can only speculate what would have happened had liberals allowed the Ten Commandments to be posted so that gunman  Adam Lanza could have had a chance to “venerate and obey the Ten Commandments.”  It is frankly beyond amazing that liberals would rather have the “terrible times” of murderous children than allow America’s kids to reflect on the sacred dignity of human life represented in the Commandment, “Thou shalt not murder.”

Democrats have perverted and poisoned culture to the point that the soul of America is as dead as the 55 million babies they’ve butchered.  They have redefined marriage and redefined the family.  They have pumped atheism and random-change evolution into the minds of children while dredging any scintilla of the knowledge of God out of those same minds.

I’ve written about this before.  But this is different.  When I wrote about it before, Obama was merely posturing; now he has his second term and can ignore the Constitution and impose whatever tyranny he wants without fear of having to face a reelection - that according to his most ardent supporters.   Even as other of his most ardent supporters are publicly calling for Obama to act like the fascist third-world dictator he is and jail the GOP and everyone who disagrees with his “fundamental transformation” of America.

In this shooting in a public school, the government just proved that it can’t even protect people in its very own buildings in its very own system even in a state that has the toughest gun control laws in the entire nation like Connecticut.  And the obvious question is, “If they can’t protect your child in a government school, how are you supposed to protect them in your homes without guns when the police are few and far away?  Do you think your harsh language or your Kung fu is that good, do you?  And yet Democrats are now saying, “Disarm yourselves so you have no possible chance to protect yourselves.  Let Obama protect you.  And if Obama doesn’t protect you, you and your children should die.”

If home invasion terrorists break down the door of my house, I have something that Obama absolutely visceral despises: I have the means to protect my family and my property.  Obama despises that because he wants me powerless, helpless, dependent and weak so that I have to turn to him and to his tyrant State.

Bill O’Reilly put it simply in one of his programs recently: “If somebody is trying to kill me, I want to have the ability to defend myself.”  Liberals don’t want you to have that freedom or that ability.  Just as Stalin didn’t want Russians to have it; Hitler didn’t want Germans to have it; Mao didn’t want Chinese to have it; Pol Pot didn’t want Cambodians to have it, and the dictators of North Korea don’t want their people to have it.

President Obama is surrounded by guns.  If he really wants to take away guns, he should announce that he is starting with his own security rather than remove that security from millions of Americans.  I’m guessing that won’t be his big announcement notifying us about how he’s going to change America.  That’s because he knows that taking away his own security would be foolish; but he’s no more foolish than the cunning mass-murdering dictator Stalin to take away the security from everyone else.

What is happening all around us right now in this nation?  We are letting out dangerous criminals out of prisons by the truckload because our government and our very system are breaking down.  Obama has so massively loaded up the welfare system with debt that he now has to let out hundreds of thousands of criminal predators across the nation.  The logic is: “Don’t worry; Obama will save you from all the violent convicts he just freed from the jails.”  The American people are in a war, only in this war instead of being allowed to fight to defend ourselves and our families Obama is calling upon us to disarm and surrender to the violence that his political philosophy has bequeathed America these last fifty years.

A haunting passage in the Book of Revelation depicts this not-faraway state of affairs:

Anyone who is destined for prison will be taken to prison. Anyone destined to die by the sword will die by the sword. This means that God’s holy people must endure persecution patiently and remain faithful.”–Revelation 13:10

When the Antichrist comes, there will be no power left on earth that can stop him.  And the reason there will be no power on earth that can stop him will be because liberals will have already taken any power capable of stopping him out of the hands of the people before he comes.

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the God damn America of the last days.  And the same slanderous enemies of God who gave us those terrible times will exploit them to set themselves up for the real horrors that are to come.

The beast is coming, and no, you won’t have any way to protect yourself or your family from the raw tyrant power of his government.

The very things that we’re doing right now is why the beast is coming.

Which is why in other news Iran has under the Obama administration developed the capability to manufacture 24 plutonium bombs – so far.  After the same principles that now compose the Obama administration openly mocked the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons when George Bush was president and tried to warn America.  And Armageddon, here we come.

I don’t want to end this on an angry note.  So I’ll say this: after Obama’s reelection, I strongly considered buying a so-called “assault weapon” before Obama and the Democrats take my rights away.  But I have decided not to.  That’s my right as an American: to decide whether I and my family need more security or not.  In our case, we have placed our trust in Jesus Christ and believe that He is coming to take us with Him in the Rapture.  Were it not for that faith, I’d be getting ready for the Antichrist to come and I would believe I needed that assault weapon so when his government came to my door to drag me away, I could at least resist my own execution.  And my question to you is this: what’s YOUR plan to be ready?

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

July 31, 2012

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.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers