Obama’s Muslim Appeasement Continues
Feb 4, 2016 Religion of Peace, Terrorism
If Barack Obama is not a Muslim (I suspect he is) then he certainly sympathizes with them. He is openly hostile to Christians and Jews and ignores the massacre of them at the hands of Muslim radicals while he coddles and appeases Muslims. It is disgusting to watch Obama bend over backwards to make Muslims happy.
Obama visited a Mosque in Maryland yesterday (tying up traffic and causing disruption) and during his speech in a place that has been under FBI investigation since 2010 he told everyone that Islam has always been a part of America.
This is not the first time Obama has made this kind of claim and that means it is not the first time he has been wrong.
Muslims had little to do with America and the first to contribute anything (though not much) was about 80 years after our founding. Muslims were heavily involved in the slave trade, if that counts.
While Obama makes it sound like Thomas Jefferson had affection for Muslims the truth is he and others were working to stop the Muslim pirates who were attacking our ships. Our early leaders had the Koran so they could study the Muslims and learn how to defeat them. Jefferson showed his love for them when he sent the full force of the Navy to attack the pirates.
I guess we can say the Muslims contributed by showing us why we needed Marines.
Muslims have not always been part of America and their contributions are not something to write home about unless you are a jihadi writing home to brag.
Muslim contributions to the US involve trafficking in slaves, terror attacks, pirating (and this continues today), honor killings, rape, murder, female genital mutilation, and discontent with our way of life.
So while Muslims have not always been a part of America like Obama claims, the time they have been a part of us is one we would have been better off without.
[note]Muslims who come to America legally and to live in peace, welcome to you. Part of that life means to speak out against radicals. If you can’t do that then you are part of the problem.[/note]
I don’t know why he went to the Mosque. Perhaps he missed worshipping or perhaps he needed to hear the call to prayer.
Whatever the reason, Maryland could have done without the hassle.
I figure Obama was trying to show solidarity with them because they are, you know, persecuted.
Jews are twice as likely to be persecuted for their religion here in the US as Muslims are (interestingly Muslims feel the same way Hitler did about Jews and who is Obama visiting?).
I await Obama’s visit to a Synagogue.
The Jewish people, now they have always been a part of America.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
The Second Amendment Deals With An Individual Right
Dec 7, 2015 Second Amendment, Tyranny
A piece is posted at Bill Moyers.com by a writer named Dorothy Samuels (the site indicates it was originally posted at The Nation) gives us this writer’s opinion that the Second Amendment was never meant to protect an INDIVIDUAL right to a firearm. She indicates that the Conservatives on the Robert’s Court twisted the words and meaning of the Second Amendment and ignored the prefatory phrase; a well-regulated militia, in order to invent a right out of thin air. Her assertion is that it was well established that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right.
[note]I do not agree with her but as an aside, where was her outrage when the Robert’s court, led by John Roberts, codified Obamacare by changing a penalty to a tax?[/note]
Ms. Samuels could not be more wrong. It is important when looking at the Constitution to look at the words the people who wrote it used. It is important to read what they discussed about the document.
With regard to the Second Amendment the Founders were clear that it protected the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. There is no doubt the militia is mentioned and it is important to note that each citizen can be called into service for the militia (at that time men of a certain age). There is no guarantee they ever will but their right to keep and bear arms still exists. If they are ever called they will be properly trained (which is what well-regulated means) to defend the state.
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
—James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
The second phrase reads; “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The phrase The People means the body citizen. It does not mean the militia, it means the citizens or the people. The preamble to the Constitution starts out We The People and no one is foolish enough to suggest that this means only those called into the militia.
[note]If Ms. Samuels and those who think like her believe that only the militia should be armed then we need a lot more people carrying firearms. Title 10 US Code Subsection 311 defines the militia as;
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Cornell Law[/note]
Many quotes of the Founders can be found here. It is worthwhile to look at them and see what they had to say about individual liberty and freedom and how firearms kept and borne by citizens was important. Note that the quotes discuss the people and their right to bear their PRIVATE arms.
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one [sic] who is able may have a gun.”
— Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
I would also point out that the first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights. Some extend to industry like the media, institutions like religion and to the states and the people of those states. When it all boils down these are individual rights that are protected for the people from their government. The body of the Constitution already addresses standing armies, the Navy and the militia. If Congress intended for arms to only apply to the militia then it would have addressed it in the body and not in the portion that was designed to protect individual rights.
Ms. Samuels claims her position is well established. I say that the opposite was well understood a long time ago so much so that it needed not to be addressed. However, the common thought was displayed in the Dred Scott decision which reads, in part:
It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went [emphasis mine]. Wikipedia
Now the Scott decision was a horrible one and dealt with slavery. The issue about firearms was only presented as a parade of horribles the court said would happen if Negroes (the court’s words, not mine) were allowed to be free (to be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens). However, it clearly shows that the court was concerned that a ruling freeing Scott would give him the same rights as citizens and among those was the right to keep and carry firearms wherever he went.
There is no doubt that it was well established, contrary to Ms. Samuels claims, that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right so much so it was stated as an afterthought in the Scott decision. It was well known that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual one, that was never in doubt. It concerned the court that Scott would be allowed to do that which free men were already allowed to do.
So it is clear that Ms. Samuels is incorrect. She and those who dissented in Heller are the ones on the wrong side of history. Firearms are not responsible for the problems of society.
People are and the response, all too often, from people like Ms. Samuels is to punish those who had nothing to do with the problem.
It is un-American and it is unconstitutional.
All you have to do is read what the Founders wrote and look at the real history of the nation, not the common core crap they are teaching these days.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, dorothy samuels, founders, individual right, lies, Second Amendment
Happy Independence Day 2015
Jul 4, 2015 General
It has been about a week or so since I have posted. I was enjoying some down time with my spousal unit playing golf and relaxing (playing golf and relaxing are not necessarily the same thing).
Today we celebrate our independence from an oppressive government. Given what our government is now doing to us from all three branches the idea of independence is more important today than it was hundreds of years ago. We are being attacked from all sides and the tyranny grows daily. I wonder if it is only a matter of time before the same situation occurs in this time as it did back then.
But today we celebrate the bravery of a small portion of the population that claimed enough is enough and took matters into their own hands.
Let us celebrate those who gave us this freedom and nation and let us continually oppose those in our present government who would enslave us once again.
Before you head out to what you are going to do please take the time to view this Washington Post article to see what those who fight for us are doing while we are here at home.
God bless and may we preserve this fragile nation…
Take the time today to read the Declaration of Independence and think about what they were going through and then think about how their grievances fit today.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: 4th of july, founders, independence, tyranny
What Happens If the US Defaults?
Jun 18, 2015 Political
The United States is supposed to be the world’s superpower and the dollar the world’s currency but America is unable to control its spending. Despite taking in record amounts of money the federal government continues to spend even more.
We have 18 TRILLION dollars of debt but we have over 100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. These are things the government has promised but cannot pay for. When the day comes for those items to be paid the US will not honor the obligations because it will be unable to.
The war cry from liberals is to tax the rich more. The wealthy folks in our country pay most of the taxes. The bottom 47% of earners pay NO federal tax and often get back more than was withheld in an income redistribution scheme overseen by the IRS.
Taxing the wealthy would not solve the problem. If we confiscated 100% of the money the wealthy have the government would run out of that money in a few months. Then there would be no more to take and we would still have huge bills to pay.
China, among other nations, holds a lot of our debt. If China ever called for us to pay them everything back we would go under. The Chinese could collapse our economy, and thus our nation, and it would never have to take a hostile act to do it.
We are in serious trouble and it is getting worse. Soon, if things do not change, we will be like Greece.
The government there is looking at every possibility to solve its financial woes and that includes confiscating money from citizens and limiting their access to their own money. The US has schemes and one of them is to confiscate all the money in the various retirement plans throughout the nation. Doing so would give the government TRILLIONS of dollars to spend. It would keep us from defaulting for a while but it would leave everyone penniless. We would all be wards of the state.
Nanny state types will insist it is for the greater good and that the money confiscated can pay bills and be used to evenly pay every person a retirement. It would allow them to redistribute to the poor who have little or no retirement money saved while forcing those who saved to accept small amounts and live meager lives in retirement.
This of course assumes that the public will not revolt and stop this from happening by any means possible. That is a distinct possibility since people do not like their money to be screwed with. The poor who stand to gain will likely support it as will politicians who want to enslave even more people to the government plantation. Those who stand to lose will likely not take any action lying down.
The unrest will make for an environment where any enemy can take advantage and start trouble.
This all because our government can’t live within our means. This because our government insists on spending money on things that are not authorized by the Constitution. This because the tax system is screwed up and complicated and because the money that is confiscated from the people of the states is held over the heads of the states to gain compliance with ever increasing federal rule.
We need to abolish the IRS, change to a simpler tax system where EVERY wage earner pays (and we all pay the same percentage) and we need to harness the out of control government to force it to only spend money on things it is allowed to spend on.
Troubling times are coming and we will all pay a heavy price for the things our arrogant government is doing.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: arrogance, constitution, default, founders, irs, lies, tax laws
Founders Leveled Playing Field, Obama Does Not Like
May 24, 2014 Political
Barack Obama champions himself as an advocate for the poor and he truly believes that it is government’s job to take from those who have and give to those who don’t. He thinks government should make sure that everyone is equal. This is quite different from the idea that we all have equal opportunity (which we can either use or squander) in that Obama thinks that things must be made equal. He believes in equal outcome not equal opportunity. If you have a great health care plan then you need to pay more so that someone who cannot afford one gets his fair share. You make a lot of money then you must pay more in taxes to pay your fair share to help those who do not make as much.
The Founders had an equality item and they enacted it and Obama does not like it.
The Great Compromise settled an issue that nearly derailed the completion of the Constitution. The Founders decided that each state would have a number of Representatives based on population. This proportionality would give states with greater numbers of people more votes in the People’s House. That House is closest to the People and they are elected every two years so that they are (in theory) held accountable.
The compromise was that the upper chamber, the Senate, would have equal representation in each state. Originally Senators were selected by the state legislatures and represented the states to the federal government. This changed with the 17th Amendment which made Senators elected by the popular vote in each state. The Senators were to represent he states but the people and not the legislatures of the states selected them.
But, there are still two from each state. Barack Obama does not like this level playing field. He says that this allows all states to have an equal say regardless of population so things are gridlocked in Congress. He says that it is not fair that states with large populations have the same representation in the Senate as states with small populations.
“Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage,” Mr. Obama said. Washington Times
For a Constitutional scholar he seems to miss the idea that this was the point of the Great Compromise. The equality in the upper chamber was to allow each state to have equal representation (originally selected by the states and not the people) while the lower chamber, the House, had proportional representation.
Simply put, the House represents the interests of the PEOPLE and the Senate represents the interests of the STATES and it remains that way regardless of how the Senators are selected.
Notice he claims it puts US at a disadvantage, meaning the Democrats. Senators are not in place to give an advantage to Democrats they are there to ensure that the federal government cannot run roughshod over smaller states because each state, all being equal in the Union, had equal representation in the Senate.
It is funny how Obama dismisses this because it does not help Democrats. He has already stated the Constitution hampers government (which it was intended to do) and he does not like that. Now he claims that even though Republican ideas are rejected, it is hard to get things done because of the Constitution.
“So there are some structural reasons why, despite the fact that Republican ideas are largely rejected by the public, it’s still hard for us to break through,”
That was the whole idea of the Constitution, to limit government. The federal government already involves itself in issues that do not concern it and that have no basis in the Constitution. This is, partly, because Senators are no longer selected by the states. If the Senators were beholden to the states then they would do what the states want rather than strike deals to infringe on the rights of the states and then get the low information voters to put them back in office claiming they bring home the bacon. Vote for me because I got you stuff.
Obama claims he was a Constitutional law professor (though it is more claim than fact) and that he knows the Constitution. Perhaps he has read it but he certainly does not understand it. He has no clue why we have it and what it is designed to do. He ignores it and he has violated it.
Will no one hold him accountable?
You are hampered Barry, because people, despite your claims to the contrary, reject your ideas. The large states with hoards of liberals have given us things you championed that have NEVER been popular with the people. Obamacare has never polled higher (in actual scientific polls) than the opposition to it.
I also notice that Barry has no issue with three or four heavily populated places with lots of House representation deciding things for the rest of the nation. He is not concerned that New York and California along with several other heavily populated liberal states (usually just a few cities in those states) are able to give all their electoral votes to a presidential candidate even though most counties in those states are not Democrat.
Look at a map of the US broken down by counties and the entire country is red with swatches of blue. If you want it to be fair then we should look at that rather than population clusters.
As an aside, my idea for the electoral vote would be that they are given based on how the District voted. If a state has 10 electoral votes and 4 voted for the Democrat and 4 for the Republican then that is how the EVs should be awarded (the other 2 are the EVs for the Senators and they would go to the candidate who won the popular vote in the state). That would negate population clusters from affecting an entire state as even California and New York would award more to Republicans than Democrats.
The entire issue is that the Constitution was set up a certain way and Obama does not like it. He took an oath to uphold it but he is not. He violates it all the time and he should be impeached.
Thank goodness our Founders agreed to the Great Compromise or we would be a third world nation with a banana republic. Though we are getting there because of people like Obama.
Next time Obama talks about a level playing field remind him the Great Compromise gave us one and he does not like it…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, founders, great compromise, house, loies, Obama, Senate