2014 Out With The Old, In With The New
Mar 7, 2013 Political
Yesterday Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) engaged in an old fashioned filibuster where he spoke for over 13 hours. His filibuster was in opposition to Barack Obama’s pick to head the CIA and the regime’s stance on using drones to kill Americans on American soil (the filibuster was to hold up the process until he got answers). The regime refuses to state whether or not it feels it has the right to conduct such strikes and Paul wants answers. Given the recent reports about the issue and the regime’s evasive words on the subject, it is a reasonable thing to ask about. People do not have to agree with Paul but he followed Senate procedures and did everything in accordance with the rules of the Senate.
While Rand Paul and some of the new and young Senators were involved in the filibuster the old guard of the Republican Party was at a restaurant dining with Barack Obama.
Yes, while Paul was working to get an answer involving a Constitutional issue the old RINOs were out eating dinner with the guy who is the subject of the debate.
Today Lindsey Graham and John McCain ridiculed Paul and claimed he broke the rules of the Senate. They said his assertions were ridiculous because no one has ever been killed on American soil from a drone. The old guys were upset that Paul would even ask if the government (it just happens to be under Obama right now) would murder Americans without due process. C’mon, we wouldn’t do that and it is ridiculous to even bring it up. Our government would never kill someone before they had their day in court.
The people from Waco and Ruby Ridge were not available to comment on this issue.
It is refreshing to see a politician stand up for what is right. It is refreshing to see someone who believes the Constitution means something and is willing to fight to ensure it is followed.
It is also refreshing to see the young members stand up and bring some freshness to the stale old Senate that is full of old lifers who are more interested in living like royalty than doing the jobs for which they were elected.
John McCain needs to be in a retirement home yelling at the television and Lindsey Graham needs to be in the private sector as an ambulance chasing lawyer filing frivolous lawsuits to make ends meet.
And there are plenty of others in both parties who need to be out on the street.
You are correct Senators; our government has not used drones to kill Americans on American soil. You can think it is ridiculous to even think our government would do such a thing.
Not long ago people scoffed at those who said government would try to infringe on the Second Amendment. Ban guns? No way! Confiscate firearms, they would never try that.
And yet they are working on just that.
It is time to primary these clowns and get candidates who will stand for the Constitution and not for their personal agendas.
2014 is coming and we need to throw out the old and bring in the new…
Sources:
Washington Times
American Spectator
Reason.com
Gateway Pundit
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: constitution, establishment politicians, john mccain, lies, lindsey graham, old guard, rand paul, self serving
He Is Not The Commander In Chief Of Civilians
Mar 5, 2013 Political
Unless one is in the military (or the militia of the several states called into actual service of the United States) the President of the United States is not that person’s Commander in Chief. The Constitution states the president is the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States (Article II Section 2) therefore he is not the CINC of civilians. He has plenty of civilians that work under him since he is in charge of the Executive Branch of the government including civilians who work for defense but he is their boss, not their CINC.
The chief public affairs official for the Army’s Joint Munitions Command, Stephen D. Abney, sent out a memo telling civilian employees that if they grant an interview to the press (regarding the sequester) they are reminded not to say anything that might be perceived as criticism of the Commander in Chief or any political party.
He did tell them that they should make it clear they are expressing their own opinions and are not speaking for anyone else which is good advice.
However, these people are free to express themselves, as private citizens (so they should make it clear they are not speaking for any agency), in any way they want. If they want to tell the press that it is not necessary to furlough people and that the only reason this is being done is to cause pain so Obama can get his way then they are free to do so.
If they want to blame Republicans or Democrats or both parties then they are free to do so.
The members of the military are not allowed to speak in such a fashion because Obama is their Commander in Chief but he does NOT hold that title over civilians.
I do not recommend these employees say outrageous things but if they feel like expressing their disgust at the lack of leadership in the White House and in Congress then they should certainly do so.
If I were one of them I would not speak to the press to begin with.
Most of them are Obama stenographers and it would be like teaching a pig to sing.
Besides, the regime has already posted its marching orders and they can’t have anyone going off narrative. Obama predicted dire circumstances and he can’t have anyone ruining what he has worked so hard to do.
He wants pain. The White House is closed to tours starting this Saturday because of staffing cuts due to the sequester. I find it hard to believe this happened because employees have to get a 30 day notice and that notice is not expected until 26 March (meaning furloughs start 26 April). It is about causing harm and inconvenience to get people riled up.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: commander in chief, constitution, Obama, President, public affairs, sequester, the imperial president
Anti American Police Chiefs Are A Threat To Public Safety
Feb 19, 2013 Political
Chicago Police Chief Garry McCarthy has blamed everything for the plethora of gun related deaths in his city. He has blamed Sarah Palin and is now blaming the Second Amendment. Yes, the right to keep and bear arms is evidently the problem in Chicago where the right is infringed. You see, in Chicago there are very strict gun control laws that violate the US Constitution.
Yet the city is deluged with gun violence and gun crime.
The reason is obvious; criminals do not obey the law. If there was ever a fine example of how gun bans do not work, Chicago is it. The reality that gun control does not stop gun crime has been debated time and again and is generally pointless since brain dead liberals in the anti gun crowd do not understand common sense.
The same people who use all sorts of illicit drugs (those banned under law) think that laws banning guns will stop people from using them illegally.
The bigger issue here is that the police chief of a major city is expressing his view that part of our Constitution is a problem and that those who follow that Constitution are a threat to public safety.
The real threat to our safety is public servants like McCarthy who are not upholding their oaths. These people are dangerous because they believe it is Ok to ignore the Supreme Law of the Land to push their agenda. People who do this are the very reason we have a Second Amendment. It is in place to protect a preexisting right so that we the people have the means to fight tyranny within their own government.
McCarthy wants guns banned and the Second Amendment ignored so he and other like him can do as they wish and can abuse people at will.
They are dangerous and are a stark reminder of how important the Second Amendment actually is.
McCarthy believes the Second Amendment limits citizens to only owning smooth bore muskets. First of all, the Constitution does not limit citizens; it limits the government (which is why liberals do not like it). Second of all, the Second Amendment does not prescribe any particular type of firearm. Additionally, if McCarthy thinks that the Constitution only applies to items available when it was written then he and his officers need to give up their modern firearms. He needs to stop speaking on TV, the radio and the Internet and limit his communication to the newspapers and the US Mail.
McCarthy, not content with his anti Second Amendment lunacy, also said that judges and legislators should rely on opinion polls when interpreting the Constitution.
I imagine that would only pertain to things that liberals agree with. Public opinion polls showed that a huge majority of people were (and still are) opposed to Obamacare (is it any wonder why?).
What about any opinion polls showing that Obama should be impeached? How about those where people think Obama is not eligible to hold office?
In fact, the majority of people polled support our right to keep and bear arms so McCarthy would be SOL on that issue as well.
People like this are dangerous. He is unable to police his violent city and he is an idiot. He needs to be replaced and Chicago needs to stop violating the Constitution.
But in typical liberal fashion he blames everything that is NOT the cause of the problem.
If Obama had a son..
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: chicago, constitution, gun laws, lies, Obama, police chief, Second Amendment
Interesting Information About Guns
Jan 11, 2013 Political
Obama opposes guns for self defense even in the home:
As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home. White House Dossier
Even Pravda warns against giving up our guns:
These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions. Pravda
Do you have a responsibility to fight if they come for your guns?:
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 can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights. The DC Clothesline
It will likely get really ugly in the near future. People need to decide where they want to be and what they are willing to fight for. If the government can impose its will and remove God given rights like the right to keep and bear arms then it can remove the right to peaceably assemble, practice religion, speak freely, petition government for redress of grievances, the freedom of the press, right against unlawful searches, and on and on.
Once one right is deemed OK to sacrifice then all others are able to get the same designation. Without the means to fight against tyranny we become slaves to government. I don’t know where I read it but someone wrote that armed societies sometimes have mass shootings but unarmed societies have mass genocide.
How true that is. Governments have murdered more people than madmen with firearms.
The Constitution places limits on government and government’s power comes from the consent of the governed.
They need to be reminded of that from time to time.
[note]”When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes DUTY!” – Thomas Jefferson[/note]
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: constitution, guns, laws, men, pravda, rights, Second Amendment
Is It Legal To Trick Children Into Giving Evidence?
Jan 11, 2013 Political
We have all seen the TV cop shows where a perp is tricked into giving evidence. He is offered a drink or given a tissue so that fingerprints and DNA evidence can be collected from the items. The perp thinks the offer is genuine but it is solely to collect evidence. This happens all the time in the real world as officers fool people into giving evidence. These folks are adults and if they are fooled then it is their fault.
But what about children?
We already know that children are only allowed to consent to certain things (like abortions where they do not have to inform parents) but for the most part parents are supposed to be involved when students are questioned by police.
How about when evidence is being sought? Are the police allowed to trick children into providing information that might incriminate them? Is it legal for people who children believe to be in authority positions to have children unwittingly provide evidence by using false pretenses?
In Northampton Massachusetts a joint effort by the police, the District Attorney, and the school board has resulted in children being fooled into providing handwriting samples. This stems from an incident where a threatening note was left at the school resulting in an incident where the school was evacuated.
After that incident the three entities obtained handwriting samples from the children to use for comparison to the note containing the threat. The children were led to believe they were writing a statement indicating they take the threat seriously and share the concern of the police. There is no indication these children were ever informed that their statements were going to be used as evidence to see if one of them was the note writer.
It does not appear as if the children were given an option not to write the statement so many probably looked at it as a mandatory school assignment. What would have happened to any student who refused?
I don’t think that collecting evidence like this is appropriate since the intended use of the statements was only for this purpose. Why wouldn’t the police just ask teachers for handwritten assignments to use for comparison? Would a warrant be required for this? If the purpose of obtaining the samples was for comparison why was a warrant not required to get them?
“We disagree that it violates student rights,” he [Police Chief Russell P. Sienkiewicz] said.
Sullivan released a statement saying that the bottom line is ensuring the safety of students.
“We take any threats against children seriously and investigate all such threats,” he said. “The alleged threat at Northampton High School was of a serious nature.” Mass Live
The claim is that the DA said the method is valid and legal. Under what laws and why were parents not involved?
How is what happened here any different than tricking all students into providing a DNA sample to see who was sticking gum under desks?
I think threats should be taken seriously but violating the rights of citizens to do so makes those involved no better than the criminal who left the note.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: constitution, evidence, handwriting samples, illegal acts, school children