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
Gun Confiscation; Could It Happen In America?
Feb 14, 2013 Political
There is no doubt that liberals do not like the Constitution which they view, as Obama said, as deeply flawed. They hate the Second Amendment and the fact that it protects the right to keep and bear arms, a right that preexisted the document. The Founders protected that right because they saw firsthand what a tyrannical government can do to people.
Liberals love to go after law abiding citizens when some lunatic uses a firearm illegally. The left is more than happy to punish the millions of people who did nothing wrong. Their idea on gun violence would be like solving drunk driving by banning sober people from buying cars. The big difference, of course, is that keeping and bearing a firearm is a right and driving is a privilege so even though banning sober people from owning cars is moronic, it would not be unconstitutional.
What government gives you government can take away. Government allows us the privilege of driving. The right to keep and bear arms is a God given RIGHT. Government cannot take away that which was given by God (absent a valid reason like committing a crime in which case one surrenders the right as a consequence of an action).
Obama has always hated firearms (except those used to protect him and his family). He has never wanted people to have them and has worked to get rid of them. Every time some nut uses a firearm to commit a crime Obama calls for common sense laws to prevent such things. No such laws exist and those laws enacted would only harm lawful owners. Obama seems unable to comprehend the fact that criminals do not obey the law. Obama should be aware of this because all the laws against drug use did not stop him and his Choom Gang from using drugs. Would tougher laws against drugs have prevented little Barry Obama from using pot and cocaine to get stoned with his buddies?
Liberals across the nation have trotted out laws to infringe on the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. In Missouri the Democrats have crafted a bill that would outlaw all firearms designated as assault weapons and all magazines designated as high capacity. People would have 90 days to surrender (render permanently inoperable or remove from the state) all such firearms or face criminal charges (another reason not to have a registry of firearm owners).
I would like to think this bill would not pass but in this day and age the Constitution means nothing to politicians, particularly the progressives/liberals, and government at all levels is becoming more tyrannical. I can only imagine that if this were to pass there would be many clashes between those who try to confiscate and those who say no.
The real danger is that this is an Overton Window. The liberals introduce this outlandish legislation and people revolt. Then they back off to what they really wanted and people say it is OK believing they averted a disaster. It is an incremental approach to banning firearms.
Say NO to this kind of stuff. There are no qualifiers in the Second Amendment that allows government to determine the size or type of firearm or magazine. There are laws that prohibit government from keeping a registry of firearm owners. As an aside, Democrats are willing to ignore those laws while expecting us to believe that criminals (private sector criminals, as opposed to those in government) will follow any law banning firearms, magazines or ammunition.
Many law enforcement officers across the nation are making it known they will not follow any law that infringes on the Second Amendment. This is for federal laws. We need such people strongly asserting that they will not follow state or local laws that infringe.
One such officer is Police Chief Mark Kessler of the Gilberton Borough Police Department in Pennsylvania.
We, as a people, need to stand up and fight the tyranny. We have the soap box, the ballot box and the bullet box. What we choose depends on what government does.
Do you still think government will not deny your rights or confiscate your firearms? Do you think that it could not happen in America?
How would it have played out if those people were organized and fought back? How would it have played out if they were prepared and had in mind that government might confiscate firearms? How would it have ended if they had been ready before the police and NG organized?
The government is preparing. Are you ready and how will YOU respond?
MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: gun confiscation, katrina, lies, missouri, nra, Obama, rights, Second Amendment
A Paying For Problem Is A Spending Problem
Feb 12, 2013 Political
Congressman Steny Hoyer, a moron from Maryland, said that the country does not have a spending problem; it has a “paying for problem.” Yes, this moron actually said this. He might be right depending on the definition of spending because it seems there is no problem when it comes to that task. The problem is spending too much.
We have a paying for problem because we spend more than we have. In Hoyer’s limited ability to comprehend, we only have a problem because government has not confiscated more of our money to pay for the spending. You see, if only they could steal more from us, then there would be no problem.
If you had little or no money and went out and bought something on credit and then coul not pay for it what would be the root of your problem? Would it be a paying for problem (yes, you definitely have that if you can’t pay your bill0 or would the root cause be that you spent money you knew you did not have?
[note]When you have a paying for problem it is because you have a spending problem. If you don’t spend too much you won’t have a problem paying the bills.[/note]
Hoyer also took his obligatory shot at George Bush and Republicans:
Well, we spent a lot of money when George Bush was president of the United States in the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans. We spent a lot of money. Real Clear Politics
George Bush was responsible for four trillion dollars in increased debt in eight years. Obama is responsible for a six trillion dollar increase in four years. It is time to stop blaming Bush for the past and focus on the failures of the present guy and his band of merry morons.
Steny put on your big boy pants and start accepting responsibility. Perhaps you can talk to the members of your party in the Senate and find out why they have failed to pass a budget for the last four years. There is a little thing called a law that mandates them to do so.
I am sure I am wasting my time because Hoyer is not a very smart guy. I am surprised they let him out in public without one of those safety helmets on.
Steny, I will type this slowly for you. The US takes in lots and lots of money each year. You guys keep spending more than that. Perhaps you all can focus on things that will get the economy going again and millions of people can get jobs. Then they can pay taxes and solve your alleged paying for problem.
Keep in mind that no matter how good the economy is we always (absent accounting gimmicks) run deficits. Even the alleged Clinton surplus actually ran a deficit.
You can make anything look good on paper.
The only thing Clinton balanced was his marriage and his affair and that, like his math, failed.
I am glad that Hoyer is not my representative. I would not want to have to communicate with him as it would lower my IQ.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: debt, Democrats, moron, Obama, paying for problem, steny hoyer, taxes, trillions
Obama Regime Drones On
Feb 5, 2013 Political
The Obama Regime has released a memo indicating that the US can order the killing of US citizens if the government thinks they are involved with terrorists. The government has left definitions open to interpretation which means that it can effectively justify killing any American in other countries.
This whole action takes away the due process Americans enjoy.
The rationale for this is to preemptively strike those who might cause us harm even if there is no proof they will do so or when they might actually do it. In other words, if the government thinks you are a bad person who might someday try to do bad things to the US then you can be murdered by a drone strike whether or not there is any evidence you are in the process of doing something bad.
It would appear as if a person could make statements that America is a Great Satan and should be knocked to its knees and then have a drone wipe them out. Basically, the memo denies First Amendment rights in the absence of any actionable intelligence. If they think it then it must be so…
The Regime claims that this does not violate the ban on assassinations:
“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.” NBC News
How is killing an American who meets this definition not an assassination when killing the president of Iran or the leader of North Korea, both of whom fit this description, would be?
This is all about preemption. If the government thinks you might be a threat it can preemptively attack and kill you with a drone.
Does anyone remember the Bush Doctrine of preemption? The left went bonkers over that and yet they seem to be quiet about the Obama Doctrine of preemptive murder of Americans. Does anyone remember how upset everyone on the left got over enhanced interrogation techniques? The Bush White House presented a legal memo indicating that the procedures were not torture and that it was all legal. The left still went nuts.
Where are they now that Obama has his legal team say it is OK to murder Americans on a whim?
How long will it be before the Regime decides that it is legal to use drones IN the US to wipe out those who might someday pose a threat?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: americans, assassinations, criminals, drone strikes, lies, Obama, terror
Obama Photoshopped Shooting Picture
Jan 30, 2013 Political
UPDATE: The content of this post has been removed because it was inaccurate and contained a link to a phony site.
While I like to keep things posted I did not want to have the information continue around the web spreading something false.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]