Joe Biden picks Kamala Harris to be his running mate: Here are all the reasons why she’s wrong for America


It is no longer big news that Senator Kamala Harris has been selected to run as Sleepy/Quid Pro Joe Biden’s Running Mate. (It’s doubtful mind-addled Joe actually picked Harris himself.) Harris has a host problematic issues connected to her legal/political career that should garner some admiration from Crooked Hillary. Zero of those problems will be displayed by the Dem propaganda machine Mainstream Media.

A couple of days ago J.D. Heyes touched on really only a small scale of those problems on News Target. As you the small scale, you should keep in mind Joe Biden is 77 and showing huge signs of diminished mental acuity. Even Dems don’t believe Biden will complete a term if elected. It is my opinion if yet another crooked Dem like Joe is elected, he will resign soon after – God Help America – a potential election. Meaning Leftist ignore-the-Constitution Kamala Harris would be President.

 

Dear God in Heaven VOTE TRUMP!!!!

 

JRH 8/13/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

*************************

Joe Biden picks Kamala Harris to be his running mate: Here are all the reasons why she’s wrong for America

 

Kamala Harris

 

By JD Heyes

08/11/2020

News Target

 

Well, the drama is over: Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden did what his handlers told him to do; he’s picked a ‘woman of color’ to be his running mate.

 

Remember when ‘persons of color’ were telling Americans the color of someone’s skin shouldn’t matter?

 

In any event, those days are long gone, and the Democrat Party has become the party of victimhood and identity politics, the latter of which is a joke when you consider Democrats were the party of the breakaway Confederacy, the party of slavery, the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and opposition to the civil rights movement.

 

Now we come to the pick: Sen. Kamala Harris of California, who once called Biden the biggest racist on the planet, which is about the only truthful thing she has said during the 2020 campaign cycle.

 

While she’ll be feted and celebrated by the phony ‘woke’ Left as ‘the first black female vice presidential pick’ (allowing Democrats to check that box), the fact is, she’ll have a lot to answer for in the coming days and weeks.

 

(Related: California scrubs controversial Kamala Harris-era arrest reports.)

 

Here are some of the many reasons why she’ll give Democrats fits:

 

— As the Marxist Democrat Left gets more ‘woke,’ the party’s ‘law enforcers’ have become more, shall we say, ‘tolerant’ of law-breaking. As a California district attorney and eventually attorney general, she pushed for a new state law that sought to punish parents if their kids were chronically truant. How will that work out with a party that lets dangerous criminals out of jail because they might catch COVID-19, or lets rioters and looters walk free?

— She supports the invasion of privacy through the expansion of police attainment of DNA samples. She wants cops to collect them from all crime scenes so that the samples can be added to global databases. Her home state allows them to be collected and preserved from anyone who’s ever arrested, even if they’re never charged.

— Harris supports civil asset forfeiture — the government’s taking of private property before any criminals proceedings are ever initiated. What a ‘constitutionalist.’

— She loves illegal immigrants and supports giving them extra rights that are not normally afforded to non-citizens, such as granting them law licenses and license to drive. Oh, and of course, as ‘president in waiting’ (Biden’s not mentally fit to govern) she’ll push for and expand giving taxpayer freebies to illegals. Hide and watch.

— Harris’ reputation as a ‘tough on crime’ prosecutor, again, will not bode well with her party’s new ‘look the other way’ and ‘defund the cops’ law enforcement policies. That said, her reputation isn’t even deserved.

— She said in 2017 she’d rather see the government shut down than vote for a spending bill that didn’t address the highly unconstitutional DACA program. She would later refuse to go along with a fix that President Trump proposed, proving that she, and other Democrats, really are hypocrites when they claim they ‘support’ the illegal aliens caught up in the unconstitutional Obama-era program.

— Then, of course, there was that time a California Superior Court judge found that she, as San Francisco district attorney, violated a defendant’s rights by hiding damaging info regarding a police drug-lab technician.

— In 2004, Harris angered her now-U.S. Senate colleague from California, Dianne Feinstein, when, as a district attorney, she would not seek the death penalty for David Hill, who had shot and killed a San Fran police officer with an AK-47 (he wounded another cop in the leg). Feinstein drew an ovation from a mostly-cop crowd when she said of Harris’ decision, “This is not only the definition of tragedy, it’s the special circumstance called for by the death-penalty law.”

And we’d be remiss if we didn’t remind readers that Harris, 30 at the time, dated the married San Fran Mayor Willie Brown, in his 60s, using that as a means of sleeping her way up the California political ladder.

 

Yeah, Harris was a great pick for Biden.

 

Sources include:

 

NationalReview.com

SFGate.com

RollCall.com

NaturalNews.com

__________________________

NewsTarget.com © 2020 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. NewsTarget.com is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind.

 

NewsTarget.com assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published on this site. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.

 

The Rush Towards Tyranny


I find it understandable Americans are upset that mass shootings can seemingly occur one incident after another and another. But What most of those upset Americans do not understand is gun control laws whether they be gun confiscation, Red Flag Laws, Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) or whatever else restrains the Founding Fathers’ intent for ratifying the Second Amendment; will eventually lead to the tyranny of the Elite.

 

Justin Smith addresses the alarming utilization of government power that restrains law abiding citizens more than law-breaking criminals.

 

JRH 8/12/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

*******************

The Rush Towards Tyranny  

Eroding Liberty – Unconstitutional: Red Flags & Gun Bans

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/11/2019 7:00 PM

 

Americans are rushing towards tyranny more frequently these days, in the wake of three recent mass shootings, and they are calling for unconstitutional and illegitimate new laws that penalize honest and decent Americans in an unconscionable manner, while doing little in the way of creating real solutions. If anyone believes red flag laws, expanded background checks and bans on semi-automatic weapons will make them safer, they are so sadly mistaken, and, if enacted, not only will they not be any safer, they will be less free, with their God given rights further eroded and suppressed.

 

Every law-abiding U.S. citizen should be up-in-arms and in an uproar over President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others, such as key Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), Sen. Pat Toomey (PA), Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) and Sen. John Cornyn (TX) pursuing new gun control legislation and “compromises” with Democrats, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA), Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA), especially when any real compromise doesn’t exist, and never will. Even as Republicans showed their willingness to enact stronger background checks and red flag laws, Democrats were screaming for stores, like Walmart, to stop selling ammo and guns and for laws that invoke higher taxes on both, as well as a law banning semi-automatic rifles; Republicans are becoming willing accomplices in the Democrat goal of eradicating the Second Amendment.

 

Despite his bluster and tough talk as a strong defender of the Second Amendment, President Trump is not to be trusted on this issue, since he has a long standing known propensity for gun control, favoring gun bans as late as 2009, and as President, Donald Trump has already violated the Second Amendment through his Executive Order that authorized the Department of Justice to regulate bumpstocks, which also flies in the face of D.C. vs Heller, in which the Court acknowledged that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms of the same sophistication and technological advancement of the U.S. military, since the Second Amendment was written as a measure to ensure U.S. citizens’ rights to arm themselves against any tyrannical government, not to hunt deer.

 

As noted by the Court in 2010 in McDonald vs. City of Chicago,The right to keep and bear arms is ‘among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”

 

With McDonald vs Chicago, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment was “incorporated”. This legal term placed states and local governments on notice that they must follow the limitations of the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment and could not make laws more restrictive than allowed by the 2nd Amendment, which states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

And now, most recently, all America heard President Trump state, “I have called for Red Flag Laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders.”  Regarding background checks, he stated on August 9th, that he thinks “Republicans are going to be great and lead the charge along with Democrats.”

 

One should also note that although President Trump once suggested foregoing “due process” after the Parkland High School mass shooting in February 2018, he did state on August 5th 2019, that “those judged to pose a great risk to public safety (should) not have access to firearms and if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.”

 

On August 8th, Senator McConnell told NPR that the Senate would be addressing bans on “assault weapons” and expanded background checks, when the Senate reconvenes in September. McConnell’s use of the term “assault weapons” is part of the Democratic Party narrative that seeks to negate the true and legal use of these weapons for self-defense, and it only serves to further erode the Bill of Rights and our liberty if we allow it to go unanswered.

 

Nobody in America wants to see anyone who is mentally unstable enough to commit violence having a powerful firearm in their hands, but there already exist numerous laws, that if properly enforced would alleviate that problem. Peddling his staunch “defender” title in 2015, even President Trump noted: “Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system (making the system ineffective). … fix the system we have and make it work as intended … don’t … expand a broken system.”

 

However, unconstitutional Red Flag Laws are not the answer, especially once one considers the many government abuses that have already occurred in the seventeen states (and the District of Columbia) that have legislated Red Flag Laws. They allow police to convene a Chekist-style secret meeting, that strips an American of his Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and violates “due process of the law”, since the firearm owners are barred from participating in the hearing and presenting their counter argument, and often, they are unaware of the “Extreme Risk Protection Order[USACarry.com and RomanoLawpc.com] until the police knock on the door and ransack their house or arrest or shoot them, just as they shot Gary Willis, in Baltimore, MD, at 5:17 a.m. on November 5th 2018 for resisting their ERPO. [The Epoch Times and New American]

 

Willis was executed for resisting a government overreach, intrusion and violation of his basic God given rights. I guess America could have just skipped the bloodshed of the War for Independence, since so many now seem to prefer authoritarian controls, serfdom and a King over freedom and liberty.

 

Patrick McLaw

 

On August 22nd 2014, Patrick McLaw, a 23 year old middle school teacher — once nominated for Teacher of the Year [Last Paragraph], was taken into police custody for a psychological evaluation, after he wrote two novels about high school massacres, under the pen name “Dr. K.S. Voltaer”. McLaw had no criminal record, no guns or bombs were found in his home, but the State Attorney claimed McLaw drew police attention through a four page letter he sent to officials in Dorchester County. And in the end, no warrant was issued, no charges were filed and no arrest was made, however, he remained detained in police custody, while they investigated crimes he may or may not have committed, as the State utilized psychopathological mechanisms, the touchstone of totalitarian governments, and fully displayed the great distance our society has drifted from liberty.

 

Dave Workman, senior editor at the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Washington recently wrote: “It’s (Extreme Risk Protection Order) a great idea on paper. In practice, however, you’re guilty until you prove yourself innocent.”

 

A Red Flag Law in Tennessee might even scoop me up, since in my youth, I used to have a hair-trigger temper, cracked many a ridge-runnin’ redneck’s jaw and quite possibly should have been charged with assault myself, at one time or another in my life. No excuses made from me; I am a strictly no nonsense man who never took being called out of my name or having hands placed on me in anger lightly, and in every case where the law ever questioned me, the attending officer agreed with me, for whatever the reason. However, some past recipients of my wrath would certainly be quick to turn such a law against me, even though I am a much cooler head today, years later.

 

But, having a pistol or rifle in my hands always leveled my thinking, whenever I encountered danger and imminent harm, having traveled the most dangerous areas of America, at one time or another. It tamped down any anger, since I have always been all too cognizant of the power of firearms and the damage they can do, my entire life; and, due to my respect for all life, I never wanted to take another person’s life, if there was anyway to avoid doing so.

 

I’ve had a firearm of one type or another in my hands, since I was eight years old, when my father first started teaching me firearm safety, and I received more instruction in the 6th grade at a summer camp at Columbia Military Academy (Columbia, TN), where all the children were handed .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles, in 1969, for a well supervised target practice; and of course, I received further instruction upon joining the U.S. Army years later. Good people raising good children will make for a safer society. Teach your children well, starting with the Ten Commandments, or a similar moral code.

 

If more gun laws worked, Mexico wouldn’t have had 100,000 people killed by firearms in the past decade. It has the most restrictive gun laws one might imagine, and it has only one gun store, that sits in the middle of a military base and has soldiers for clerks. Restrictions on the good and decent citizens, whether in Mexico or America, only favors the criminals.

 

There is also a much more serious issue at hand: If the Constitution can be suspended in a secret hearing, this can only lead to a despotic government and great tyranny. The Democrats have already proposed the forced confiscation of the American people’s firearms and weapons by armed squads of police.

 

What if this publication could be shut down without due process, based on a secret complaint? Or individuals could now be arrested or imprisoned for 21 days, or more? How far off can torture be?  Eroding the Second Amendment in this manner erodes the entire Bill of Rights.

 

Any American who values our rule of law and the Bill of Rights and the inalienable rights that preexist politics and government should be opposing all the new gun control measures coming our way, as we work to keep the legal and justified means of self-defense in the hands of all law-abiding citizens, since not one state law in this respect is constitutional, and a federal law would not be either. Taking away rights from law-abiding citizens due to terrible acts by criminals, a small percentage of the population, is precisely what our Constitutional Republic was designed to protect against and expressly forbids. The legal philosophy behind these laws is dangerously illegitimate, and far from bipartisan or consensus proposals, they represent a constitutional Rubicon and the point of no return.

 

Y’all can give up your semi-automatic weapons if you’re of a mind to do so. As for me, they’ll have to pry them from my cold, dead hands.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Shoelaces Because He Might Strangle You


There is nothing more American than the Right to protect oneself with a gun. With that in mind I discovered a Gun Rights post on the G+ Community Conservative posted by pseudonymous Sheepdog SpecOps. In no uncertain terms (maybe a little bit of a rant) stipulates any concept of gun control has zero value in self-protection.

 

Sheepdog’s thoughts were inspired by a post entitled, “Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals” by Peter Kasler on the FireArmsAndLiberty.com website. I am cross posting both the Sheepdog thoughts and the Kasler essay on this blog.

 

JRH 1/23/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Shoelaces Because He Might Strangle You

 

Posted by Sheepdog SpecOps

January 23, 2019 7:01 AM

G+ Community Conservative

 

“Shoelaces because he might strangle you” That is perfect!

But, let’s face it. Most criminals purchase their firearms on the black market, yet, the gun control laws affect the law-abiding citizens of the United States.

 

Originally shared by marcus easterling

Gun control B.S.

 

My thoughts on background checks, huge waste of taxpayers’ money.

Thomas Jefferson said, ” no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms “. If a person is so dangerous that he cannot have a firearm then he needs a CUSTODIAN! Period! Like in prison or an asylum. If a person who is so dangerous that he cannot have a firearm but is free to roam to and fro unabated. The person can purchase or make without a background check; axes, machetes, knives, bows, crossbows, spears, any kind any amount of chemicals, any kind any amount of fuel, he can drive a semi tanker full of fuel or a car, ammo, brass, bullets, gun powder, a reloader, a complete upper, a 80 % lower, magazines, triggers, an on an on an on etc. Picture a cartoon caricature all armed up. He has access to infinite arms and you’re going to pick one tool that is going to be restricted (put a minor impediment, a minor restriction, some words on paper, on one inanimate object out of an infinite arsenal) and deem yourself safe??? That is irrational. It’s delusional. You might as well have picked his shoelaces because he might strangle you. To pick one tool out of an infinite arsenal then deem yourself safe? Really. And especially to place restrictions on the tool that is most useful for self-defense?

 

Almost all the others require you put yourself in more danger by having to actually come in contact with the person.

The police department didn’t even exist until the late 1800s. And then only in a couple of large cities. And they were an auxiliary force to the people. Not pursuing criminals but as a deterrent.

 

The Founders were against such a force as they considered it a standing army. Even today the supreme Court says you are responsible for your safety. Check it out:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

So you’ve picked one tool, one inanimate object that you wish to restrict, now you’re safe? Lol, I have to ask, are you the one responsible/entrusted with your (your family’s) safety (plan)? Lmoa! [Blog Editor: For the Social Media slang challenged – like me.]

By the way, governments have killed way-way-way more people than criminals, after disarming their citizens. Check it out. (you know history) http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
(I find the one where they rounded up all the educated people and killed them, interesting & sad)

So it can’t happen to you and you’re betting your life on it, huh?

There is no such thing as safety, it does not exist in nature nor among men.

Gun control, background checks etc. do absolutely nothing. They are for blithering idiots to “feel” good. Facts not feelings.

Kings, Emperors, Caesar wasn’t safe, with their high walls, castles, armies & guards. Safety does not exist.

Being unprepared, disarmed doesn’t make you safe.

Where’s Waldo? Being able to magically predict who’s going to flip their nut & when they are going to flip their nut is also DELUSIONAL. There are literally infinite numbers of reasons for people to flip their nut. The very same reasons that a gazillion other folks have been through or worked out, that didn’t flip their nut over. It is just impossible to predict out of infinite reasons & infinite time.

Laws/consequences are for people not inanimate objects. (A gun wielding a deranged man shot…. lol!) The person should be held accountable for his actions. And cannot be dealt with till he performs those actions. He is a murderer not a shooter, the blame is on him (murderer) not the gun (shoot). The media calls them shooters. Look back before the 1960’s, the media called them murderers.

The law up until the early 1900’s was about personal injury/death. And personal property, damage/theft. Nowadays you have the government going around pretending to be the “injured party” in order to collect taxes revenue & control the people. Instead of the people controlling the government.

Ultimately you are responsible for your safety, your protection. Your spiritual fitness, getting yourself right with God.

 

Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals

firearmsandliberty.com

+++++++++++++++++

Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals

 

By Peter Kasler

FireArmsAndLiberty.com

 

Self-Reliance For Self-Defense — Police Protection Isn’t Enough!

 

All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of “Officer Friendly” to the very last time we saw a police car – most of which have “To Protect and Serve” emblazoned on their doors – we’re encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn’t always been that way.

 

Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens – even in large cities – were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded “standing army.”

 

England’s first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens’ right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.

 

Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states:

 

Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol. [1]

 

Such facts are underscored by the practical reality of today’s society. Police and Sheriff’s departments are feeling the financial exigencies of our times, and that translates directly to a reduction of services, e.g., even less protection. For example, one moderate day recently (September 23, 1991) the San Francisco Police Department “dropped” [2]157 calls to its 911 facility, and about 1,000 calls to its general telephone number (415-553-0123). An SFPD dispatcher said that 150 dropped 911 calls, and 1,000 dropped general number calls, are about average on any given day. [3]

 

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.

 

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

 

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”

 

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

 

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as “the civil rights act”). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties’ federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

 

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.[6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged “special relationship” between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had “specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,” [7] but failed to remove him from his father’s custody.

 

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a “special relationship,” concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. “The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.” [8]

 

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a “special relationship” existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a “special relationship” to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a “special relationship” can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

 

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California’s Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: “Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.”

 

It is painfully clear that the police cannot be relied upon to protect us. Thus far we’ve seen that they have no duty to do so. And we’ve also seen that even if they did have a duty to protect us, practically- speaking they could not fulfill it with sufficient certainty that we would want to bet our lives on it.

 

Now it’s time to take off the gloves, so to speak, and get down to reality. So the police aren’t duty-bound to protect us, and they can’t be expected to protect us even if they want to. Does that mean that they won’t protect us if they have the opportunity?

 

One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. [11] A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.

 

Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York’s high court wrote in his opinion: “What makes the City’s position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.” [12]

 

Instances of police refusing to protect someone in grave danger, who is urgently requesting help, are becoming disturbingly more common. In 1988, Lisa Bianco’s violently abusive husband was finally in jail for beating and kidnapping her, after having victimized her for years. Ms. Bianco was somewhat comforted by the facts that he was supposedly serving a seven-year sentence, and she had been promised by the authorities that she’d be notified well in advance of his release. Nevertheless, after being in only a short time, he was temporarily released on an eight-hour pass, and she wasn’t notified. He went directly to her house and, in front of their 6- and 10- year old daughters, beat Lisa Bianco to death.

 

In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff’s 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: “What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?” Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another.

 

But certainly no cop would stand by and do nothing while someone was being violently victimized. Or would they? In Freeman v. Ferguson [13] a police chief directed his officers not to enforce a restraining order against a woman’s estranged husband because the man was a friend of the chief’s. The man subsequently killed the woman and her daughter. Perhaps such a specific case is an anomaly, but more instances of general abuses aren’t at all rare.

 

In one such typical case [14] , a woman and her son were harassed, threatened and assaulted by her estranged husband, all in violation of his probation and a restraining order. Despite numerous requests for police protection, the police did nothing because “the police department used an administrative classification that resulted in police protection being fully provided to persons abused by someone with whom the victim has no domestic relationship, but less protection when the victim is either: 1) a woman abused or assaulted by a spouse or boyfriend, or 2) a child abused by a father or stepfather.” [15]

 

In a much more recent case, [16] a woman claimed she was injured because the police refused to make an arrest following a domestic violence call. She claimed their refusal to arrest was due to a city policy of gender- based discrimination. In that case the U. S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that “no constitutional violation [occurred] when the most that can be said of the police is that they stood by and did nothing…” [17]

 

Do the police really harbor such indifference to the plight of certain victims? To answer that, let’s leave the somewhat aloof and dispassionate world of legal precedent and move into the more easily understood “real world.” I can state from considerable personal experience, unequivocally, that these things do happen. As to why they occur, I can offer only my opinion based on that experience and on additional research into the dark and murky areas of criminal sociopathy and police abuse.

 

One client of my partner’s and mine had a restraining order against her violently abusive estranged husband. He had recently beaten her so savagely a metal plate had to be implanted in her jaw. Over and over he violated the court order, sometimes thirty times daily. He repeatedly threatened to kill her and those of use helping her. But the cops refused to arrest him for violating the order, even though they’d witnessed him doing so more than once. They danced around all over the place trying to explain why they wouldn’t enforce the order, including inventing numerous absurd excuses about having lost her file (a common tactic in these cases). It finally came to light that there was a departmental order to not arrest anyone in that county for violating a protective order because the county had recently been sued by an irate (and wealthy) domestic violence arrestee.

 

In another of our cases, when Peggi and I served the man with restraining orders (something we’re often required to do because various law enforcement agencies can’t or won’t do it), he threatened there and then to kill our client. Due to the vigorous nature of the threat, we went immediately to the police department to get it on file in case he attempted to carry it out during the few days before the upcoming court appearance. We spent hours filing the report, but two days later when our client went to the police department for a copy to take to court, she was told there was no record of her, her restraining order, her case, or our report.

 

She called in a panic. Without that report it would be more difficult securing a permanent restraining order against him. I paid an immediate visit to the chief of that department. We discussed the situation and I suggested various options, including dragging the officer to whom Peggi and I had given the detailed death threat report into court to explain under oath how it had gotten lost. In mere moments, an internal affairs officer was assigned to investigate and, while I waited, they miraculously produced the file and our report. I was even telephoned later and offered an effusive apology by various members of the department.

 

It is true that in the real world, law enforcement authorities very often do perpetuate the victimization. It is also true that each of us is the only person upon whom we can absolutely rely to avoid victimization. If our client in the last anecdote hadn’t taken responsibility for her own fate, she might never have survived the ordeal. But she had sufficient resolve to fend for herself. Realizing the police couldn’t or wouldn’t help her, she contacted us. Then, when the police tried their bureaucratic shuffle on her, she called me. But for her determination to be a victim no more, and to take responsibility for her own destiny, she might have joined the countless others victimized first by criminals, then by the very system they expect will protect them.

 

Remember, even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they aren’t), or even if they tried to protect us (which they often don’t, a fact brought home to millions nationwide as they watched in horror the recent events in Los Angeles), most often there wouldn’t be time enough for them to do it. It’s about time that we came to grips with that, and resolved never to abdicate responsibility for our personal safety, and that of our loved ones, to anyone else.

###

 

  1. Guns, Murders, and the Constitution (Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1990).

 

  1. A “dropped” call in police dispatcher parlance is one that isn’t handled for a variety of reasons, such as because it goes unanswered. Calls from people who get tired of waiting on hold and hang up are classified as “drops” as well.

 

  1. KGO Radio (Newstalk 810), 6:00 PM report, 09-26-91, and a subsequent personal interview with the reporter, Bernie Ward.

 

  1. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

 

  1. See, for example, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

 

  1. 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989).

 

  1. “Domestic Violence — When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?” Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin January, 1991.

 

  1. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.

 

  1. 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990).

 

  1. 110 S.Ct. 975, 984 (1990).

 

  1. Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958).

 

  1. Riss, Ibid.

 

  1. 911 F.2d52 (8th Cir. 1990).

 

  1. Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F.Supp.1521 (D.Conn. 1984).

 

  1. “Domestic Violence — When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?” Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin January, 1991.

 

  1. McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas, 877 F.2d409 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct.727 (1990).

 

  1. McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas, Id. at 413.

 

______________________

Shoelaces Because He Might Strangle You

Edited by John R. Houk

_____________________

Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals

 

COPYRIGHT – 1992 – Peter Alan Kasler

 

Ingraham, 17-Yr-Old Marxist/Fascist & Cowardly Advertisers


John R. Houk

© April 2, 2018

Laura Ingraham is a Pro-Gun/Pro-2nd Amendment gal. Of course, this drives the American Left nuts. David Hogg is a 17-year-old student from Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. Hogg originally claimed he was at the High School when 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz went on a shooting spree killing 17 and wounding many more.

 

Hogg has used High School membership to become a teen spokesman for gun control. In doing so he has become provocatively stinging with profanity and painting Gun Rights activists (especially the NRA) child murderers. Unsurprisingly, Conservative pundits began dishing back in response to Hogg’s dishing out. The most highlighted tit-for-tat has been between Laura Ingraham and Hogg. One Ingraham dish-back has made her the focus of Hogg, Leftist and even some Conservative venom. Here’s the Ingraham tweet that stirred so many:

Apparently, the teen Hogg could smell the scent of public opinion manipulated by the Leftist MSM:

 

On Twitter, Hogg suggested that people reach out to the big companies that advertise on “The Ingraham Angle” and insist that they pull their ads.

(All the Advertisers Dropping Laura Ingraham After She Mocked Parkland Survivor David Hogg; By BRAD TUTTLE; Time.com/Money; 3/30/18 3:42 PM ET)

 

Notice the headline above included the words “Parkland Survivor David Hogg.”

 

Was Hogg indeed a survivor of the Parkland Massacre? See if you can find any discrepancy with any of Hogg’s own crooked words:

 

VIDEO: BUSTED! David Hogg LIED “Parkland Survivor”? – Follow @Mr_Pinko PolitOpinion.com

 

Posted by BestPoliticalVideos

Published on Mar 26, 2018

 

As you can tell, David Hogg is a Marxist/Fascist propaganda hate-artist. At the very least due to his teenage status, Hogg is a tool of the Left to grab guns from Americans determine to protect themselves or have some kind of recourse against an American corrupt government that has abandoned the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution. (Side Note: No matter what you feel about President Trump, he may be the last stand against Constitution-hating Leftist desiring a completion of the Obama fundamental transformation of America.)

 

Since it is easy enough to prove Hogg is a pathetic Leftist liar, why in the world would so many Conservatives criticize Laura Ingraham for being unsympathetically cruel against a 17-year-old Leftist tool who used much harsher epithets against Conservative Gun Rights proponents? I can understand the Left and its propaganda outlet the MSM – BUT CONSERVATIVES?

 

Here some bleeped examples of Hogg profanity and manipulative propaganda:

 

VIDEO: David Hogg Goes Wild | SUPERcuts! #582

 

Posted by Washington Free Beacon

Published on Mar 27, 2018

 

Can you believe the Leftist Media cries smear campaign when Conservative is brave enough to expose Hogg’s vulgar insensitivity?

 

Leftists are going apoplectic over this humorous video some brave Conservatives are putting together that mimics Hogg’s remarkable similarity to Hitler’s mannerisms in brainwashing the German people:

 

VIDEO: Hogg Hitler! The little dictator in the making.

 

Posted by MAGA3D

Published on Mar 26, 2018

 

Little dictator, David Hogg, has his day.

 

I suspect Leftist proponent Youtube will remove the above video. I was actually going to share a more effective version of the above video lasting about 2-minutes, but has a little bar at the bottom that portrays profane word “M……F…ing”. I don’t’ roll that way and any Conservatives that mimic Hogg profanity should be ashamed.

 

If you read Ingraham’s supposed cruel mocking tweet against Hogg:

 

“David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA…totally predictable given acceptance rates.)”

How is that at all uncouth causing an Ingraham apology and the loss of advertisers? Dear God in heaven, Ingraham deserves our support rather than our criticism because she was absolutely correct!

 

I wrote this comment among the probably tons of tweet responses by now to this post:

 

Ms. Ingraham, I can hardly believe anyone is castigating you for these remarks. Like wahhhh! What do Left Wing gun grabbers expect from a teen Conservative pundit? Not only is Hogg a whiner, but also all those whiner advertisers supporting him.

 

Next time you hear or read the gun grabber Hogg, think of these proponents of gun control:

Fascist-Communist Gun-Grabbers

 

I have shown Hogg mannerisms similar to Hitler. Look at this uncanny photo comparison between Hitler’s Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels and teen Leftist Gun Grabber propagandist tool David Hogg:

Joseph Goebbels-left & David Hogg-right

 

As of March 31, here is a list of advertisers throwing Ingraham under the bus that you should send letters of reprimand and boycott their products for their cowardly actions (courtesy The Blaze 3/31/18 – the contact links are mine):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservative Daily News has the best defense for Laura Ingraham against Hogg and his Leftist gun control handlers manipulating public opinion.

 

JRH 4/2/18

Please Support NCCR

******************************

Laura Ingraham Targeted By Marxist, Communist, Hitlarian David Hogg

 

By Jim Clayton

March 31, 2018

Conservative Daily News

 

Laura Ingraham & David Hogg

 

The left seems to love comparing anyone who disagrees with them to Hitler. They did it for eight years with Bush and now sometimes with Trump though I could never see the comparison. Now the real Hitler comparison is one of their own, the Marxist, communist, self-appointed leader of the anti-gun youth movement David Hogg. Hogg physically resembles Adolf Hitler in fist-pounding salutes, angry speech patterns and more. His dark-eyed blank stare and grey jacket and dark hair even make him look like a young Hitler only without the mustache. His right arm raised is very reminiscent of a combination of the black power salute and the Hitler Nazi salute. To paraphrase the cartoon character Pogo, “They have met the enemy and it is them.”

 

The “Hitler Youth” student gun control march in Washington, follows in the footsteps of Nazis who disarmed the Jews before the Holocaust, but I guess they don’t teach that in schools anymore.

 

Hogg can certainly dish it out, but can’t take it. When talk show host Laura Ingraham mildly criticized him in a tweet for whining about not getting into four colleges he applied to while having a 4.0 grade point average he quickly listed all the sponsors of her show and told them to boycott her show and they are doing it too. They are responding to a 17-year-old kid for crying out loud. Major multi-million dollar companies afraid of a 17-year-old kid? I hope people respond and start boycotting them. Two can play this game. He seems to think anyone who disagrees with him has to be punished. If you say something on social media you should be ready to expect various replies and deal with them, not try to silence anyone who disagrees with you.

 

Now thanks to this young power mad narcissistic Marxist brat she may lose her career and is taking a week off now to be with her kids at Easter time.

 

Laura is a kind, forgiving Catholic woman and as such, she apologized nicely to him and he replied that is not enough and went after all of FOX in general.

 

Hogg is too full of hatred to be taken seriously. He has used vile language against his parents, the government and others. Getting revenge on Laura and calling for the boycott of her show, does not serve his cause of gun control. It just shows his true character and intentions.

 

Hogg has knowingly placed himself ‘front and center’ in a debate that concerns policy that affects all Americans – thus, he legitimately falls within the range of scrutiny. He has lashed out with impunity at many without proof or a modicum of research/documentation. He cannot have it both ways. Although he was a part of a tragic event – that does not make him a scholar or an ‘expert.  His tactic when he is crossed is to lash out like a bully. He is unlikable, lacks credibility and his anger masquerades as ‘righteousness.’ He is the least media savvy of his cadre – and lacks authenticity.

 

 Fox News show host Laura Ingraham announced on her show late Friday that she is taking next week off, after almost a dozen advertisers dropped her show after the conservative pundit mocked a teenage survivor of the Florida school massacre on Twitter.

 

Eleven companies so far have pulled their ads after a pushback by Parkland student David Hogg, 17, who called for a boycott of her advertisers.

_______________

_______________

A Fox News Channel spokeswoman said Ingraham was taking a pre-planned spring vacation with her children.

 

Hogg took aim at the host’s show, “The Ingraham Angle,” after she taunted him on Twitter on Wednesday, accusing him of whining about being rejected by four colleges to which he had applied.

 

Hogg tweeted a list of a dozen companies that advertise on “The Ingraham Angle” and urged his supporters to demand that they cancel their ads.

 

On Thursday, Ingraham tweeted an apology “in the spirit of Holy Week,” saying she was sorry for any hurt or upset she had caused Hogg or any of the “brave victims” of Parkland. But her apology did not stop companies from departing. The companies announcing that they are canceling their ads are: Nutrish, the pet food line created by celebrity chef Rachael Ray, travel website TripAdvisor Inc, online home furnishings seller Wayfair Inc, the world’s largest packaged food company, Nestle SA, online streaming service Hulu, travel website Expedia Group Inc and online personal shopping service Stitch Fix. According to CBS News, four other companies joined the list Friday: the home office supply store Office Depot, the dieting company Jenny Craig, the Atlantis, Paradise Island resort and Johnson & Johnson which produces pharmaceuticals as well as consumer products such as Band-Aids, Neutrogena beauty products and Tylenol.

 

Hogg is not a “survivor” as he wasn’t even there at the time of the shooting. He raced to the scene, after the fact, so he could act as a participant and get sympathy and notoriety, sad. As per HIS own interview where he says he got on his bike and went over to the school when he heard that something was going on there.

 

He’s traveling around the country trying to make a name for himself by protesting for gun control without even understanding what the issues are or the consequences of what he’s opposing would mean. He’s a pompous kid who is exploiting the tragedy of the shooting for attention. Maybe what Laura said wasn’t in best judgement but this kid needs to be called out on what he’s doing.

 

David Hogg is too full of hatred to be taken seriously. He has used vile language against his parents, the government and others. Getting revenge on Laura and calling for the boycott of her show, does not serve his cause of gun control. It just shows his true character and intentions.

 

Just like Hitler Youth enthusiasts, this fascists-in-training are told they’re “saving lives” for “a better future,” and that the only thing standing in their way is a bunch of violent gun owners who want to murder every baby in sight. (The irony of all these left-wingers actually condoning the abortion murder of babies, of course, is completely missed in all this.)

 

What none of these children are being told, of course, is that Hitler took away gun rights from the Jews before exterminating six million of them in the Holocaust. It’s so much easier to commit genocide, Hitler discovered, when the people you’re trying to murder can’t fight back. Echoing the madness of the Third Reich, the propagandist-in-chief of today’s lunatic Left anti-gun movement is David Hogg, a profanity-laced, foulmouthed student who is seething with anger and seems forever on the verge of outright calling for all gun owners to be exterminated by the government.

 

Gun Control about Control not Guns

 

In a recent interview, foul-mouthed Hogg, a student at the Parkland school shooting in Florida, says that gun owners and the NRA are “pathetic f##kers who want to keep killing our children” and adds, “They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see those dollar signs.”

 

David Hogg’s profanity-laced rant was so obnoxious, arrogant and deranged that YouTube systematically censored all the profanity-laced David Hogg videos in order to protect his public image. (Yes, YouTube is now running interference for David Hogg, making sure his public image is squeaky clean while he ravages gun owners with the most deranged, foul-mouth language imaginable.)

 

Hogg, who has arisen as the chief propagandist in the left-wing fascist “Hitler Youth” army, is completely opposed to adding security to public schools, even though a recent school shooting was stopped in 60 seconds by an armed security resource officer. It seems like Hogg might actually want more children to be murdered so that he can get more air time on CNN to push his radical, fascist-like Third Reich call for disarming all the people he personally hates (and wants to destroy).

 

Now Hogg has publicly called out Senator John McCain for receiving significant financial support from the National Rifle Association.

 

David Hogg tweeted to the cancer-stricken senator Friday, “Why do you take so much money from the NRA?”

 

The teenager posted the tweet to an unrelated message McCain had posted about a state redevelopment project, reports the Blaze.

 

While the six-term senator has not yet issued a response, a New York Times op-ed from October pointed out that McCain has received the most money from the NRA of any U.S. senator over the course of his or her career—a total which exceeds $7.7 million.

 

George Soros is the major financier behind this anti-gun movement. For those of you still not familiar with George Soros, he is an evil man from Hungry worth billions and as a young boy he and his father helped turn Jews into the Nazis and stole from them to protect their own Jewish identity. Today he is 85 years old and worth tens of billions of dollars and uses many of those funds to establish his worldwide New World Order. He has hundreds of organizations around the world and attempts to manipulate governments into his goal of a one world government. Putin wants him dead or alive. To accomplish this, the first goal is to disarm the country which is what he is doing using these young naive kids.

 

The George Soros-financed Media Matters for America progressive activist group has been helping to fuel an advertising boycott targeting Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show following Twitter comments the media star made about Parkland shooting survivor and anti-gun activist David Hogg.

 

Think Progress, the media project of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, has also been using its platform to hype the boycott.

 

Media Matters, founded by Hillary Clinton ally David Brock, is financed in part by Soros.  The billionaire provided a $1 million donation in 2010 “to hold Fox News accountable for the false and misleading information they so often broadcast.”

 

Brock once described Media Matters as aiming to wage an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News. Soros has donated heavily to Hillary and Obama who share his same goals.

___________________

Ingraham, 17-Yr-Old Marxist/Fascist & Cowardly Advertisers

John R. Houk

© April 2, 2018

_________________

Laura Ingraham Targeted By Marxist, Communist, Hitlarian David Hogg

 

ABOUT JIM CLAYTON

I am a retired former newspaper reporter and retail sales person. I’m a politically conservative easy going person from New Jersey. I am married to a wonderful wife and like talking and writing about movies, concerts I attend and current events all which I write about here. I would enjoy hearing from anyone on my articles and they can write to me here.

 

Copyright 2009-2018 by Anomalous media, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

About CDN

Conservative Daily News was started by Rich Mitchell in early 2009 as PlainHardTruth.com. PHT was just a place to put thoughts and share ideas – its popularity was beyond expectations.

 

CDN runs an open editorial policy. No articles are censored just because they don’t toe a certain editorial line. As long as opinion posts are something Conservative readers might be interested in, they get published.

 

Our contributors are every day Americans – lots of them. Our writers, artists and radio talent are from different backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, ethnicities, religions … what have you.

 

This gives CDN readers a much broader perspective and a set of voices that more-closely resemble the voting block than typical news outlets and political blogs with only a few writers. Some contributors are purely fiscal Conservatives, while others are more socially Conservative. None of us agree on everything, but we share anyway.

 

You may find certain authors that you agree with more than others. Read them all and comment. We can only learn if we discuss our varied views.

POETICALLY SPEAKING CONSERVATIVELY


While browsing the Facebook Group TheAmericanPatriotsParty I found an awesome essay criticizing the Leftist Gun Control media taking advantage of the Parkland Massacre. It is an awesome read! I couldn’t help myself, I added some source links the author would have difficulty in posting at Facebook.

JRH 2/23/18

Please Support NCCR

**********************

POETICALLY SPEAKING CONSERVATIVELY

 

By Joe Esposito

February 22, 2018 1:51 pm

Facebook Group- TheAmericanPatriotsParty

 

In the WACKY WORLD OF THE LUNATIC LEFT they once again politicize a shooting tragedy. They never let an opportunity pass to push their GUN CONTROL AGENDA. Nothing has changed. It’s the lunatics with the same strategy. This is the hot topic of the day. There are calls for something to be done. The arming of teachers is being proposed by our President. That is what we hear him say but many find that utterly abhorrent.

 

What we are seeing by the Democrats is their perfection of the art of using sympathetic figures to argue for positions that millions of us reject. When we disagree, we are accused of mean-spiritedness. This is hardly surprising what else would you expect?? Studies show that assault rifles are rarely used in these horrific crimes, but calls are being made for them to be banned. Weapon confiscation is the desire of the Left. It is this that we must fully understand.

 

In a city like Chicago we have the toughest gun laws on the books but gun violence increases [Blog Editor: Chicago Gun violence was highest in nation in 2016. Gun violence actually decreased in 2017, BUT not because of strict gun laws as Leftists claim. Rather the decrease is credited to police use of better technology. STILL, Chicago gun violence higher than LA and NYC combined in 2017.]. It is not on the wane. The Left refuses to realize this. Need I have to explain that their endless machinations just never, ever ceases? It is frankly quite insane. And speaking of insanity let me direct you to a town hall forum that was organized by CNN [Blog Editor: HS Junior Colton Haag says CNN scripted, CNN says no. Colton had the altered question on Tucker Carlson Tonight. We ALL know CNN lies.], the number one purveyor of FAKERY. This is the station dedicated to show you that there is nothing they won’t do to prove how miserable they can be.

 

Of course, we saw how they tried to plant scripted questions. Ask a shooting survivor who refused to take part. The bias that consumes CNN is off the chart. This is a most serious matter. But nothing is out of bounds when you have fake journalists like Wolf Blitzer and that lowlife dirt bag, Jake Tapper. Throw Anderson Cooper in the mix and you have quite a wretched threesome. Their adoration for the disgusting ideology of the Left and it’s pushing for gun control can leave you numb.

 

What we saw on CNN is being said was an abusive, anti-gun show trial. It was criticized severely and was in fact very vile. The agenda, always the agenda, is pushed. It is repugnant to see. There is no one on the Left that has a smidgen of decency. The survivors of the shooting are in an extreme emotional state. See them being used by the gun control advocates so shamelessly. It is enough to make you totally sick. From Someone pass me a barf bag I must regurgitate.

 

That was an abomination we saw last night [Ben Shapiro Show devoted to CNN Town Hall abomination]. The criticism of Tapper was truly justified. How silent this scumbag was when personal attacks were hurled at an NRA spokesman and Senator Rubio. What the hell was wrong with him?? His silence remained even after the audience booed a rape victim! Tapper no doubt approved what was going on that was apparent to see. He never ever misses an opportunity to disgust me.

 

A CPAC panel got it so right in describing the event. They called it for what it truly was. A TROTSKYITE SHOW TRIAL AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT. CNN never disappoints us. It is a truly a disgusting entity that basks in it repugnancy.

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Joe Esposito

 

Unalienable Rights vs. Security


Decl of Independence

Understanding Justin Smith’s essay, you have to understand the nature of Unalienable Rights:

 

Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence:

 

“[A]ll men are created equal…[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these rights are “God-given.” If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God’s will. Rights that is subject to government restriction or license is called a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting, for the first time in history, a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God. … (Unalienable rights; Conservapedia; page was last modified on 5/27/2016, at 14:52.)

 

The Founding Fathers considered self-defense an Unalienable Right and NOT a government given privilege. In the Founding Fathers’ wisdom, the Second Amendment is recognition of a God-given Right.

 

JRH 6/18/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Unalienable Rights vs. Security

Weapons of War

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/18/2016 1:58 PM

 

President Obama and U.S. Senators such as Chris Murphy (D-CT) are intellectually challenged in ascertaining the limits of their authority, when in the face of the worst act of domestic terrorism in decades, on June 12th in Orlando, FL, they divert time and resources from the real threat of Islam inspired terrorism to advocate, filibuster and place legislation for a vote designed to infringe upon, limit and impede the “unalienable” right to “keep and bear arms” under the Second Amendment. And in the process, they have placed the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments on the chopping block too.

 

Barely a day had passed, and with 49 Americans lying dead in the morgue and many more in Orlando regional Medical Center’s critical care unit fighting to stay alive, President Obama stated: “We have to make it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on weapons of war that let them kill dozens of innocents.”

 

“Weapons of War”? Damn Straight. Any firearm is a weapon of war and it is good for only one thing — killing; killing the robber, crazed drug addict, rapist or murderer breaking into one’s house, as innocent Americans fight a war on crime; and killing anyone, including a Muslim terrorist, on the street in defense of one’s self or a group of innocent bystanders. Even a single-shot revolver or a single-shot bolt action 30.06 can be “a weapon of war”, but more than that, whether a semi-automatic Sig Sauer CMX or a single-shot muzzle-loader, these are weapons for self-defense.

 

Obama and company have taken this crisis — this tragic, horrific act of Islamic terrorism — and twisted it towards their oppressive goals to place every principle of the Bill of Rights and every invaluable and most sacred privilege of man at the mercy of government. Self-defense is our “unalienable” right as witnessed in Nature’s Law, which is God’s Creation, and thus, our unalienable rights are God-given.

 

Rather than focus on the Muslim Students Association, an arm of the terroristic Muslim Brotherhood, which is busy on all of America’s college campuses advocating “grand jihad” against America, and unindicted terrorists like Siraj Wahhaj — a black Muslim convert, and indicted terrorists such as Ramadan Shalah — still fleeing the FBI, the Democrats are assaulting the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Rather than focus on mosques that spread anti-American, violent propaganda, like the Darul Uloom Institute [DTN info on founder Maulana Shafayat Mohamed] and the Husseini Islamic Center [Gay-hating Sheikh Dr. Farrokh Sekaleshfar spoke there], Democrats and Hillary Clinton would destroy our right to self-defense, as they echo Obama’s words.

 

A few weeks prior to Omar Mateen committing mass murder at Pulse Night Club, the Husseini Islamic Center of Orlando hosted an imam who preached that “gays must die”, according to Michelle Malkin on June 15th, and that Muslims should not “be embarrased about this … let’s get rid of them now.”

 

With full knowledge that the Islamic State terrorists are using Muslim immigration to infiltrate America and European nations, Obama still insists on bringing more Muslim “refugees” into the country, and simultaneously, he and his “progressive” fascists seek to disarm us all in the face of the greatest threat America has faced in decades. Whether they are Muslim American citizens or foreign born islamofascists, Americans are not fooled, and the pattern is clear from 9/11 to Ft Hood, Boston to Chattanooga and San Bernadino to Orlando.

 

Todd Starnes, conservative journalist, asked on June 15th, “… does he [Obama] plan on confiscating our pressure cookers?”

 

It is also worth noting that in 1995, Timothy McVeigh committed the worse most heinous act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building, murdering 168 Americans and wounding over 650 more. His weapon of choice? — 350 pounds of “Tovex Blastrite Gel” and approximately 2000 pounds of fertilizer and diesel fuel.

 

Incredibly (by the time this piece is released) the Senate is poised to vote on June 20th on a bill that effectively abrogates much of the Bill of Rights. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) caved to pressure from Chris Murphy’s recent filibuster and other harangues and harassment from Democrats Diane Feinstein (CA), Harry Reid (NV) and Chuck Schumer (NY). Feinstein’s bill blocks gun purchases by anyone on the vague and subjective “no-fly-list” and if “a reasonable belief” exists that he “may” use the gun “in connection with terrorism.” And if passed, it becomes too easy to strip anyone of their 2nd Amendment rights — political opponents, Christian conservatives, Veterans — anyone; through their own reasoning, half the Democratic Party would be disqualified from owning a firearm.

 

Under Feinstein’s bill “probable cause” and the entire premise underlying the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, from one’s right to forcefully defend against any actual charge to facing one’s accuser and “due process” under the law is thrown out the window. This bill presumes one guilty without any crime having been committed, and it presents the same government officials who cannot protect America now as mind-readers seeking to prosecute “thought-crimes.” Feinstein’s bill rips the Bill of Rights asunder.

 

Howard Stern exclaimed on June 16th: “The sheepdogs are protecting you, but some of them can’t be with you all day. There’s not a sheepdog for every citizen, and a wolf is eating one of you every night. ‘Baaaaaaa, oh I know, let’s remove all the guns from the sheep.’ What?”

 

Less liberty is not the answer, but abolishing “gun-free zones” is certainly part of the solution. Stop giving cowards intent on murdering scores of Americans an easy access, free and open range of innocent Americans, who simply want to live their lives in freedom. Stop trying to illegally disarm U.S. citizens; otherwise, we will continue to witness one mass killing of defenseless innocents after another.

 

Even some in the LGBTQ community see the truth of the matter. Pink Pistols has 45 chapters across America. Their spokeswoman, Gwendolyn Patton recently stated: “… let us not reach for the low-hanging fruit of blaming the killer’s [Mateen’s] guns. Let us stay focused on the fact that someone hated gay people [and Americans] so much they were ready to kill. A human being did this [though this is debatable]. The human being’s tools are unimportant compared to the bleakness of that person’s soul. I say again, GUNS did not do this … [Don’t] demonize the man’s tools … condemn his acts and work to prevent such acts in the future.”

 

We saw Obama and the Democrats run roughshod over America concerning Obamacare, immigration and other laws, when they held the majority. Can you imagine what the Democrat “progressives” would do to the country if they could disarm all Americans?

 

The Framers of the Constitution would not ratify the Constitution until the Second Amendment was included. They knew that this one thing would always stand as a safeguard for all of our rights against any future government that might seek to once more impose tyranny on the people.

 

Our Second Amendment Rights, the rights of all Americans, are self-evident, inherent and inalienable, whether or not the disingenuous, uneducated and ill-informed idiots of the Far Left Democratic “Progressive” Party wish to acknowledge the fact, and whether or not those rights are written down in black and white on paper in a document anywhere, it does not make this fact any less true. And in this sense, any license, tax or regulation on the Second Amendment is unConstitutional, since Americans do not possess our natural rights by contract or grant from the federal government. Americans regained and secured their natural rights once upon a time by revolution, and we can do so again.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links as well text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

A Win for States Rights and 2nd Amendment


John R. Houk

© June 10, 2015

The Brady Center is a prolific gun control organization. They have been operating what is known as the Brady Campaign which is a civil litigation campaign that attacks the 2nd Amendment which gives every American the right to protect themselves with a gun.

The Brady Center is named for Ronald Reagan’s Press Secretary James Brady that was shot in the head in an assassination attempt against the President. That head wound left him partially paralyzed for life.

The Brady Campaign lost a judicial battle when Federal Judge Julie A. Robinson dismissed a suit against the State of Kansan that passed a pro-Second Amendment law to nullify any Federal Regulations that counters or illegitimizes the Second Amendment:

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (2nd Amendment; About.com)

Kansas: The Second Amendment Protection Act (Full Text)

The law, signed by Gov. Sam Brownback in 2013, draws a line in the sand on federal gun control. It reads, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

In conjunction with Section 6a (quoted above), the bill defines what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States,” and that it isn’t based off a decision of the supreme court.

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861. (Nullification 1, Brady Campaign 0: Federal Judge Dismisses Suit Against Kansas 2nd Amendment Protection Act; By TJ Martinell; Tenth Amendment Center; June 9, 2015)

Below is the full article about this Second Amendment and States Rights victory in the U.S. Federal Court.

JRH 6/10/15

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Nullification 1, Brady Campaign 0: Federal Judge Dismisses Suit Against Kansas 2nd Amendment Protection Act

By TJ Martinell

June 9, 2015 11:54 PM

Tenth Amendment Center

Last week, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, saying the suit from the Brady Campaign was “without merit.”

The law, signed by Gov. Sam Brownback in 2013, draws a line in the sand on federal gun control. It reads, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

In conjunction with Section 6a (quoted above), the bill defines what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States,” and that it isn’t based off a decision of the supreme court.

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.

State and local agents would be prevented from enforcing any acts or actions that are “null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.” Based off this text, the state of Kansas would not be allowed to participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood in 1861.

A second part of the bill seeks to encourage more gun manufacturing in the state by declaring null and void any federal restrictions, under the commerce clause, on firearms made and sold within the state.

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas is not subject to any federal law, treaty, federal regulation, or federal executive action, including any federal firearm or ammunition registration program, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

This section of the bill is backed up by criminal charges.

It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony

Any criminal prosecution for a violation of this section shall be commenced by service of complaint and summons upon such official, agent or employee. Such official, agent or employee shall not be arrested or otherwise detained prior to, or during the pendency of, any trial for a violation of this section.

Once a federal agent violates this law, they would be served with a complaint and summons, whereby criminal proceedings can begin.

BRADY CLAIMS

At the heart of the Brady Campaign’s legal argument is that the state law is ”an unconstitutional attempt to nullify federal gun control regulations.” Their concern is that state enforcement of the act “will have the effect of deterring application of federal gun laws in Kansas.”

That’s exactly what the bill is supposed to do.

Additionally, Brady complained, one of its members could have been prosecuted by the state for trying to help federal agents enforce federal gun laws.

U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson dismissed the claim on the basis of “subject matter jurisdiction,” noting that no actual prosecution had taken place.

…Brady Campaign lacks Article III standing to challenge the Second Amendment Protection Act in this lawsuit because it has not shown that enforcement of the statute inflicts an actual or imminently-threatened injury on any Brady Campaign member.

While it may seem like this was a technical victory, it is important to remember not who challenged the law, but who didn’t: the federal government. Guns.com aptly summed up their all bark and no bite stance:

While the U.S. Department of Justice panned the law, calling it unenforceable, it was only the Brady group that sought to challenge it.

This failed lawsuit by the Brady Campaign demonstrates the effectiveness of SAPA in two ways. One, it was upheld in federal court, which proves that such legislation is not merely political grandstanding that will be overturned in the courtroom. Two, the federal government’s unwillingness to contest its constitutionality – for now – speaks greater volume than any words they may speak against it. The boxer who takes his gloves off should not speak like one who puts them on.

NEXT UP

What’s important to note is that the federal court didn’t say that the federal government doesn’t have the power to regulate firearms under the commerce clause, as the Kansas law states. The Brady suit was dismissed for lack of standing. Should local gun manufacturers start acting outside of federal law, and should Kansas law enforcement serve a complaint on summons on a federal agent, it’s likely to be challenged by the federal government, with the federal courts likely to side with Washington D.C.

However, one part of the bill isn’t being challenged at all, the section setting the foundation for all state and local agents to refuse to help implement federal gun measures. This is based on the long-standing anti-commandeering doctrine, where the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal government cannot require states to use personnel or resources to help enforce federal acts or regulatory programs.

Moving forward, every city, county, and town in the state should take action to pass legislation giving full practical effect to the state law. The 2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance bans the use of local resources to effectuate federal gun control measures.

download it here:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/kansaslocal

People in other states are encouraged to sign our petition, review our model legislation for states, and spread the word!

Michael Boldin contributed to this report.

Brady v Kansas

Published by Guns.com [on Scribd.]

A federal judge last week tossed out a lawsuit from a gun control group challenging Kansas over what is called the strictest Second Amendment protection law in the nation.

The suit, filed last year in U.S. District Court by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, aimed to take Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) and the state to task over the Sunflower State’s Second Amendment Protection Act.


_____________________

A Win for States Rights and 2nd Amendment

John R. Houk

© June 10, 2015

__________________________

Nullification 1, Brady Campaign 0: Federal Judge Dismisses Suit Against Kansas 2nd Amendment Protection Act

 

Tenth Amendment Center

Government tells us, ‘Gun Control is for the Greater Good’


Raise Hands to Gun Control - Sieg Hiel 2

John R. Houk

© December 28, 2013

 

Leftists/Liberals have blamed gun ownership for the last decade or so for the tragic massacres that have occurred at schools, movie theaters and public locations in general. Left Wing Elitists used this hysteria over guns as a means to attempt maximum gun control legislation contrary to the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. 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. (2nd Amendment; U.S. Constitution; via Legal Information Institute [LII] of Cornell University Law School)

 

Leftists argue that a “well regulated militia” implies government control of an organized military perhaps something like the National Guard today. The well-meaning utopian Leftists (as opposed to the Liberty-stealing power hungry Leftists) point to the wording of “being necessary to the security of a free state.”

 

If the 2nd Amendment ended with that which I just quoted they would have a decent argument. BUT the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT END THERE. The rest of amendment clause adds clarification by letting WE The People know are the well regulated militia by saying “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The Revolutionary War that liberated the 13 American Colonies from British rule occurred because citizens from everyday life of the day banded together and organized as a paramilitary group and then received a bit of on the job training as a soldier. Even during the Civil War the Union Army consisted of volunteer militias that would then be organized under the auspices of the U.S. Army but often retaining the name of the State from whence the Army Unit came.

 

The Declaration of Independence gives us excellent reasons as to why Americans should have the right to own and bear arms independent of government control.

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Transcript of Declaration of Independence (1776); OurDocuments.gov)

 

The Founding Fathers did their best to craft a Constitutional government in which the people were not exploited by government despotism. The same Founding Fathers prior to the Constitution laid the potential that good government is not infallible and go down the road of despotism for some or all its citizens. Sometimes the ONLY recourse to throw off the bands of a despotic government is by the citizens rising up by reason of arms to change the power structure of government.

 

AND SO BEWARE, when our government tells you must give up your guns for the safety of the greater good, something nefarious toward Liberty is undoubtedly soon to follow. A Michael Dorstewitz article I found on Right Wing News wrote down reminisces of Katie Worthman a survivor of NAZI occupied Austria pertaining to guns. She warns, “Don’t give up your guns”. Here is the article.

 

 

JRH 12/28/13

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

Nazi survivor’s warning to Americans: ‘Keep your guns and buy more guns

 

By Michael Dorstewitz

December 28, 2013

Right Wing News

 

A survivor of Nazi-occupied Austria who sees parallels between that dark period and the United States of today has a word of warning and advice to Americans: “Keep your guns and buy more guns.”

 

Katie Worthman spoke earlier this year of what she witnessed as a child in Austria during Adolph Hitler’s rise to power, which was followed by Soviet occupation of the country. She said the Nazi takeover happened gradually, as opposed to media accounts to the contrary, according to NRA News, which reported that Worthman said:

 

In 1938, the media reported that Hitler rode into Austria with tanks and guns and took us over. Not true at all. The Austrian people elected Hitler by 98 percent of the vote by means of the ballot box. Now you might ask how could a Christian nation… elect a monster like Hitler. The truth is at the beginning Hitler didn’t look like or talk like a monster at all. He talked like an American politician.

 

Worthman said gun control also began gradually, before the Nazis eventually confiscated every firearm. According to NRA News, she said:

 

We also had gun registration. All the Austrian people… had guns. But the government said, “the guns are very dangerous. Children are playing with guns. Hunting accidents happen and we really have to have total controlled safety. And we had criminals again. And the only way that we can trace the criminal was by the serial number of the gun.”

So we dutifully went to the police station and we registered our guns. Not long after they said, “No, it didn’t help. The only way that we won’t have accidents and crimes [is] you bring the guns to the police station and then we don’t have any crimes anymore and any accidents. And if you don’t do that: capital punishment.”

So that’s what we did. So dictatorship didn’t happen overnight. It took five years. Gradually, little by little to escalate up to a dictatorship.

 

Worthman quoted Thomas Jefferson make her biggest point.

 

“When the people fear the government, that’s tyranny. But when the government fears the people… that’s liberty,” she said. “Keep your guns. Keep your guns and buy more guns.”

_________________________

Government tells us, ‘Gun Control is for the Greater Good’

John R. Houk

© December 28, 2013

________________________

Nazi survivor’s warning to Americans: ‘Keep your guns and buy more guns

 

© Copyright 2001-2012 John Hawkins

 

About Right Wings News

 

John Hawkins runs Right Wing News, Linkiest and is the co-owner of The Looking Spoon. He also does weekly appearances on the #1 in it’s market Jaz McKay show, writes a weekly column for Townhall and his work has also been published at the Washington Examiner, The Hill, Hot Air, Pajamas Media, and at Human Events.

 

Additionally, he’s also the blogosphere’s premier interviewer and has interviewed conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Mark Levin, Victor Davis Hanson, Mark Steyn, G. Gordon Liddy, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Michael Steele, Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, Jim DeMint, Jonah Goldberg, Jim DeMint, Walter Williams, Robert Novak, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, & Michelle Malkin among others.

 

Additionally, John Hawkins’ work has been linked and discussed in numerous publications and on TV and radio shows including READ THE REST

Tony Newbill Emails 8-2 to 8-19-13


Obama- My work is done in Destroying USA

 

September 2, 2013

 

Here is one more installment of Tony Newbill emails. Newbill touches on Gun Rights, Obama railing on bad role modelling of celebrities (rather than the lack of celebrity moral role modelling), Benghazigate, Obama Rodeo clown mask, the seeming planned moral decay, economic collapse, National Security under Obama, the NWO of Netocracy and Obama’s destruction of the American Dream.

 

 

There is a lot of info here so you may wish to bookmark it to take your time in reading.

 

 

JRH 9/2/13

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

Republican Party Rep Warns of Doomsday, Urges Ammo Stockpile

8/2/2013 10:36 AM

 

Republican Party Representative Matt Shea told a rally of patriots that they should stockpile weapons and ammunition in order to prepare for the “inevitable” occurrence of complete economic collapse in the United States.

 

http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/republican-party-rep-warns-of-doomsday-urges-ammo-stockpile/

 

Republican Party Representative Matt Shea told a rally of patriots that they should stockpile weapons and ammunition in order to prepare for the “inevitable” occurrence of complete economic collapse in the United States. “We need to prepare for the inevitable collapse that is going to happen,” Shea said. “You know it’s going to happen. That’s right, I am a politician and I am standing up here and saying that. … When it happens, we need to look at this as an opportunity, not a crisis. Whose job is liberty? That’s our job.”

 

At “The Northwest Patriot and Self-Reliance Rally” over the weekend, he began his speech with a nod to his beliefs. “It’s great to be in God’s country,” he said. “Our hope is not in man; our hope is in Jesus Christ. Amen?” The crowd answered “Amen!” just before Shea told them they should purchase thousands of rounds of ammunition and learn how to operate firearms.

 

He urged the rally participants to be ready for an altercation with the government, saying, “[B]e prepared at any given moment to give up your job to do what is right. You have to stand up for what is right – even if it means you have to stand up to your government.”

 

Shea had earlier stated that the United States government is planning to disarm all Americans and is actively building an extended network of camps. Shea was READ THE REST

 

____________________________

This shows a Nation in decline!!!

8/2/2013 1:24 PM

 

Obama criticizes Kim Kardashian and Kanye West: President says ‘Keeping Up’ helps to create generation obsessed with wealth and celebrity.

 

http://social.entertainment.msn.com/tv/blogs/reality-tv-blogpost.aspx?post=f7eca2e9-ccc0-4263-8d1d-7158a41c45ac

 

 

President Barack Obama criticized Kim Kardashian and her family, saying their reality TV shows have helped create a generation of youngsters who are obsessed with wealth and celebrity. Obama singled out socialite Kim Kardashian and her rapper boyfriend Kanye West for particular criticism in a Kindle Singles interview during a visit to one of Amazon’s warehouses in Tennessee. Obama bemoaned the rise of reality TV shows and insisted celebrities who parade their wealth in front of fans have inadvertently changed the aspirations of young people. 

 

He said, “The American dream involved some pretty basic stuff — a good job where you felt some security, a good education … People felt if they worked hard they could get there … I don’t think people went around saying to themselves, ‘I need to have a 10,000-square-foot house’ … I think there has also been a shift in culture. We weren’t exposed to the things we didn’t have in the same way that kids these days are. There was not that window into the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Kids weren’t monitoring every day what Kim Kardashian was wearing or where Kanye West was going on vacation and thinking that somehow that was the mark of success.”  (READ ENTIRETY – if you choose to)

 

The question now becomes what is Obama trying to prepare us for by striking at the heart of Americanism????

 

[Editor: I believe Newbill’s above question is an excellent one. Obama castigates the likes of the Kim Kardashian and Kanye West over extravagant living with money they earned. That is indeed un-American. HOWEVER, the likes of Kardashian and West should not be looked upon as role models but not for the reason Obama implies. These people are not exactly model citizens in their lifestyles. President Obama that is something to criticize them about. A clean lifestyle is a good role model.]

 

_________________________

The Benghazi Scandal has not made a Lot of Sense Until Now

8/14/2013 8:42 AM

 

The Benghazi scandal has not made a lot of sense until now.  Why would the Obama Regime spend so much time trying to cover it up?  There is one new shocking development that, if true, not only explains everything but if true, it means high ranking members of the Regime should be sent to prison.

 

What has happened?  Find out now on The Cold Hard Truth.

 

[Editor: The links above and below are to a podcast questioning the Benghazigate cover-up. It is time to connect to the people responsible to see if something illegal according to U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution. If the law was broken then a trial is long overdue. Let’s hold perpetrators in government accountable even if it goes up to President Obama.]

 

http://tinyurl.com/mpa9a4o

 

_______________________

No way! Look who’s wearing Obama mask now

8/15/2013 11:23 PM

 

[Editor: Chelsea Schilling castigates the political hacks for the Leftist Sheeple criticism of a Rodeo Clown daring to make Obama jokes while wearing the President’s mask. The reason the title is such because Obama himself wore a mask of his own caricature and his audience laughed. A Clown was an Obama mask and he’s banned from Rodeo Clowning for life. What a load of hypocrisy, right? Even more idiotically is the Fair Officials which is a part of this Rodeo in Missouri has declare that ALL Clowns must go through sensitivity training. I think the Dems and Obama need to go through DESENSITIVITY training!]

 

Rodeo Clown Wearing BHO Mask

 

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/no-way-look-whos-wearing-obama-mask-now/

 

A rodeo clown who donned a President Obama mask at the Missouri State Fair was ridiculed, called a racist and banned for life – but when a similar mask was worn by Obama himself, the audience greeted him with enthusiastic cheers.

 

After the rodeo clown wore the mask Aug. 10 and teased the crowd about a bull coming to get Obama, fair officials called his stunt “unconscionable” and vowed he would never perform again.

 

The Missouri chapter of the NAACP demanded that the U.S. Department of Justice and Secret Service launch an investigation of the clown.

 

The president of Missouri’s rodeo-clown organization resigned after the incident, and fair officials declared that all clowns would be required to attend sensitivity training.

 

The clown was accused by a spectator of turning the event into “some kind of [Klu Klux] Klan rally.”

 

Missouri’s elected officials condemned the clown’s act as (READ THE RESTNo way! Look who’s wearing Obama mask now; By Chelsea Schilling; WND; 08/15/2013 at 9:14 PM)

 

_________________________________

The Staged Collapse, It’s all Going to Plan……..

8/17/2013 12:31 PM

 

Why our cities are writhing in death-grip of crime, bankruptcy

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/why-our-cities-are-self-destructing/

 

“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

 

“And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

 

“And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

 

“Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

 

“So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

 

“Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” (Genesis 11:4-9 KJV)

 

There is something a little strange about big cities.

 

The enigmatic biblical story of the tower of Babel revolves around this strange something that occurs when large numbers of people come together in one place and form a great hive.

 

It’s not that something bad has to happen – it doesn’t, especially if the people governing that city are highly principled and grounded in reality. But how often does that happen?

 

What, then, is this strange “something”? It’s what happens when deceitful and power-hungry people rise to positions of power to rule over their own little “kingdom.” On a more cosmic level, one might say it’s the futility and ultimate disintegration of anything – even a great city – built as a monument to man’s greatness rather than God’s.

 

Such sentiments are, of course (READ THE RESTWhy our cities are writhing in death-grip of crime, bankruptcy; By David Kupelian; WND; 08/16/2013 at 8:28 PM)

 

WARNING: The Countdown To The Economic Collapse Has Begun, Everything Is Being Put Into Place For The Fierce Storm That Is Approaching.

 

http://tinyurl.com/mup55f2

 

VIDEO: Warning: The Countdown To The Economic Collapse Has Begun — Episode 138

 

The central bankers/US government have taken control over Egypt. They control the military by giving them aid, they control Saudi Arabia that supports the Egyptian armed forces. This was a take over (sic) to declare martial law and a dictatorship in Egypt to protect the US dollar as the reserve currency. The economic collapse is approaching quickly this fall. Everything is being put into place for the fierce storm that is approaching.

 

Is Slowing Money Supply Signalling (sic) Another Stock Market Crash?

 

According to Austrian Business Cycle Theory, when a central bank slows its money printing that has fueled a manipulated stock market boom, the stock market is very vulnerable to a crash. Murray Rothbard in his book America’s Great Depression explained how it occurred before the October 1929 crash:

 

It is generally acknowledged that the great boom of the 1920s began around July, 1921, after a year or more of sharp recession, and ended about July, 1929.

 

Production and business activity began to decline in July, 1929, although the famous stock market crash came (READ THE RESTInvestmentWatch; 8/16/13)

 

 

The End Times begin: Hathaway gets real and CNBC broadcasts him

http://news.goldseek.com/GATA/1376676754.php

 

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

 

The End Times began at 12:20 p.m. Eastern today.

 

The Tocqueville Gold Fund’s John Hathaway, a thoroughly respectable member of the financial establishment who only in recent weeks has begun to acknowledge the manipulation of the gold market by Western central banks, went on CNBC’s “Fast Money” program, declared that a short squeeze is under way in gold because the paper gold market is leveraged at 100 to 1, and was not cut off.

 

Of course the CNBC “analysts” who commented following Hathaway’s remarks completely missed the substance of what he said. Real financial journalism has not descended upon the West quite yet. But if reality about gold can come frankly out of Hathaway’s mouth and be spread throughout the world by CNBC, are even Reuters, Bloomberg News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and the Financial Times still safe for the Federal Reserve and Wall Street and their scheme of gold price suppression and currency market rigging?

 

Thanks to the Got Gold Report’s Gene Arensberg for calling attention to this earthquake with a preface on top of the CNBC video of Hathaway (READ THE REST [and watch Hathaway on CNBC] – By Chris Powell; GoldSeek; 8/16/13)

 

 

X22 Warning Report! Economic Collapse Countdown Has Begun

http://tinyurl.com/m3ps3bc

 

As awakened Americans await the economic collapse that we all know now we’ll be unable to avoid, the question has to be asked, has it already begun? This X22 Report examines this prospect closely and the facts before our eyes might lead all of us to believe that indeed, the economic collapse is already here, the countdown has begun. Back in 2008, Congressman Brad Sherman warned that if a bailout package was not passed, martial law would be declared in America. That video is the 2nd video below. Is this what all of the military preparation around the country is all about? It appears that we are now running out of time.

 

From X22: The central bankers/US government have taken control over Egypt. They control the military by giving them aid, they control Saudi Arabia that supports the Egyptian armed forces. This was a take over (sic) to declare martial law and a dictatorship in Egypt to protect the US dollar as the reserve currency. The economic collapse is approaching quickly this fall. Everything is being put into place for the fierce storm that is approaching.

 

[Editor: At this point the Before It’s News post includes the same 47 minute video posted above entitled, “Warning: The Countdown To The Economic Collapse Has Begun — Episode 138”. Then there is a very short video of Rep. Brad Marshall railing on White House for fear mongering to goad the GOP into passing all the bells and whistles Obama wants OR the Sequester could lead to Martial Law.]

 

VIDEO: Rep. Brad Sherman Martial Law

(X22 Warning Report! Economic Collapse Countdown Has Begun; Before It’s News; 8/17/13 3:57)

 

___________________________

Is the Obama Doctrine the Rise of Netocracy??

8/19/2013 9:55 AM

 

Going around Congress with spending like Solyndra and many many other fascist operations that donated back lots of the funding to campaigns   and buying favors like waving taxes for Special Interests like for Obamacare is also why we see this Nation dissolving into a  Netocracy …. netocracy refers to a perceived global upper-class that bases its power on a technological advantage and networking skills, in comparison to what is portrayed as a bourgeoisie of a gradually diminishing importance.

 

See when we really look at what Obama and his Oligarchy Administration are entrenched in this Technology Rooted Global Upper Class telling the Bourgeoise (sic) Middle Class he’s looking out for them he actually has them in a Holding pattern while the Netocracy is growing stronger under his regime with the end runs around Congress and the Trillions that he and the Federal Reserve have been spilling out into the Netocracy Sphere of the rise of this super power Globalist Class that has consolidated all the wealth and resources.

 

It’s perfect for controlling the rate of social consumption of the majority of people on earth, the main goal of these Globalists who are also the Netocracy Environmentalist crowd.

  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netocracy

 

Netocracy was a term invented by the editorial board of the American technology magazine Wired in the early 1990s. A portmanteau of Internet and aristocracy, netocracy refers to a perceived global upper-class that bases its power on a technological advantage and networking skills, in comparison to what is portrayed as a bourgeoisie of a gradually diminishing importance.

 

The concept was later picked up by the Swedish philosophers Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist for their book Netocracy — The New Power Elite and Life After Capitalism (originally published in Swedish in 2000 as Nätokraterna – boken om det elektroniska klassamhället, published in English by Reuters/Pearsall UK in 2002).

 

The netocracy concept has been compared with Richard Florida‘s concept of the creative class. Bard and Söderqvist have also defined an under-class in opposition to the netocracy, which they refer to as the consumtariat.

 

Contents

 

1 Other usage

 

2 See also

 

3 References

 

4 Further reading

 

5 External links

 

(You can click the compartmentalized links above to read more or Read The Rest HERE)

 

[Editor: This “Netocracy” is a new term to me. Since the concept is based on a book published in 2000 that makes me an Internet dinosaur. You can tell by the wording in Wikipedia the netocracy concept is a Marxist updated utopianism rolled over into the information age. Clearly netocracy is anti-Democracy (in the representative sense – perhaps Representative Republic best describes the USA) and anti-Capitalism (anti-Free Market, anti-laissez-faire {which is extreme Capitalism}, anti-Free Enterprise etc.). Netocracy in essence replaces a democratic-republican power structure with whatever Network Collective controls or has the best information with the goal of enhancing that particular Network Collective.

 

People like me that believe in individual rights and Liberty would be relegated to second class citizens stripped of the viability of property and entrepreneurial social-interpersonal relationships that involved human contact. The challenge for the Liberty-minded if the Information age via the Internet redefines social interaction is a way to maintain the protection of Property Rights, Individual Rights, Family Values (in my case Christian Values) and the right to be interpersonal rather than virtual.

 

Netocracy as envisioned by it developers socially and politically will develop into a hierarchal dictatorship in which the people at the top of the virtual pyramid will maintain an elitism within a Network not allowing achievement to allow for upward mobility.

 

Frankly lovers of the U.S. Constitution should not rail against the future of a pervasive Information but rather embrace the Network concept but apply the Network to a people that have an association based on laws rather than the monopoly of information that controls the ruling apparatus. A Republic of laws will always trump the fiat of an elitist collective. HERE is a great link explaining the socio-political nature of netocracy. The explanation is netocracy friendly.]

_________________________

The State of our Nation’s Future Security Debate

8/19/2013 3:48 PM

 

I think this is important Information regarding the State of our Nation’s Future Security debate!!!!

 

TrentoVision – 8.14.13 – RYAN MAURO, National Security Analyst

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sioB2WYK4rQ&feature=em-subs_digest

 

http://www.clarionproject.org/

 

About Clarion Project

 

There are times that require people to step out of their comfort zone, to step up for justice, tolerance and moderation. We know going in that the repercussions of taking action will draw a rain of accusations and attacks from the forces we are confronting.

 

We do it anyway. We do it because it must be done.

 

Founded in 2006, the Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund Inc) is an independently funded, non-profit organization dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism while providing a platform for the voices of moderation and promoting grassroots activism.

 

Clarion’s award-winning movies have been seen by over 50 million people. They grapple with issues such as religious persecution, human rights, women’s rights, the dangers of a nuclear Iran and what the concept of jihad means for the West. Our dynamic website, viewed by over 450,000 people in 2012, covers breaking news and provides commentary on relevant issues.

 

The Clarion Project draws together Middle East experts, scholars, human rights activists and Muslims to promote tolerance and moderation and challenge extremism.

 

Mailing Address:

Clarion Project, Inc.

255 W. 36th street #800

New York, NY 10018

USA

 

News Desk (ClarionProject.org):

info@ClarionProject.org

 

For Media & Press:

Tel: (646) 308-1230

Email: press@ClarionProject.org

 

_______________________________

American Dream Dying Under Obama

Sent: 8/19/2013 4:43 PM

 

Dear Barack Obama is the American dream dying under your Policies?

 

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/american-dream-dying-under-obama/

 

NEW YORK – Are you better off today economically than you were when President Obama took office in January 2009?

 

That question remains the litmus test for electoral politics as the U.S. prepares to move into the 2014 mid-term election cycle.

 

The economic scorecard for President Obama continues to provide reasons for alarm, despite Obama’s renewed attempt to emphasize yet again the plight of the U.S. economy and decline of the middle class.

 

Amid the most massive welfare state ever created in human history, four of five U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty, or reliance for at least part of their lives, according to a recent Associated Press report.

 

 

Even Obama-supporting Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has acknowledged that terms such as “modest recovery,” “slow recovery” or even “recession” do not describe the economic malaise experienced under Obama’s presidency.

 

Arguing that the U.S. is in a “low-grade” depression, the liberal economist wrote July 5 that the U.S. economy may have entered “permanent stagnation,” a situation in which “high unemployment could become accepted as the new normal.”

 

Economist Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital and author of the 2012 bestseller “The Real Crash: America’s Coming Bankruptcy – How to Save Yourself and Your Country” is even less sanguine.

 

Schiff believes it makes no difference whether Obama replaces Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve with Fed vice chair Janet Yellen, who favors continuing the Fed’s quantitative easing policy, or with former Obama economic adviser Larry Summers, who wants to end it.

 

“I think the U.S. economy is in trouble regardless of who President Obama chooses, because it’s going to be more of the same policies that have brought the country to the brink of economic ruin,” Schiff said this week.

 

WND’s independent investigation of 10 key economic measures confirms that economic conditions for millions of Americans have deteriorated substantially under the Obama administration.

 

Consider the following: (READ THE REST American dream dying under Obama? Scorecard of 10 indicators shows Americans worse off since 2009; By Jerome R. Corsi; WND; 08/18/2013 at 8:48 PM)

 

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

© Tony Newbill

Some Editor comments in brackets

RINOs Look to Dilute Second Amendment


1st-american-rev-gun-rights

John R. Houk

© March 29, 2013

 

Amendment II

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. (Cornell University Law School – Legal Information Institute)

 

I received an email from Dudley Brown of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) notifying their readers that Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell are formulating a Gun Control Lite Bill as a compromise to offer to the Gun Control maniacs of the Obama Administration and the Leftist Dems in the Senate that wish to unconstitutionally nullify Second Amendment.

 

The point of the email is to stir activism for 2nd Amendment Gun Rights by flooding Grassley and McConnell with pro-Gun Rights messages with the hope of changing their mind on any 2nd Amendment-limiting legislation.

 

THE POINT I believe you should begin to perceive though is that RINOs call the shots in the GOP. AND that RINOs lean to Center-Left on issues that Conservatives find abhorrent. RINOs are willing to give up tooooo much in compromises in order pass some Republican-friendly legislation that is compliant to some constituent budget issue but ignores the larger picture of what keeps America good. Thus Leftist ideology creeps more and more into American culture making America more and more ceasing to be good.

 

To keep America good my fellow Conservatives – fiscally and socially – it is time to depart from the Republican and form a political party that does not pander Center-Left weaknesses that continually dilutes the nature of what America is.

 

In the mean time check out Dudley Brown’s email exposing the nefarious compromise being cooked up by Senator Chuck Grassley and garnering the support of Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

 

JRH 3/29/13

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Republican Senators Plotting with Obama?

 

By Dudley Brown

Sent: 3/29/13 1:15

Sent from NAGR

 

Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has a “gun control lite” bill he’s selling to weak-kneed Senators on Capitol Hill . . .

. . . and what’s even worse, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says, “it might be something I can support.”

You would think ALL Republicans are lining up behind Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee to support the filibuster of Harry Reid’s gun control bill — S. 649.

But that’s just not happening.

And it appears Grassley and McConnell’s “gun control lite” bill could destroy all efforts to stop Obama’s war on your gun rights when the Senate returns to Washington on April 8.

It’s unclear exactly what Grassley’s gun control bill contains, but it’s clear he’s more than willing to cut a “deal,” especially after he was the lone Republican vote with the gun-grabbers in a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

That’s exactly how we’re going to get gun control — weak-kneed Republicans buckling.

That’s why it’s vital you take action AT ONCE.

Call the offices of both Senators — Grassley and McConnell — RIGHT NOW!

INSIST Grassley and McConnell OPPOSE the motion to proceed on S. 649, SUPPORT the Paul, Cruz and Lee filibuster, and, drop their plans for a “gun control lite” bill.

Senator Chuck Grassley: 202-224-3744

Senator Mitch McConnell: 202-224-2541

If you have trouble getting through on those phone lines, please click on the links below to send an email to both Grassley and McConnell.

Click here to email Senator Chuck Grassley

Click here to email Senator Mitch McConnell

Obama’s gun control point man in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, is on the look-out for just this type of weak-kneed behavior from as many Republicans as he can find.

Grassley and McConnell are two of his top targets.

If Reid manages to pick up the support of enough Senate Republicans, Obama will get what he wants — fictitious “gun trafficking” legislation, so-called “mental health screenings” and “expanded background checks.”

Possibly even more gun control like Feinstein’s so-called “assault weapons ban” and a federal magazine ban will also be on the table.

That’s why Senator Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell’s history of “deal-cutting” should be so worrisome to gun owners.

In 2009, instead of whipping Republicans to oppose Obamacare at every opportunity, Grassley worked to a cut a “deal” with anti-freedom forces hell-bent on taking over the American health care system.

I don’t have to go back far to remind you that Mitch McConnell has a history of caving in to the demands of Obama and Harry Reid.

In January, NAGR members fought tooth-and-nail INSISTING Mitch McConnell not cave to Harry Reid’s demands to gut the Senate filibuster.

In the end, McConnell forfeited several of the procedural motions used with great effect by Senator Rand Paul and others to delay legislation that the Majority Leader is trying to jam through, allowing bad legislation to pass more quickly.

And how could we forget McConnell cutting a “deal” with Obama and Reid on the so-called “fiscal cliff” earlier this year?

McConnell’s “deal” gave Obama and Reid $41 in tax increases in exchange for $1 in spending cuts. Yes, you read that right.

So if Senator Chuck Grassley’s “gun control lite” bill looks anything similar to the “deals” he and McConnell have cut in recent years, your gun rights will be on the chopping block in just a matter of days.

The only force standing in the way of Reid’s gun control dreams is the vow of a filibuster by Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz.

By filibustering — opposing the motion to proceed on S. 649 –- Paul, Cruz and Lee can hold the line against gun control for the moment.

And if they hold the filibuster and prevent Reid from getting the 60 votes he needs to break it, gun owners win the first battle in the Obama administration’s war on gun owners.

That’s why it’s vital you call the offices of both Senators — Grassley and McConnell — RIGHT NOW!

INSIST Grassley and McConnell OPPOSE the motion to proceed on S. 649, SUPPORT the Paul, Cruz and Lee filibuster, and, drop their plans for a “gun control lite” bill.

Senator Chuck Grassley: 202-224-3744

Senator Mitch McConnell: 202-224-2541

If you have trouble getting through on those phone lines, please click on the links below to send an email to both Grassley and McConnell.

Click here to email Senator Chuck Grassley

Click here to email Senator Mitch McConnell

Thanks — in advance — for taking action.

For Freedom,

 

Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President

P.S. Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley is working on a “gun control lite” bill that could give Obama much of the gun control he wants. What’s worse, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said it “might be something I can support.”

Call Senators Grassley and McConnell RIGHT NOW! INSIST they support the Paul, Cruz and Lee filibuster and drop any plans they may have for a “gun control lite” bill.

Senator Chuck Grassley: 202-224-3744

Senator Mitch McConnell: 202-224-2541

P.P.S. NAGR has just launched a massive, nationwide grassroots effort designed to mobilize gun owners against gun control. If you can, please consider chipping in $10 or $20 to support NAGR’s efforts.

 

+++++++

To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.

 

Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!

____________________

RINOs Look to Dilute Second Amendment

John R. Houk

© March 29, 2013

____________________

Republican Senators Plotting with Obama?

 

The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens’ organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights’ mailing address is P.O. Box 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is www.NationalGunRights.org

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.