Thursday, February 28, 2013

Rush Limbaugh - "Unprecedented...Spoiled-Brat President Does Intentional Harm"

RUSH:  You know, this really is unprecedented.  It's not getting any attention.  It's not getting any commentary whatsoever.  It's barely even being reported.  But, I mean, this is serious stuff.  The president of the United States has opened up the jails.  The president of the United States, because of budget cuts which have not happened yet, has released 500 or so illegal immigrants, and, by definition, of law, they are criminals.

We mentioned this late in the program yesterday.  Hundreds of illegal alien criminals have been released from illegal alien jail.  Janet "Big Sis" Napolitano says that because the sequester is gonna cut 1% of their $2 billion detention budget, they will no longer be able to afford to detain as many as 30,000 criminals.  Now, not all of those have been released yet.  This is the president of the United States.  Look, folks, I understand that we've gotta be very careful here in how we approach criticism of Obama, but, man, this is unprecedented.  This is actually action that will do harm.

Now, I know Obama thinks that he's harming Republicans.  This is exacting harm on the country, and it's entirely unnecessary.  None of these so-called budget cuts are necessary.  None of this panic is necessary.  It is not even going to be felt in reality if the sequester actually does happen.  We read the three-paragraph report from the AP on this near the end of the program yesterday, but there hasn't been much mention of it in the rest of the Drive-By Media.  I've only seen one article buried in the New York Times on a report from Fox News.  Fox is reporting 500 illegal alien criminals were released in Pima County, Arizona, alone. 

Apparently Obama never gets tired of sticking it to Arizona.

The New York Times reported that there were reports of releases in more than a dozen other locations all over the country.  Can you imagine any other president doing this in a fit of pique?  "Okay, I'll show you."  You know, folks, I'm gonna tell you something.  In what used to be considered, if we can remember this far back, normal, sane times, this is an impeachable offense.  This is in direct violation of the oath of office. 

Defend and protect the Constitution of the United States and the people.  We're opening the doors of prisons before the sequester has even happened, before there have even been any budget cuts.  This is so childish, except the consequences are real for people that live nearby these detention centers.  This is on-the-ground, hard, cold reality.

Obama is trying to see to it that the Republicans are being blamed for whatever happens.  I mean, there's a reason that we put people in jail in this country.  They violated the law.  They're not in jail for any other reason.  They're jailed properly.  They're considered a threat, and now they've been let go and they're in the process of being let go.  Fox is reporting that Homeland Security plans to release up to 10,000 illegal alien criminals eventually.  And, by the way, once they're let go, once they're released, what do you think the odds are that they're gonna be rounded up, recaptured, and re-incarcerated?  I don't think so.

The pure cynical view is that Obama has just let loose 30,000 new Democrat voters.  It's unreal, folks.  It's unreal.  And, of course, I'm trying not to get hysterical about this. I don't want to scare the 24-year-old women in the audience, who I'm told I intimidate simply by being me.  I mean, it's unreal.  This is action that is clearly not in the best interests of anybody.  But somehow it's gonna redound to Obama's benefit.  Now, for the record, these illegal aliens that are being released really are criminals.  Otherwise they would never have been detained.  It was the regime that detained 'em in the first place.  These are not Bush's prisoners. 

These are Obama's prisoners.  They were detained and imprisoned by the regime in the first place.
Let's not forget, thanks to Obama's various executive orders, ICE, the immigration people, no longer detain any illegal aliens unless they've been convicted of a serious crime.  That's who we're talking about here.  You have to commit a serious crime before we detain you, if you're illegal.  So this isn't just a bunch of discriminated against freedom fighters that have been wrongly jailed finally seeing freedom at all.  These really are convicted criminals that are being released.  And somehow it's being blamed on the Republicans. 

This whole idea is Obama's.  He's the one that gives the order to Janet Napolitano to release these people.  Republicans couldn't order this if they wanted to and yet they're going to end up getting the blame for it.

So this is how far Obama's willing to go to try to punish this country and anybody who stands in the way of him doing and getting what he wants.  In order to punish the Republicans, which is the first in his eyesight, that's who he first sees that he wants to punish, he's willing to punish the whole country in this ongoing effort of his to effectively eliminate any viable opposition.  Bob Woodward was on MSNBC.  He was on Scarborough's show today, and I'm gonna tell you, I think Woodward, based on what he said, has to be thinking even more.  Bob Woodward said the president is out there saying he can't go do what he has to to protect the country.  "This is a kind of madness."

Bob Woodward attacked Obama today, saying that Obama's decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier because of budget cuts that haven't even happened yet is a kind of madness.  Woodward said, not me, Woodward said, "Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?' Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?' Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document?"

Woodward said, "Under the Constitution, the President is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. 'I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country.'  That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

Now, if he's saying that, what else is he thinking?  He's right if you stop and think about this.  Not just releasing 30,000 illegals, but now not deploying an aircraft carrier.  I mean, this is the infantile, immature, childish rant of a spoiled brat.  It's really uncanny.  In my lifetime it is unprecedented, and it is a kind of madness.  END OF TRANSCRIPT

Rush Limbaugh

Why does the government need to dictate what the American citizen "needs"?


Ann Coulter never disappoints me when she pens a column.  Her logic is so fundamental, so basic, so obvious, that it often times eludes the average mind.  What a simple explanation for why it is so wrong for the government to attempt to restrict law-abiding citizens to own "assault rifles" if they damn well want to.  And it is so spot-on I am disappointed I didn't think of it myself.  Take a few moments to learn a valuable lesson in true freedom and democracy from a person who I think is a true pundit.

February 27, 2013

Having given up on trying to persuade Americans that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will reduce the murder rate, Democrats have turned to their usual prohibitionary argument: "Why does anyone need (an assault weapon, a 30-round magazine, a semiautomatic, etc., etc.)?"

Phony conservative Joe Manchin, who won his U.S. Senate seat in West Virginia with an ad showing him shooting a gun, said, "I don't know anyone (who) needs 30 rounds in a clip."

CNN's Don Lemon, who does not fit the usual profile of the avid hunter and outdoorsman, demanded, "Who needs an assault rifle to go hunting?"

Fantasist Dan Rather said, "There is no need to have these high-powered assault weapons."

And prissy Brit Piers Morgan thought he'd hit on a real showstopper with, "I don't know why anyone needs an assault rifle." Of course, where he comes from, policemen carry wooden sticks.

Since when do Americans have to give the government an explanation for why they "need" something? If that's the test, I can think of a whole list of things I don't know why anyone needs.

I don't know why anyone needs to burn an American flag at a protest. The point could be made just as well verbally.
I don't know why anyone needs to read about the private lives of celebrities. Why can't we shut down the gossip rags?

I don't know why anyone needs to vote. One vote has never made a difference in any federal election.

I don't know why anyone needs to bicycle in a city.

I don't know why anyone needs to have anal sex at a bathhouse. I won't stop them, but I don't know why anyone needs to do that.

I don't know why anyone needs to go hiking in national parks, where they're constantly falling off cliffs, being buried in avalanches and getting lost -- all requiring taxpayer-funded rescue missions.
I don't know why Karen Finley needs to smear herself with chocolate while reading poems about "love." But not only do Democrats allow that, they made us pay for it through the National Endowment for the Arts.

In fact, I don't know why anyone needs to do any of the things that offend lots of people, especially when I have to pay for it. I don't mind paying for national monuments and the ballet, but if "need" is a legitimate argument, there's no end to the activities that can be banned, forget "not subsidized by Ann."

Democrats are willing to make gigantic exceptions to the "need" rule for things they happen to personally like. Their position is: "I don't know why anyone needs to hunt; on the other hand, I do see why your tax dollars should be used to subsidize partial-birth abortion, bicycle lanes and the ballet."

They'll say that no one died in my examples (except abortion) (and bicycling) (and bathhouses) (and national parks), but the victims of mass shootings weren't killed by gun owners. They were killed by crazy people.

How about keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people?

Liberals won't let us do that -- and yet they won't tell us why anyone needs to live on sidewalk grates, harass pedestrians and crap in his pants. Those are precious constitutional rights, straight from the pen of James Madison, and please stop asking questions.

"I don't see why anyone needs ..." is code for: "I don't do it, so let's ban it." The corollary is: "I enjoy this, so you have to subsidize it."

Environmentalists say: "I don't know why anyone needs to shower once a day -- my French friends and I take two showers per month. We think we smell fine."

That's the difference between a totalitarian and a normal person. Liberals are obsessed with controlling what other people do.

As Sen. Dianne Feinstein said this week, so-called "assault weapons" are a "personal pleasure" and "mothers and women" have to decide whether this personal pleasure "is more important than the general welfare."

The "general welfare" is every tyrant's excuse, going back to Robespierre and the guillotine. Free people are not in the habit of providing reasons why they "need" something simply because the government wants to ban it. That's true of anything -- but especially something the government is constitutionally prohibited from banning, like guns.

The question isn't whether we "need" guns. It's whether the government should have a monopoly on force.

In liberals' ideal world, no one will even know you don't have to wait 22 minutes for the police when someone breaks into your home, there are toilets that can get the job done on one flush, food tastes better with salt, and you can drive over 55 mph and get there faster.

Meanwhile, we're all required to subsidize their hobbies -- recycling, abortion, the "arts," bicycling, illegal alien workers, etc.

Liberals ought to think about acquiring a new hobby: leaving people alone.


Tuesday, February 26, 2013

School teacher instructs legislators on the 2nd Amendment - classic!


Here's why we can't let the government take away our guns...auotmatic, semi-automatic or whatever!

The New American Gestapo is already a fact.

Posted by Richard R. Allen on February 18, 2013 at 1:55pm

The American Gestapo is already here and it was built with your permission and your tax dollars!  Yep, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Created after the 9-11 attacks in 2001 the DHS was created  and charged with the primary responsibilities of protecting the United States of America and U.S. territories (including Protectorates) from and responding to terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural disasters.

Back during Obummer’s first run for the White House while making a speech in Denver,  Then Senator Obama stated that he wanted to see a governmental police force as well equipped and armed as all of our armed forces combined.  For some reason he has never spoken of that again.  It is rumored that his advisors jumped all over him for making it in the first place.

Now consider the following facts:  There are DHS offices in every state in the Union; There are DHS offices in over 125 counties in those states; Obummer has begun firing any top ranking general that won’t pledge to fire on American citizens if ordered to do so.  He has already “retired” three of them:  The budget announced for DHS is in the $100,000,000,000 range or one hundred billion dollars of your money each year. The 2010 fiscal year budget was $98,800,000,000 I have never heard of any budget decreasing for any department of the government with the exception of the Military budget of course.

One more example of why we should never trust our government and grant them a blank check without
VERY specific instructions.

They took that check and, among other things did a few things that are unconstitutional.  Let’s take a look at one of them before I move on to today’s topic.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, reads – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Would you believe that your DHS has decided that amendment does not pertain within 100 miles of any border in the good old USA?  That means if you live in almost anywhere in the state of Florida you can be searched and your private property seized on the whim of an agent of your DHS.  (You might want to check on the history of the Gestapo at this point) How about NYNY or all of Rhode Island; all of the upper peninsula and more of Michigan; there is even a special proviso that takes in almost the entire states of Pennsylvania. Texas and New Mexico. Just go around the US map and wherever the US stops mark off 100 miles and you are no longer protected by the fourth amendment by DHS fiat.

Now let’s add in a few more facts just to clear things up a little more.  Non-military departments of your government have already purchased enough ammunition to wage a war similar to the one in Iraq for SEVEN YEARS.  Do as I did and look up the number of rounds of ammunition used per month in Iraq by our soldiers and do the math.  Oh , I forgot to mention the reason they espouse for the purchase:” To maintain the qualification with various weapons their agents are required to qualify on each year.  In other words, target practice.  Literally billions of rounds of ammunition already purchased for target practice.  This doesn’t even begin to talk about all of the new military style weapons purchased.  You know the ones I mean.  Those listed in Feinstein’s bill plus many of the fully automatic ones manufactred.

DHS IS your new secret police. 

Aren’t you proud?

Many thanks to all of the low-information, the no-information, and the illegal voting "citizens"

Sebelius’s New Obamacare Decrees Tip Her Hand

Posted by National Director, Dee on February 26, 2013 at 5:10am in Tyranny

Much of Obamacare wasn’t passed as fixed law but rather as an open-ended invitation for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make law, our constitutional separation of powers notwithstanding. 

That’s how the requirement came about that essentially all health plans must hereafter give privileged status to birth control pills, sterilization, and the abortion drug ella. Now, two new decrees from Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s secretary of HHS, highlight the Democrats’ principal goals in the health care realm:  to redistribute money; and to move away from insurance and toward pre-paid health care, preferably controlled by a federal government monopoly (so-called “single-payer” health care, which President Obama has said that he’s “a proponent of” and would...).

As Politico reports, the first decree from the 64-year-old Sebelius stipulates that, henceforth, insurers cannot charge those in their 20s or early 30s less than a third of what they charge those in their 50s or early 60s for coverage — even though such younger adults generally cost far less than a third as much to cover. 

The result will be skyrocketing premiums for younger Americans.  Her second decree stipulates that “catastrophic” health plans — plans designed to cover only unforeseeable, big-ticket items — must now cover foreseeable, small-ticket items, such as at least three routine doctor visits a year and “other services.”

In other words, Sebelius is requiring a massive redistribution of wealth from younger (and generally poorer) working Americans to older (and generally wealthier) working Americans.  She’s simultaneously denying Americans the freedom to choose plans (“catastrophic” plans) that are actually insurance plans, rather than pre-paid health plans — even though the former charge lower premiums, are increasingly popular, and have clearly been shown to lower health costs by giving consumers skin in the game.

Read more:

Sunday, February 24, 2013

What Is Liberalism?

Posted by GreggHoulden on February 23, 2013 at 11:36am in Tea Party

President Obama is said to have made the case for a liberal public policy agenda in his State of the Union speech the other night. But what is liberalism?

The conventional view is that liberalism is an ideology. In fact it is a sociology.

An ideology is a set of ideas that cohere. Socialism is an ideology. So is libertarianism. Suppose I told you that socialists believe the government should nationalize the steel industry and the auto industry. You would have no difficulty inferring what their position is on nationalizing the airline industry. Right? Suppose I told you that libertarians believe in a free market for tinker toys and ham sandwiches. You would have no difficulty inferring that they also believe in a free market for Rubik's Cubes.

Sociologies are different. They represent a set of ideas that are often incoherent. These ideas are likely to come together not because of reason, but because of history or happenstance. Not only do the ideas not cohere, they may be completely contradictory.

Take the issue of preschool education — forcefully endorsed by the president the other night. As David Brooks explained, the issue is really about allowing poor children to escape from the anti-education atmosphere of their homes to a place that will at least give them a chance to learn. Given a person’s position on preschool education for four year olds, shouldn’t you be able to predict how he will think about allowing poor six- and seven-year-old children to escape from bad schools? As it turns out you can’t.

Brooks explains the preschool issue this way:

This is rude to say, but here’s what this is about: Millions of parents don’t have the means, the skill or, in some cases, the interest in building their children’s future. Early childhood education is about building structures so both parents and children learn practical life skills. It’s about getting kids from disorganized homes into rooms with kids from organized homes so good habits will rub off. It’s about instilling achievement values where they are absent.

Okay, so how is that different from the situation faced by slightly older children trapped in lousy schools where teachers couldn't care less what they learn? It isn’t. Yet so many of those who favor preschool education (a new and expensive entitlement) are reliable opponents of vouchers, charter schools, firing bad teachers, closing bad schools or any other remedy that offends the teacher’s unions. And that includes President Obama.
Then there is the issue of the minimum wage. The minimum wage does almost nothing to relieve poverty. That’s because almost no one who is a head of household is earning the minimum wage for any length of time. However, I think it is fairly well-established that a higher minimum wage gives teenagers in above-average income households more pocket change, even as it closes off job opportunities for poor, minority teenagers. (Remember, the black teenage unemployment rate is about twice that of whites.) If you want to maximize job opportunities for low-income youngsters, as President Obama says he does, you certainly wouldn’t want a minimum wage standing between a minority youth and his first job. Yet creating that barrier and making it permanent is part of the Obama agenda for the labor market.

A related issue is public policy toward unions. There is no mystery about what a union is. It is an attempt to monopolize the supply of labor to employers. In most all cases, unions confer special (monopoly) status on workers who are solidly middle class, allowing them to seek above-market wages by closing off competition from those who earn less and have less. Yet encouraging labor unions is another core pillar of the Obama presidency.

Finally, our federal deficit is almost totally caused by entitlement spending on the elderly. Our government routinely sends Social Security checks to billionaires and pays their medical bills to boot — paid for in part by a 15.3% payroll tax imposed on the parents of the children to whom the president would like to provide preschool education.

The zip codes in America where people cash the largest Social Security checks are the very same zip codes where Medicare spends the most dollars on the average enrollee. And unlike the income tax, every worker pays the payroll tax — no matter how poor. Yet these are the programs that President Obama resists reforming.

Some readers will be quick to point out that the Democratic Party — dating back to the days of Franklin Roosevelt — consists of a coalition of interests and that winning elections requires satisfying each of those interests. Fair enough. But we are here talking about thinking, not winning elections.

Politicians will invariably search for some intellectual justification for what they do. Since their policies are incoherent, no ideology will serve their purpose. What they need is a sociology — a way of thinking about the world that defends the indefensible. They need intellectuals who will apologize for the mixed economy welfare state without any obvious sense of embarrassment. For the Obama administration, that sociology is liberalism. Its adherents once called themselves "liberals." Today, they are "progressives."

Times Square Billboards Blast Media Bias

The Media Research Council does tremendous work monitoring the liberal, biased maintream media.  This new campaign push will put the CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post and all the other Obama Lapdog "journalists"  on notice that they are being watched.

A conservative watchdog group that documents liberal bias in the media has rented five huge billboards in Manhattan’s Times Square as part of its “Stop Censoring the News” campaign.

The billboards seek to “educate the public about how certain media outlets apparently are spinning their coverage or simply censoring news critical of the Obama administration to protect and promote a liberal agenda,” CNS News reported.

The billboards, totaling 3,800 square feet, were rented by the Media Research Center (MRC), parent organization of CNS News.

Two of the billboards read, “It’s Time the Liberal Media Stop Censoring the News,” and two others read, “Start Telling the Truth” above an image of three monkeys, labeled ABC, CBS, and NBC, in a “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil” pose.

The monkeys “apparently neither see, speak, nor hear anything negative about the Obama administration or about liberals in Congress,” CNS News observed.

The fifth billboard reads, “Demand the Media Stop Censoring the News!”
MRC President Brent Bozell said in a statement: “During the 2012 election, the liberal media moved beyond bias. They actively and repeatedly censored any story that could have jeopardized Barack Obama’s re-election.

“Now in 2013 they’re censoring any story that could slow his administration’s second-term agenda. Their behavior is as disgraceful as it is unprecedented.”

The signs in Times Square are close to the headquarters of The New York Times and the offices for the news divisions of the three major broadcast networks.

“These billboards — located in the hub of the liberal media’s nerve center — put them on notice,” said Bozell. “The American people are sick and tired of the establishment media’s collusion with the Obama administration, and won’t stand for a corrupt press willing to censor the news.”

The billboards will remain in place for several weeks and will be viewed by an estimated 1.4 million people each week, according to the MRC.

The campaign’s website,, states that the MRC “has documented numerous cases of the media suppressing stories like ‘Fast and Furious,’ Solyndra, Benghazi, and others, stories that would have been major news if there had been a conservative in the White House.”

Friday, February 22, 2013

The Hidden Agenda Behind Obama's Universal Pre-K Initiative

Why do liberals consistently ignore facts when implementing their agendas?  Why do they not learn from past mistakes?  If something has been proven not to work, why do it again?  Well, the answer is actually not a surprise to anyone who is so familiar with liberal "hidden agendas."  The ends always justify the means for a true liberal.  Want to know why Obama is pushing this initiative FOR REAL?  Read to the bottom of the article.  No mystery here.

USA Today asks, “Why not fix the family instead?”
posted at 8:41 am on February 22, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
Barack Obama promised to expand government spending on pre-kindergarten education to make it “universal,” a proposal certain to warm the hearts of middle Americans.  After all, who doesn’t want to help our children get ahead?  However, that prompts two questions — will it actually help, and could we take more effective and less costly action elsewhere?  USA Today addressed the first question yesterday, and argued that the real danger to toddlers isn’t a lack of pre-K education; it’s broken families:
Children are most likely to succeed in school when pushed by parents who provide stability, help with schooling, and instill an education and work ethic. But for decades now, the American family has been breaking down.
Two-fifths of children born in the USA are born to unmarried mothers, an eightfold increase since 1960. Many succeed thanks to the heroic efforts of strong, motivated single parents and other relatives. But research shows that children of single parents suffer disproportionately high poverty rates, impaired development and low performance in school.
Ron Haskins, an expert on children and families at the Brookings Institution, calls single parenthood a “little motor pushing up the poverty rate.” In 2011, the rate for children of single mothers was more than four times greater than that for children of married couples.
Researchers at Princeton and Columbia, following 5,000 children born to married and unmarried parents, have found that the effects of single parenthood seep into every aspect of kids’ lives.
A typical pattern in these “fragile families” looks like this: When a child is born, most fathers and mothers are in a committed relationship. By the time the child reaches 5, though, many fathers have disappeared. As the mothers move on to new relationships, the children face more instability, often with new siblings born to different fathers. Boys without strong male role models are more likely to turn to gangs and crime.
Single mothers read less to their children, are more likely to use harsh discipline and are less likely to maintain stable routines, such as a regular bedtime. All these behaviors are important predictors of children’s health and development.
If more pre-K education provided an antidote to these ills, then it might still be worth it.  However, USA Today alludes to studies showing that it actually does little or no good, and Charles Murray at Bloomberg provides a deeper analysis:
“Study after study shows that the earlier a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road,” said U.S. President Barack Obama in Feb. 14 speech in Decatur, Georgia. “Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than seven dollars later on — boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, reducing violent crime.”
Obama wants to help our nation’s children flourish. So do I. So does everyone who is aware of the large number of children who are not flourishing. There are just two problems with his solution: The evidence used to support the positive long-term effects of early childhood education is tenuous, even for the most intensive interventions. And for the kind of intervention that can be implemented on a national scale, the evidence is zero. …
IHDP provided a level of early intervention that couldn’t possibly be replicated nationwide, but it gave us by far the most thorough test of intensive early intervention to date.
The follow-ups at ages 2 and 3 were positive, with large gains in cognitive functioning for the treatment group. But by age 5, those gains had attenuated. Where are things now? In the most recent report, the children in the study had reached 18. For the two-thirds of the sample who weighed no more than 2,000 grams (4.4 pounds) at birth, almost all of the outcome measures weren’t even in the right direction: The control group did slightly better. For those who weighed 2,001 to 2,500 grams at birth, the best news the analysts could find were positive differences on a math test and on a self-report of risky behaviors that reached statistical significance but were substantively small. Combine the results for both groups, and the IHDP showed no significant effects on any of the reported measures — not cognitive tests, measures of behavior problems and academic achievement, or arrest, incarceration and school- dropout rates.
Should we conclude that the IHDP results were depressed because of infants with serious neurologic complications, and that it would have worked on neurologically normal infants? The researchers ran the analysis on children who were free of significant neurological problems and found no difference.
Another possibility is that the aggregate results were damped down because some of the IHDP children were not socioeconomically disadvantaged. Were the results any better when the disadvantaged members of the sample were analyzed separately? The 18-year follow-up report is silent on that question. I can’t help but assume that if the results for the disadvantaged children had been better, we would have heard about them. Based on the published record, the IHDP results give no reason for optimism about even the most intensive early education approaches.
In fact, the federal government studied the impact of their largest, long-term intervention in this area, Head Start.  The results?  No lasting benefit could be found, and in some areas, it actually hurt.  As Murray stated later in his piece, the program may have given a small percentage of children who lived in at-risk environments a few hours in a safer place, and that does have some value.
However, that brings us back to the point of USA Today’s editorial.  Children from broken homes are more likely to live in relatively unsafe environments due to poverty, attention issues, and so on.  Instead of extending the government penumbra and taking kids out of the home for just a few hours of the day for programs that provide no other benefit, why aren’t we focusing on finding ways to incentivize marriage and disincentivize divorce and parental irresponsibility? If we want to improve the learning capabilities of the next generation, we would find much more potential in that approach.
Update: An astute observation from Hot Air reader Neil:
While I agree with all your comments regarding “fixing the family” I believe you’re missing the real rationale behind the creation of a federally funded universal Pre-K program; namely to generate a 100,000 new members of the SEIU; the consequences of which are clear, regardless of programmatic success.
Yes, the rationale behind government expansion is usually government expansion, with all of the usual cui bono suspects.

Picture's worth a thousand words...

The far left has drawn a line in the sand

There is a social epidemic of psychological pathology raging through this country!

Posted by Michael on February 21, 2013 at 9:02pm

There is a social epidemic of psychological pathology raging through this country. It is unprecedented and is further exacerbated by a failing mental health system, socio economic upheaval and the irresponsible mass distribution of mind and mood altering psychotropic drugs which find their way into the average families medicine cabinets and are regularly prescribed to children during their developmental years. Many times these drugs are prescribed without the supervision of a mental health professional. Long term effects of these drugs have not been thoroughly researched and in many cases lead to permanent changes in brain and body chemistry, mania and suicide. The solution for this travesty by the ultra far left elitists who currently rule by tyranny is gun control.

A recent gang associated school shooting in Atlanta Georgia on Thursday February 7, 2013 was stopped by an armed resource officer before any further tragedy occurred, no one was killed and the teen that was shot was later released that day and only received minor injuries. The resource officer did not shoot the perpetrator; another teen student, since he too was armed and was able to disarm the shooter by brandishing his weapon and taking control of the situation. Columbine as well as Sandy Hook were gun free zones. Columbine occurred during an assault weapon ban. Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban. Chicago Illinois has some of the toughest gun laws in the country yet there are 2.58 murders per day. The Chicago Superintendent of the Chiefs of Police attacks law abiding citizens instead of taking personal responsibility for his lack of solutions and failure to fight crime. The truth of the matter is gun bans and criminalizing law abiding gun owners will not stop these tragedies will not curb them and do not control guns or criminals.

This has been proven time and time again not only over recent decades but throughout this century. Despite this obvious and logical truth the ultra far left elitists most of which are surrounded by their own armed security officers who carry and conceal “assault weapons”, default to the failed solution of attempting yet another power grab; the assault weapons ban and for nothing else than to pander to their constituents moving that much closer to total control. They know all well that no government municipal, state or federal governing body can guarantee anyone’s safety, but then again that’s not what this is about.

The elitist left will also create and expose average everyday Americans to what will be one of the most brutal and murderous black markets ever to exist in America: the assault weapons black market. If America is one thing it is resourceful and has great resolve in supplying tangible goods or substances that are deemed illegal, especially when their values increases 20-30 times over night. One only has to look back to the earlier part of the twentieth century to prohibition or more recently illegal controlled substances like narcotics and marijuana. The day they became illegal the profit margins went straight through the roof. Just ask Felipe Calderon about drugs and weapons black markets in Mexico and across the infamous “border”.

The difference is that the “assault weapons” flowing into the U.S will most likely be of Chinese or Soviet origin especially now that there is a unprecedented fully operational AK103 factory (the first of its kind) on North American soil in the country of that great friend of the Obama administration Jugo Chavez’s Venezuela. I am sure it would be much to the delight and candor of the Chinese and Soviets to start sending cases of their own AK’s to over exuberant South and Central American cartel bosses who already ship kilo upon kilo of heroin and marijuana into the U.S on a daily basis.

The caveat to this is Obama, Feinstein and company who do not even know or act as if they don’t know what an “assault weapon” is (which is a combat rifle with full auto capability or a full auto selector switch, which only private citizens with a class 3 tax stamp can own and these weapons are then registered with the ATF) will gladly infringe upon law abiding American citizens with the brazen swagger of any autocratic dictator of the 20th century, absolute power and suppressive law as they walk through America surrounded by heavily armed guards.

I would not have thought that in my life I would have witnessed rule by tyranny in the United States of America (especially by Blacks and Jews who have suffered greatly at the hands of tyrants) supported by a propaganda machine no less than the likes of the ex Soviet Union or Herman Gerbils Nazi machine. That day is here. Ironically I have never owned what is currently misclassified as an assault weapon, however I have never felt more of a desire than the present to own one, not to protect myself against criminals but to defend myself from tyrannical rule. Based on recent gun sales numbers especially of these and similar weapons it looks like I am not alone.

These leftists do not believe in America, their idea of change is to strip us of our language borders, culture and our constitution, to open the door to foreign Nationals of their choice ex. Amnesty to  Latinos but no one else, what about Southeast Asians, Eastern Europeans, Africans there are plenty more illegal’s here from other countries.  They want to establish historical models and practices from European countries that are currently failing and they demonize anyone: Whites Blacks, Jews, etc. who do not want to go back to these approaches which are the entire reason this country even exists in the first place (to break free from Europe).

They feel obligated to appease anyone from a different culture, or foreign National and blindly turn over the reigns of power to them despite lacking credentials. The elected officials not only scoff at the oath they took to protect the constitution they “spit on it” as they spit on any American citizen who challenges their decisions. The NDAA, department of homeland security amassing weapons and ammunition, all resonate the new world order under the Obama wing of the Democratic party the The New Socialist Peoples Republic of the United States.

With the threat of democide looming as the final solution I think the question of the day to freedom loving Americans, (not freedom fearing Leftists or power grabbing Marxists) who still care about their country and for which it stands, is not if you are ready to stand by your beliefs, the question is are you ready to die for your beliefs?

The far left has drawn a line in the sand. Based on their recent actions it is obvious they will do whatever they have to, despite the democratic process, to achieve their goals. Semantics are no longer an option, Republicrats are nothing but an arm of the Democrat party to pacify conservatives into thinking they have representation. It’s no longer about what you can do for your country; it’s about what your country is going to do to you.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

The 4 Scandals that are Benghazi

Remember Benghazi
Written on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 by Robert Owen

In history there have been a number of memorable phrases. Two that come to mind are “Remember the Maine” and “Remember the Alamo”. Both are important to the history of our great country. I offer one that is their equal or perhaps their superior. “Remember Benghazi”. That simple call should be a watchword of today’s generation of those that care.
The debacle at Benghazi, not one scandal but four separate examples of the ineptness and shallowness of the Obama regime, should be remembered forever as the absolute low point of American governance.
Scandal number one is the period before the attack. The consulate had been attacked previously to the extent that a hole had been blown through the wall large enough to allow the attackers in. This hole had never been repaired. It was known that there were Al Qaeda groups in the area and that the consulate was in danger due to a secret war in Africa. This war was being run by John Brennan through the White House without the knowledge of the State Department, the CIA, or the Pentagon. The important thing, however, is that the ambassador requested more security to protect Americans and American soil in this highly volatile area.
The requested security personnel were not forthcoming. As I understand it, there are only two people in government that can refuse an ambassador’s direct request. That is the Secretary of State or the President. So the question is by whom and why was that request denied? Secretary Clinton testified. But she shed no light on these questions. Her most monumental statement was “what does it matter now?”. I think it does still matter to many of us. It matters a great deal.
Scandal number two is that during the attack. Ambassador Stevens begged for help. Once again, he was denied. The attack was monitored by two drones overhead. The video link was monitored at the State Department and, it has recently been suggested, by the Vice President. Who knows how many more people in government were watching? The administration is not saying. Our brave people, that were under fire, had laser target designators and were experienced operators. There were F-18s at Aviano AFB in Italy and, early on it was said, an AC-130 gunship possibly at Sigonella NAS in Sicily. Either one, an hour away, could have altered the results of that seven hour battle. So the statement that no support was available will not hold water. Again the same question. Who and why?
This brings us to scandal number three. The cover up. Make no mistake, everybody involved, from the President on down, knew that this was not a mob action brought about by some dumb movie that no one had even seen. They knew this was an all out attack by Al Qaeda or a surrogate. For seven weeks they tried to peddle this implausible story. Even with the help of the ever willing press the story never grew legs. Americans are smarter then our politicians think they are. The American people “got it“. But even to this day the President is claiming the problem was “a little sloppiness in the State Department“. A little sloppiness in the State Department does not account for the deaths of four American heroes. Once again we must ask, who and why?
Before we get to the fourth scandal, I think that we can get a hint of the why of all this. President Obama led from the rear, as you will recall, in Libya. The country was thrown into total chaos with no obvious leadership. Mr. Obama was desperate to prove he knew what he was doing and that his tactics were successful. He had to prove that Libya was calm and under control. It wasn’t. So a political decision was made and a fantasy story was woven, hoping the results of obfuscation would be fortuitous. They weren’t. Most of us learn as children that these things never work. I guess if you live in your own fantasy world………
So, on to the final scandal. Number four. The facts are simple. General David Petraeus repeated the administrations story after the fact. A few days passed and he admitted to an affair and resigned. Then he rescinded his original story. We will probably never know exactly what went on, but we can make a guess. I’d guess that he liked his CIA post and wanted to keep it. I’d guess that to do that he agreed to support the administration. I’d guess that his warrior’s sense of honor kicked in and he changed his mind. A lot of people went under the bus on this one.
So we must remember Benghazi. Time has passed and the administration wants it to go away. The American people still deserve answers. As usual the main stream media is giving this a pass. Those of us that write because we care, must stay on this story. This is bigger and more important than Watergate. I don’t intend to let it pass. I hope there are others with me.

Wow! Greg Gutfield flattens MSNBC Libtard Chuck Todd

Greg Gutfeld to Chuck Todd: Denying media bias is ‘like denying science’

On Wednesday’s broadcast of FNC’s “The Five,” co-host responded to a statement from NBC White House correspondent and MSNBC “The Daily Rundown” host that it’s a “mythology” to believe the mainstream media are hostile toward conservatives.

“I think that the mythology of the big, bad non-conservative media has gotten into some offices,” Todd said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday. “And so that there’s this fear of, oh we can’t do, we can’t do anything that’s not — it’s sort of this — and I feel like it’s a mythology that now younger staffers believe and then it infuses, and then these guys, they actually believe the spin that’s out there.”
 After complimenting Todd on his goatee, Gutfeld said there was evidence to prove media bias, including studies and anecdotal evidence.

“Nice goatee,” Gutfeld said. “OK, look — denying the media bias at this point has to be like denying science. You’re worse than a flat-earther — you’re a no-earther. Because if you don’t believe in media bias, what else do you believe in? That men once rode dinosaurs? That Bill Maher is edgy? In order to deny media bias, you got to deny studies of voting practices of journalists, which reveal liberal purity; the frothy leftism of the journalistic launching pad that is the leafy campus; the scandals where journalists conspired to smear righties as racist; that journalistic whistle-blowing is always left on right and it’s never the reverse (see Benghazi, as opposed to [Valerie] Plame); the threesome that occurs whenever a lefty shows up on ‘60 Minutes.’”

He went on to say if you deny bias, then you’ll likely believe a myriad of things, including stereotypes about conservatives.

“But I guess if you believe in an objective media, you’ll believe in anything: like a whistle is better than a gun; redistribution beats opportunity; black conservatives are Uncle Toms and female conservatives are scolds; that being born white is racist; that tolerance requires calling terror ‘workplace violence’; that our country’s energy can be found in griffin lint; that the tea party is more harmful than drug lords; that Occupy Wall Streeters were cuddly Muppets; that choice matters before birth, not after; that a border is selfish; that every tenet of the left hasn’t saddled most young Americans with a toxic notion of entitlement without achievement, drowning in disposable culture as China rifles our wallets and our hard drives. But it’s easy to miss media bias. To quote Madge from Palmolive [commercials], ‘You don’t see it my dear, because you’re soaking in it.’”

Read more:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

What are the chances the lame stream media picks up this story?

Columbine Survivor Pens Bold Open Letter to Obama Rejecting Gun Control: ‘Whose Side Are You On?’

Why can't liberals understand what the 2nd amendment means to real Americans?

Sheriff Warns Of “Second American Revolution”

Milwaukee County law enforcer urged his citizens to arm themselves
(Info Wars) – A Milwaukee County Sheriff has warned that a second American Revolution may be sparked if unconstitutional gun laws are enforced by police and sheriff’s department officials.
Sheriff David Clarke recently urged the citizens he serves to consider learning firearm safety because of “a duty to protect yourself and your family.”

In a message posted on the Sheriff’s website, Clarke wrote “I need you in the game, but are you ready? With officers laid-off and furloughed, simply calling 9-1-1 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back; but are you prepared?”

“Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We’re partners now. Can I count on you?” the message urged.

Speaking on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, the Sheriff hit home his opinions on the gun control proposals that are being pushed via presidential executive orders.

“First of all, to me that would be an act of tyranny. So the people in Milwaukee County do not have to worry about me enforcing some sort of order that goes out and collects everybody’s handgun, or rifles, or any kind of firearm and makes them turn them in.” Clarke said.

“The reason is I don’t want to get shot, because I believe that if somebody tried to enforce something of that magnitude, you would see the second coming of an American Revolution, the likes of which would make the first revolution pale by comparison.” the Sheriff urged.

Like Alex Jones, Sheriff Clarke also recently appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, in an interview that was clearly set up by Morgan in a failed attempt to demonize lawful gun owners and push the idea of strict gun control. During the broadcast Morgan said that Clarke’s plea regarding citizens arming themselves would “turn Milwaukee into the Wild Wild West”.

“This has nothing to do with violence reduction because the type of violence that we’re talking about, that I see on the streets in the Milwaukee area on a daily basis is not even committed using the weapons that the left is trying to ban.” Clarke told Jones’ listeners.

“They are not using assault rifles, they are not using high capacity magazines, they are not buying their ammo over the internet. The criminals couldn’t care less about a background check, so that tells me that this is ingenuous.” he added.

Related: Many More Sheriffs Vow Not To Enforce Federal Gun Control Laws

“If they were serious about violence reduction, they would get behind me… and join me arm in arm in calling for longer periods of incarceration for repeat career criminals who have demonstrated over and over again that they are going to get a hand gun, that they are going to get a firearm and perpetrate violence.” Clarke noted.

The Sheriff added that a recent a Sikh temple shooting in his County a few months ago was perpetrated by an individual who passed a firearms background check.

“My understanding is the creep in Aurora Colorado who shot up the theatre, also passed a background check.” Clarke said. “This isn’t about background checks, of which the overwhelming majority of gun transfers go on anyway.”

“This is about attacking the Second Amendment, it’s about going after the wrong crowd.” The Sheriff posited.

Asked why he believed such strict measures were being pushed by the Obama administration at this time, the Sheriff pointed toward a general push for increased governmental control over society.

“Government control cannot go on as long as people have some sort of ability to say ‘hey wait just a doggone minute’.” The Sheriff told listeners. “That’s what the government fears, they don’t really fear the criminals, they support the criminals. What they fear is a law abiding person.” he added.

“Read the Declaration of Independence, it’s right there where a law abiding people say ‘enough is enough, you are exerting too much influence in our lives, this is tyrannical and we’re going to stop it,’ that’s what they are worried about.” he concluded.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Will you allow the government to take away your constitutional rights?

As I read this blog post I must have experienced a half dozen emotions.  I read it slowly and gave thought to every passage.  I realize that many Americans - perhaps even most - I know I even live with one or two - will laugh this off and say "this isn't the 1700's".  But think abou the prescience of our founding fathers who had enough forethought to costruct a document that would provide citizens of this great nation with recourse should the government that supposedly serves us, turn tyrannical and begin stripping us of our constitutional rights.   I for one will fight.

This is certainly a long diatribe but well worth your time to read it.  At the very least, you will learn that our government is not a "democracy", but a "constitutional republic".  Oops.  You already learned that without reading the blog post.  But still plow through it so you will have an understanding WHY the founding fathers created a constitutional replublic and not a simple majority-rules democracy.  There are also some very profound quotes from some of our country's finest patriots.

If they come for your guns, do you have a responsibility to fight?

Posted by crashaxe on February 19, 2013 at 6:44pm in Tea Party

Pretty good essay, from a guy that cares.
If they come for your guns, do you have a responsibility to fight?
Food for thought in this great debate.
This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking but are too cautious to express openly. I hope it never comes to what he is advocating but I can certainly see where the possibility exists.

God help us all if it ever does happen.

P.S. - Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:

Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan, grew up in the Indiana, Illinois, and Texas, and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan. Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan. His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."
Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?
Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison
I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.
Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so?  Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

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.
This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.
For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

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. -Thomas Jefferson

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. - George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams
I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.  We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.  It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it.
The time for speaking in code is over.  If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority cannot take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.
Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here; it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the Supreme Court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I cannot tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.  I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

Through regulations, taxation, inflation of the money supply, trade restrictions, and tethers on private associations, government itself is nothing but a massive drain on prosperity. The situation has become deeply dangerous for the future of freedom in America, with young people unable to find jobs, opportunities being destroyed in sector after sector, banks and corporations living on the dole, and so many regulations that we are living under something nearly as egregious as Soviet-style central planning.

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford