Tag: BarackObama

A Response to a Reader’s Comments:

Healthcare USA, after Anton Bruehl
Healthcare USA, after Anton Bruehl (Photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com)

As usual, your comment plays on the emotions and fears of the uninformed, but has little in the way of fact and reality.  You paint the picture of “Ron Paul conservatives” cruelly turning people away from urgently needed medical care.  Oh …. those cold-hearted conservative bastards!  They make Scrooge look like Mother Teresa! Did you know conservatives eat their young!   Barak Obama, the Messiah … the Holy One …  will save us all from the evil, fascist, chauvinistic, racist, hate-mongering conservatives!

Don’t like spending nearly a trillion bucks on stimulus?  You’re a racist!   Don’t like ObamaCare?  You’re a racist!

Why is it when liberals rant … it is “free speech,” but when conservatives rant, it is “hate speech?”  Need some examples?  Maybe I can find a few …. it isn’t very hard …

Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg News comparing the Tea Party caucus in Congress to terrorists:  “I mean, they’ve strapped explosives to the Capitol and they think they are immune from it.”

Former Rep. Paul Kanjorski (Dem): “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to put him against a wall and shoot him.”
 
Barack Obama, 2008 and 2010: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” & “We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends…”
 
New York Times Columnist  Paul Krugman: “A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy.”
 
Talk show host Montel Williams, directed at Rep. Michele Bachmann: “Michele, slit your wrist. Go ahead… or, do us all a better thing [sic]… start at the collarbone.”
 
Senator Harry Reid, 2008:  Barack Obama is a “light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
 
Reverend Jesse Jackson:  “All Hymie wants to talk about is Israel; every time you go to Hymietown, that’s all they want to talk about.”
 
DNC Charmian Howard Dean:  “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?  Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”
 
The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen and CNN:  “How much time do we have left to talk about how stupid Sarah Palin is?”
 
Foul-mouthed comedian Sandra Bernhard warning Sarah Palin she would be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” if she tried coming to New York.
 
Do you remember when Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy said: “I know how the ‘tea party’ people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health care reform.  I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their ‘Obama Plan White Slavery’ signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.”
 
Remember when Liberal talk radio host Mike Malloy said: “Drudge? Aw, Drudge, somebody ought to wrap a strong Republican entrail around his neck and hoist him up about 6 feet in the air and watch him bounce.”
 
And of course, we all know about Bill Maher ….
 
Remember when “stupid” Sarah Palin made Rahm Emanuel’s expletive-enhanced use of the word “retarded” an embarrassment for him and the the Anointed One?  She forced the left to live up to its own P.C. standards. Saul Alinsky would have been proud.
 
But I digress ….
 
There will still be millions of un-insured under Obamacare.  The cost for Obamacare has already been revised by the CBO from the original estimate of approx. $900 Billion to $1.8 Trillion … and it will continue to grow. The programs you mention; Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are, themselves, on the verge of collapse; therefore taxes will skyrocket to subsidise them and yet another massive, unsustainable entitlement bureaucratic-nightmare called Obamacare. 
 

Doctors are fleeing the medical field or making decisions to not accept government-based healthcare plans because reimbursement levels are already too low and shrinking.  (I know this because I have several friends who are doctors … and no they are not greedy monsters.  They are normal folks, whose business costs are skyrocketing because of massive paperwork involved with regulatory compliance forced on them by Obamacare). 

Enrollment in medical school is down because not too many students can afford to take on such massive debt in the form of the student loans required to complete a medical degree program … for the dwindling return on their investment. Doctor’s work very hard for their degrees (typically for at least 7 years) and incur a great deal of debt achieving it.  To begrudge them a higher salary than folks who, say,  decided to flip hamburgers for a living or just go on the public dole …  is pretty short-sighted and very small-minded!  

Tell me  … do you begrudge George Soros, Warren Buffett,  AL Gore, John Kerry, or George Clooney their massive incomes?

And yes … even those dastardly, despicable, racist, hate-mongering, tea bagging, slutty, conservatives (who hate autistic children, the mentally challenged, and who want old people to die starving in the streets) want American citizens to have access to affordable, transportable, quality health insurance.  The problem is that Obamacare will not provide that.  It will only bankrupt the country.

I am not a big fan of Ron Paul.  I don’t believe Ron Paul is actually a true conservative.  I like some of his domestic positions, but he is not truly a Constitutionalist.  If you go back to Ron Paul’s early years and his influences, they include a list of folks who detested conservatives and the U.S. Constitution.  Ron Paul mostly uses the U.S. Constitution as a hammer to bash all other candidates on the head.  His foreign policy is to the left of even Barack Obama’s and I feel would be disastrous for this country and the rest of the world.  Isolationist-based  policies have indirectly caused several wars including World War I, World War II, and The Vietnam Conflict.   His roots are, perhaps, slightly less scary than Barack Obama’s;  while Obama is a Saul Alinsky “inspired” socialist, Ron Paul is essentially a Murry Rothbard inspired free-market anarchist.

The Insidiousness Secrets of Obamacare

English: Barack Obama signing the Patient Prot...
English: Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the White House (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

All Americans … democratic and republican … liberal and conservative … want access to affordable, quality healthcare.  The problem with Obamacare is that it cannot and will not give us that; and in truth … it was never designed to. Obamacare was never intended to reduce healthcare costs, and in act, it will increase healthcare cost substantially.  Obamacare was designed to force all Americans to have government approved health insurance by 2014, or be fined by their government.  Which, despite claims to the contrary by the Washington Post, amounts to a government take over of healthcare.  That is why Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and company, rushed to have it passed before it was read and understood, and before anyone really knew what was hidden in it.  Two years ago, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) told America Obamacare would cost the U.S. taxpayers about $900 billion.  It just recently revised that cost to be $1.8 trillion!  Is anyone … besides the Cool Aid Drinkers … surprised by this?

It is incomprehensible to me how such an Obamanation of legislation could be passed without even trying a few simpler measure that have been discussed during previous years that could have  helped lower healthcare costs in America … without created a huge new bumbling bureaucracy.

 The liberal elites, such as Obama and his cronies, want to blame the private sector and capitalism for rising healthcare and premiums costs.  They count on the fact that you will not do your homework and will simply accept their claim at face value.  Why then, is it, that I can purchase auto insurance from an auto insurance company in Hawaii because they offer a better premium rate … but must by a health insurance policy from a company based in Tennessee?  Why is the market closed off?  Is this free market capitalism?  No it is not!  Then how can liberals truthfully blame free market capitalism?  They cannot … unless you drank the Cool Aid! 

The fact is that the federal government has no legal authority to regulate health insurance rates.  Insurance, including health insurance, is regulated by the states.  The McCarran-Ferguson Act, which preserves the principle of state regulation of insurance, was not amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the law under which the new rule on health insurance rates was issued.  So what is going on here? With no regulatory authority at all, HHS is trying to bully or shame health insurers into reducing their rate increases. Again, the whole effort is an incredible exercise by Obama’s administration in power-grabbing!

The Heritage Founation lists 10 other negative outcomes from Obamacare:

  1. New taxes, penalties, and fees will discourage businesses from growing, lowering economic growth by $706 billion and costing 800,000 jobs.
  2. The Federal government will force the 18 million of the uninsured to go under Medicaid, while others must accept another government program. Despite this, millions will still remain uninsured.
  3. Each year, $125 million will go towards subsidizing school-based health centers and programs to reduce teen pregnancy, with no requirement to reduce abortions. Parents won’t know what services their children will receive.
  4. Half of those on Medicare Advantage will lose this coverage thank to rate increases.
  5. Health care costs will rise thanks to $47 billion in new taxes on drug companies and medical device makers.
  6. Nearly two-thirds of doctors are considering abandoning any kind of government-sponsored health care insurance, stating that regulations are too high and reimbursement too low.
  7. By forcing States to accept federally-mandated health insurance, the Act violates States’ rights.
  8. Small businesses, the drivers of new job growth, will be especially penalized by $52 billion in new taxes and new IRS reporting requirements.
  9. Despite $500 billion in new taxes, Obamacare will increase the deficit by $500 billion over the next 10 years.

The simple reality is that Obamacare is a very poorly written law with vast consequences for all Americans. Obamacare’s so-called exchanges will ultimately increase insurance rates, tax American employers and threaten the viability of our private insurance market.  Massive government subsidies will be required to keep ObamaCare afloat and that will require even more tax revenue. Obamacare will also simply create a massive new entitlement program that we, as a nation, cannot afford.

For me, as an American citizen, the Individual Mandate is the scariest part of the whole mess.  If Obamacare stands, we as a nation have set the precedent for the government to force individuals into contracts with services providers for services they do not want.  This does, in fact, violate the U.S. Constitution and is a big step down the pathway to tyranny.   No we all know ho little the U.S. Constitution means to Obama, his cronies, and his Cool Aid drinking followers, but what about the rest of you Americans … are you going to just sit back and let him destroy this country and will you take a stand.  This next election is critical.  I now we all have our favorite candidate … but only one candidate can be the nominee!  I lean to toward New Gingrich personally, but things are not looking to good for him right now.  So will I go home and pout if Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul get the nomination?  Will I take my toys and go home?  Nope … this election is way to important for such childish games.  Any of the fielded republican candidates is a real measurable improvement over Barack Hussein Obama … and I will vote for any one of them to remove this domestic American enemy from office …. and in truth … I would not even have to hold my nose to do it!

The Teflon President (or Obama Lied, America Died)

A class photo of the 110th United States Senate.
Image via Wikipedia

I was on another blog the other day and spotted a new “nick name for our peerless leader!  We should all  call him “The Teflon President,” because in the American drive-by media … absolutely nothing sticks to him.

I seem to remember that during the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama promised to lead the most transparent administration in U.S. history.  However, he has failed to deliver on his promise.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  The anointed One’s administration’s approach to governing is to:  Choose or create a problem, stridently proclaim the urgent need to address it, propose hurried legislation, and then try to ram it through Congress before congress or people have a chance to read it or appreciate the exact effect it will have on the nation.

Remember the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout? The truth is that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was a democratic bill signed by Jimmy Carter and enhanced by Bill Clinton (who had the Justice Department rewrite it).  Put in the hands of crooks like  Barney Frank, Democrat  and Chris Dodd, Democrat (who should both be sharing a cell with Jack Abramoff);  it forced banks to make mortgage loans to people who simply could not afford them …. or face government sanctions and violent protests by ACORN members outside their banking offices.   So … while banks are not without blame for the housing market collapse , the lion’s share of the blame truthfully belongs to the Democrats.  Well, it now seems the U.S. government’s mortgage monster is again in trouble. Fannie Mae lost money in the fourth quarter and is asking the federal government for nearly $4.6 billion in aid to cover its deficit.  But never fear … Obama says the economy is improving!

Recently, Obama gave a speech at an SEIU (another flavor of ACORN) gathering where he raised $80,000,000 for his campaign fund.  Amid cheers and praises and loud chants of “YES WE CAN'” , Obama spewed forth a record number of lies and half-truths!  Obama knows many Americans will not put forth any effort to check his claims and will just accept them as fact because he spoke them.  After all, he is the Chosen One … descended from on High to leads us to Amertopia, where we are all equally miserable and slaves to an Omniscient, Omnipotent Government (the  liberal left’s PC version of God).  Obama is really very skilful at telling lies and half-truths that sound good enough to be true.   After all, the Cool Aid drinkers will believe anything he spews forth and too many others are just too plain lazy to check the facts! You have to dig a little deeper to get at the truth and that takes work … something the Obama administration discourages regularly. 

And lo and behold, … our Messiah has finally gotten around to coming up with a budget (Can you say … “re-election year”); which, much to my surprise, does not cut any real spending …. and in fact, increases our deficit spending and raises all sorts of taxes (both direct and indirect).  Oh … and did I mention that the interest on my student loans (taken over by Obama’s administration) is about to double … from 3.2% to 6.4%!  Yay!  I am not sure which makes me happier …. that … or $6-a-gallon gasoline!   Anyway, here are some prime examples from Obama’s proposed budget to chew on:

Obama Budget Claim: $850 billion in savings from ending wars. $230 billion of those savings will be used on highways.

The Fact:  There is no direct peace savings. The money that was used for the wars was borrowed money.  If they are to spend it on something else (assuming they can end the wars) they would have to continue to borrow money.

Obama Budget Claim: Taxes on the rich will be increased, breaks for the oil and gas industry’s will end, some spending programs the president is willing to sacrifice, will be cut.

The Fact: There has been no tax increases passed, and any effort to do so will be inevitably blocked by republicans. As it stands right now, the “tax the rich” narrative is nothing more then a campaign promise if he gets re-elected.

Obama Budget Claim: The U.S. will see good GDP growth. The Budget predicts that it will reach 4 percent in 2014 and 4.2 in 2015.

The Fact: Basing a budget on speculative growth is irresponsible. Looking back, the White House GDP projection for 2011 was 2.7 percent. It was actually 1.7 falling a percentage point. For 2012, the White House at first projected 3.6 percent growth, but has since been lowered to 3 percent.  Several reputable firms such as IHS Global Insight have their projections around the 2 – 2.1 percent range. Their record of past projections have been much stronger then the White House’s speculation.

Considering that 2012 is an election year, we could guess that the Obama budget would contain some wild promises, but the released budget was chock full of stretched promises based on non-existent savings.

On Sunday, February 12, 2012, Obama sent his Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, out to demonize the Republican Party as a smoke screen when people began asking why his administration had not passed a budget since his election.   Jack Lew lied to every single mainstream media outlet that would welcome his lies.  And not ONE network host challenged his bold-faced lies!

From NBC‘s Meet the Press, Sunday, February 12, 2012:

MR. GREGORY: So the leadership deficit in Washington has had an impact on what business does in America and certainly our economic outlook. Here’s a stat that a lot of people may not know, but it’s pretty striking. The number of days since Senate Democrats passed a budget is 1,019. Can you just explain as a former budget director, how do you fund the government when there’s no budget?

MR. LEW: Well, you know, one of the things about the United States Senate that I think the American people have realized is that it takes 60, not 50 votes to pass something. And there has been Republican opposition to anything that Senate Democrats have tried to do. So it, it is a challenge in the United States Senate to pass legislation when there’s not that willingness to work together. Congress didn’t do a great job last year. It, it, it drove right to the edge of a cliff on occasion after occasion. I actually think it’s unfair to blame the United States Senate for that. A lot of that was because of the extreme, you know, conservative approach taken by House Republicans.

From  CNN‘s State of the Union that same day:

CROWLEY:  I know we’ll want to talk about the tax hikes in a second, but I want to read for our viewers something that Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the U.S. Senate, who said, we do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year.  It’s done.  We don’t need to do it, talking about last year’s two-year agreement and saying that, you know, so it’s already done.
 
This budget, I can assure you and you know, because you’ve been in this town for a long time, is going to be attacked as a political document.  This is a budget that promises 2 million more jobs if it’s passed, so that come September the president can go out there and say, well, if they’d only passed by budget, we’d have 2 million more jobs, but those darn Republicans are standing in my way, when, in fact, even the Democratic leader in the Senate says, you know what, we don’t need a budget.
 
LEW:  Well, let’s be clear.  What Senator Reid is talking about is a fairly narrow point.  In order for the Senate to do its annual work on appropriation bills, they need to pass a certain piece of legislation which sets a limit.  They did that last year.  That’s what he’s talking about.
 
He’s not saying that they shouldn’t pass a budget.  But we also need to be honestYou can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes, and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support.  So unless Republicans

So, what is the real truth?

As Politifact CLEARLYpoints out:

Most business in the Senate is subject to filibustering — that is, actions, or even just threats, to talk a bill to death. Filibusters can be overcome by what’s known as a “cloture” vote that shuts off debate and moves a measure toward final consideration. For the Senate to agree to cloture requires 60 votes — a high threshold that many Senate majorities are unable to muster on controversial votes (and, increasingly, even on relatively uncontroversial votes).

However, the filibuster cannot be used to block a budget resolution. That’s because the Budget Act sets out a specific amount of time for debate in the Senate — 50 hours. If a specific amount of debate time is enshrined in the controlling statute, the filibuster is moot. So a simple majority — not 60 votes — is all that’s required to pass a budget resolution.

Indeed, passing a budget resolution by at least 60 votes has become increasingly rare in recent years, according to CRS data. Since 1994, the Senate vote has exceeded that vote threshold just three times, either in the initial vote or on a subsequent vote in which lawmakers consider an identical House-Senate version of the resolution.

More common in recent years are votes where 51 was enough to prevail. In 2009, the Senate even passed the final budget resolution by a 48-45 margin.

“The budget resolution vote is always a partisan affair, and rarely does it gain any minority party support,” said Steve Ellis, a vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense.

So Lew is clearly wrong to say that “you can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes.” As a longtime senior official at OMB and other federal agencies, he should have known better.

The truth is that you need 51 votes to pass a budget.  The Democrat Party currently has 53 votes in the Senate.  When Obama took over, they had a filibuster-proof Senate and they could have passed ANY budget they wanted.  You need to remember that just last year, Obama submitted a budget to a Senate under the control of his own party.  It was such an abject disgrace that it went down 97-0 without a SINGLE Senator voting for it.

I know,  I know.  That was the Republicans Party’s fault, too.   

budget
budget (Photo credit: 401K)

So … by the way …. do high gas prices have you bummed?  Are you stressing over the strain on you already overburdened wallet?

No need to  worry!!  The Anointed One, President Obama, is coming to save you.  Can I get a “YES HE CAN!  YES HE CAN!”    I knew I could!!

Do you remember?   It was not to long ago that the Anointed One proclaimed that just periodically checking your tire pressure will help you save money on as!  

“Simple things you can do to save gas.  Make sure that your tires are inflated properly.  And getting regular tune ups.”

 So next time your feeling down because you can’t pay those skyrocketing gas price, remember that “YES YOU CAN” … and you will … unless we elect a President who will pave the way for increasing the exploration and drilling for America’s abundant supply of fossil fuels, decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil, build “Keystone” pipe lines, and yes, RESPONSIBLY investigate alternative energy. 

However,  if we get four more years of nonsense and suggestions that consumers  “check your tire pressure;” while  Obama gives more money to companies Solyndra to flush down the toilet;  then we’re pretty much screwed.

Now, let me  be completely honest!  For America, (as true patriotic, conservative American’s love it) to survive; we must defeat  Obama and his  party of pathological socialist liars in 2012.  Whoever is the Republican nominee must be supported by supporters of the other candidates.  And … to finish Jack Lew’s earlier interrupted sentence, unless Republicans can grow a set of balls … and rise up and hold the Democrats responsible for all of their vicious lies, this nation is doomed.

Gas Prices Soaring Due to Seagulls!

Leucophaeus atricilla English: Laughing Gulls ...
Image via Wikipedia

Since our anointed Messiah, the mighty Barack Obama, bravely bowed to the pressure of radical tree-huggers in the EPA and quashed the Keystone Oil Pipeline deal with Canada … it looks like China (who will most certainly refine and burn Canadian oil in a much more environmentally friendly manner than the U.S. would have) is going to get that oil.

Iran is close to going nuclear, rattling its scimitars, and threatening to block the Straits of Hormuz, the most important oil transit channel in the world. Meanwhile, Obama seems intent on vacationing … while pretending the current Iranian President and his reasonable radical Islamic administration are no threat to the U.S. or its ally Israel (that evil perpetrator of the Holocaust myth).

Obama’s enlightened view that Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea are all simply misunderstood … and would play nice if the U.S.  would only just cripple its military and negotiate from a position of  weakness … makes me feel so much safer.

In fact, I am so very relieved to hear this!  Why you might ask?  Because that then gives Obama’s administration much more time to take on the really important issues like:

  • suing states for trying to protect their citizens from illegal immigrants who run drugs, humans, and weapons (paid for by Eric Holder) across our southern border;
  • finding “better” ways to count the number of unemployed in America so his numbers don’t look so bad in an election year;
  • and most importantly… providing all Catholic woman mandatory free condoms, abortions, and morning after pill insurance coverage whether they want it, will use it, or not.

I mean after all, why should it matter to pro-lifers and/or Christians that their tax dollars are being used to fund abortions!?  How closed-minded of us!

You know, I am afraid I must admit that I simply did not know that condoms were so darned expensive and so hard to get.  What was I thinking?!   Those must all be empty condom boxes and packages on the drug store shelves and behind the convenient store counters!  Have the public elementary schools run out of the free condoms they distribute by the handfuls to our children?  That’s simply horrible!  Are all those condom vending machines in truck stop men’s rooms empty?  Maybe Obama should issue an executive order mandating a new Truck Stop Men’s Room Czar and fund the associated bureaucracy? He could charge it with enforcing regulations mandating that trucks stops make sure these condom vending machines are always full, and that they are also available in the lady’s room (for equal rights), at the fuel pump islands, and in the trucker’s gift emporium next to the fuzzy steering wheel covers.  They could even put free condom and morning after pill vending machines in all our public schools starting in Kindergarten!  Wouldn’t that be swell!?

Meanwhile, gas prices are steadily climbing (locally up .03 cents per gallon as of yesterday) and they are estimated to go above $5 per gallon by summer. I heard yesterday that they are already paying $5 a gallon in some areas of California.  I wonder who, or what, Obama and his cronies will blame this on, because (despite the fact that Obama wants to crush oil companies and even stated during his 2008 campaign that he likes higher oil prices as long as they increase slowly); this will hurt his current  re-election bid.  He has to find something or someone to blame!  Hmmm!  Can he still get away with blaming it on George W. Bush, or maybe the Arab Spring turned to Summer, the Tea Party, a lazy do-nothing congress, or perhaps ATM machines!

No wait … I know!  He can blame it on seagull migrations!!  Yeah, that’s the ticket!  After all, it really could work!  Obama’s mainstream-media lap-dogs will gleefully run with the story (and can probably even find a way to blame seagull migrations on the Tea Party, the Catholic Church, and conservative republicans).  Perhaps most importantly, however, all the cool-aid drinkers will swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Obama’s newest excuse might even get discussed on “The View” with dissenting views being soundly, vigorously, and vulgarly ridiculed by the likes of Whoopee Goldberg and Joy Behar!!  Perhaps Janeane Garofalo and  Bill Maher will join in!

After all!  Facts be damned … if the anointed One has spoken it  … it must be so!

How About ZEG (Zero Economic Growth), Instead Of GNP?

BARACK OBAMA SHOWS HIS TRUE SELF MORE EACH AND...
Image by SS&SS via Flickr

Sometimes I almost feel sorry for Barack Obama.  Almost!  But then I remember his lies, his radical anti-American political beliefs, and his arrogance … and I wake up.  Obama, because of his radical left-wing, ideologically driven belief system …  truly came to believe he was the “Anointed One;” destined to transform America into a Soros-envisioned model of a global-elitist led utopia .  Fortunately, at least for true conservative, patriotic Americans, Obama truly is in way over his head and really does not have a clue about what he is doing. 

Some of us thinking Americans, who actually did a little pre-2008 election candidate research into Obama’s true history and experience… and did not just swallow the drive-by media’s gushingly, pro-Obama campaign efforts hook, line and sinker, are not surprised.  I still remember waking up the morning after Obama’s election in a state of shock over American voter gullibility and the level to which progressive-liberals will sink to achieve their nefarious political goals.

Think about the facts about Obama’s education, work history, his chosen mentors, and associates:

  • Obama served two years in the U.S. Senate where he simply voted “present” on most legislation being considered by the senate. He was essentially a junior senator with no real federal government experience when he began campaigning for president.
  • Before being elected to the Senate, Obama lost a run for the U.S. House of Representatives and served seven years part-time in the Illinois state Senate. Chicago is famous for its corrupt, back-room deal, politics and being the home of many left-wing political leaders.
  • He made one stirring keynote address at the Democratic National Convention and wrote two autobiographical books, which if you actually read, gave a clear picture of his radical thought processes and anti-American beliefs.
  • Obama held a low-paying job as a community organizer which I think he was probably very good at. However, though well-suited for someone with radical, left-wing beliefs, it was not exactly a high-stress, decision-under-pressure, economically and politically astute decisions that affect the world kind of job.
  • He did worked 11-years as a civil rights attorney with a left-wing leaning law firm. He must have felt out-of-place there, because, civil rights are essentially a list of things the government is NOT ALLOWED TO DO, and Obama wants our government to do everything.
  • Contrary to his claims on the campaign trail, Obama was not a law professor. He was a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. While a senior lecturer is certainly an esteemed position and due its respect, he was not a tenured professor.
  • He did manage to get caught up in a real estate scandal with a well-known Illinois political “fixer” Antoin “Tony” Rezko who is under active federal investigation.  I guess that counts.

Not a real impressive resume for being president.  Obama did have charisma  … so people liked him and began to talk about him.  He was very smooth; and good at testing the wind and saying what people wanted to hear.  He was even smooth enough that many people ignored his radical views and associations.  But is it really any surprise his policies do not work … look at who he admired and looked to for guidance.  Here are just a few:

  • Saul Alinski: Alinski, considered the father of modern community organization, was a communist organizer and author from Chicago. While Obama plays down Alinski’s  “influence” on his political views and tactics; Saul Alinski’s son, L. David Alinski, says Obama certainly learned his lessons well.  Actions really do speak louder than words, and despite what Obama says in public, many of the political strategies he uses come right out of Saul Alinski’s book, Rules for Radicals.
  • Cass Sunstein: One of Obama’s closest confidants and the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is an animal rights activist/social engineer who wants to set up legal “rights” for livestock, wildlife, and pets enabling them to file lawsuits in American courts.  Sunstein is also a strong opponent of freedom of speech and in a paper he co-wrote in 2008 proposed, “that the U.S. Government employs teams of covert agents and pseudo-“independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites , as well as other activist groups, which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. 
  • Samantha Power:  Power, a member of Obama’s National Security Council, is an ideologue who believes America should subordinate its sovereignty to that of the incompetent, anti-American, anti-Israel, marxist-inspired, world-government-loving United Nations.
  • John Holden: Obama’s science advisor, Holden is another close confident with rather extreme views like instituting compulsory birth control, creating an armed  international organization to enforce order worldwide, and instituting a “planetary regime” to “control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of natural resources” in addition to “regulating all international trade.”  Then there is Ecoscience, which calls for severe limitations on economic growth (hmmm … kind of like Obama’s economic policies!).  According to Ecoscience proponents, “It is by now abundantly clear that the GNP cannot grow forever.  Why should it?  Why should we not strive for zero economic growth (ZEG) as well as zero population growth.”

New Obama Code-Words For Stimulus

Historical government spending in the United S...
Image via Wikipedia

Harold Black had an interesting commentary in the Knoxville Viewpoint of September 4th edition of the Knoxville News Sentinel.   Basically, Harold Black, a professor emeritus of finance at the University of Tennessee, argues that Obama, because of his big government ideology, will simply advocate for a bigger stimulus package than the earlier $700 billion … because it was simple too small.  But Obama, realizing that the word “stimulus” will not gain much in the way of support from the public, the  House, or the Senate because of the dismal failure of the last stimulus (code-named “pork barrel”) package, will attempt to disguise it with code-words like jobs package, infrastructure renewal, etc.

I think Harold black is pretty accurate in his assessment!  In fact,  I argued the same point in a post on this blog just a few days ago.  The problem is that government “infrastructure projects” do not create sustainable jobs.  They create jobs that are funded by the government until they are completed or the well runs dry.  Then those jobs disappear and the workers are right back where they started from … out of work; and, by the way, our “well” is already running dry!

Real and sustainable job growth has to come from the private sector … and Obama is busy killing the private sector!  Things that would promote job growth in the private sector would be reducing personal and corporate tax rates, repealing Obama care, and getting rid of the endless regulatory burdens Obama’s administration shovels out by executive order.  Obama, after promising to cut regulations, is actually proposing 7 new $1 billion restrictions that could, in the end, cut $90 billion from the U.S. economy!!   By the way, for you conspiracy theorists out there … this is straight out of Saul Alinski’s rules for radicals!  Continue to publicly say you are doing one thing (cutting regulations), while doing the exact opposite (creating billions in new business restrictions).

Harold Black points to an interesting parallel between our current situation and what happened to Japan in the 1990s.  Japan initiated a series of expensive infrastructure projects to put Japanese workers back to work and boost their economy.  The result was that the Japanese economy declined as the spending increased.  According to Black, some observers credit the decline in the Japanese economy directly to their “squandering billions of yen on wasteful projects.”  The Japanese government also seem to forget that billions of yen would later have to be spent on maintaining these newly completed  “projects.”

The fact is that when Obama took office, he had super majorities in both house of Congress.  He and his cronies embarked on a spending frenzy that made George W. Bush’s overspending (that progressive-liberals so often like to point to) look miniscule by comparison.  As Harold Black points out, if out-of-control government spending did actually foster economic growth and job creation … both Japan and the U.S. would be booming today!

Like Wayne Allyn Root writes in his recent NewsMax article, there are actually two words Obama could use in his “jobs” speech this evening that would save this economy and perhaps this country.  These are two words that I would love to hear from him …. “I resign.”

The True Source Of the Second Amendment

 

Second Amendment

It amazes me just how many Americans do not understand the concept of Second Amendment Rights and where  this American right originates.  Even American’s who support the Second Amendment, own firearms, join the NRA, and exercise their rights under the Second Amendment daily often misunderstand its origins.  

What is scary to me, however, is that the left-wing liberals certainly seem to, at least on one level, understand the reason that the Founding Fathers  wrote Second Amendment and included it in the Bill of Rights.  That is why they are so intent on eliminating the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

Of  course, you have to understand that most liberals in this country are not liberals at all … at least not in the true sense of the liberal ideology.  True liberals, as a general rule, would not support gun control because it is a violation of a personal freedom ….  and all liberals certainly claim to strongly support individual freedom.  This is the root of their support for the gay movement, women’s rights to murder 1.37 million American babies each year, legalizing drugs, PETA, terrorist’s rights, and the drive-by media’s right to commit libel and slander against conservatives with impunity while openly supporting their chosen liberal politicians during elections.  

In this country, the term liberal is most often used to hide the true identity of anti-American movements.  The ACLU, for example, originated as a communist organization dedicated to bringing about a peaceful transition  to a communist American state.  When the ACLU’s founding members discovered that the term communist was working against them because of the stigma attached to it, they simply changed their name.  

Many other “liberals” in this country are simply socialists; but because this term also still has a stigma attached to it, they choose to hide behind the term “liberal.”  

Then we also have the liberal “fascists”  … like Barack Obama quickly seems to be turning out to be.  What kind of government allows private ownership of business, but tells you how to run them …..   look it up!

So, what does this have to do with gun control.  Despite the fact that many cool-aid drinking liberal followers live in a dream world where we all sit around the global campfire singing Kumbaya,  their leaders (the movers and shakers of the liberal elitist movement) are actually very intelligent.  They understand that, with the exception of California and the New England states, the backbone of real America is still made up of bitter common folk who cling to their Bibles and their Guns;  and … that these bitter (or shall we say Freedom Loving Rugged Individualists) simply do not want to live in a socialist (or a fascist) nanny state.  Their solution, then, is to lie, cheat, misinterpret, play on fears, elect any and all rabid anti Second Amendment politicians (or  judges) they can find, use their control of the mass media, and otherwise work to dissolve our Second Amendment rights.

 

America's 1st Freedom

 

Because of this on-going assault on the Second Amendment, we often hear some really odd soundbites such as

its people like you who will hand the White House over to some COMMI DEMOCRAT, who will elect some liberal Supreme Court Justices … and they will destroy the Second Amendment  

or even such nonsense as …  

the jack-booted feds will roll you up like an old carpet.  If you think you can resist them then you will join the ranks of the Branch Davidians and the martyrs of Ruby Ridge.  All the good sheeple will fall in line … or die.  

Rhetoric such as this is silly and misses the point entirely.

Implicit in comments such as these is the idea that our rights, including those validated under the Second Amendment, are somehow granted to us by the 9 old men and women on the Supreme Court; or from our legislature; or from our president.  Implicit in these comments is the idea that the right to Keep And Bear Arms actually comes from the Second Amendment itself.  This is a fallacy.  The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, the legislature, and the presidency are all thing created by men, and thus, they can be taken away by other men.

 

Liberty

 

The truth is that the Second Amendment (and the other rights listed in the bill of Rights) simply acknowledges and allows us to protect our Inalienable Rights to “Life, Liberty, and  the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Depending on your personal belief system, these rights would be granted to us as either Natural Rights based on our condition of being Human Beings …. or as Divine Rights granted to us by God.  

Such rights are yours from the moment of your birth and cannot be taken away by other men … unless you allow that to happen.

Of course we can write our congressmen, join the NRA or the GOA, write letters to the editor, argue cases in court, and work hard to elect pro-gun legislators … and we should certainly be doing all these things.  However, our Second Amendment rights are not based on the outcome of these mechanisms.  Those “liberals” currently in power like Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Emanuel Rahm, Harry Reid, Janet Napolitano, Sarah Bradey, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and soon to be Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor among others, would certainly want to have you believe that it does; and will certainly work to convince you that it does … but, in truth …. it does not.

Our Right To Bear Arms rests entirely upon our willingness to stop, by whatever means necessary, anyone who attempts to confiscate them. What these other mechanisms do is simply postpone any coming day of reckoning … which is certainly worth doing as long as it is feasibly possible.  

However, any political or governmental entity acting to confiscate or deny an honest, law-abiding American citizen the right to keep and bear arms is acting in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a legitimate government agency.

 

God given. Not negotiable.

 

And for those of you who will certainly, without thinking or doing any research, chime in and exclaim … “but that’s not what the Second Amendment means” …  “its about militias, not individuals” … ” it is outdated because it was written 200 years ago” …  you should remember that your precious Freedom of Speech was acknowledged and guaranteed at precisely the same time

… and take the time to look at and actually read some of the historical quotes listed below.  You might gain some “intelligence.”

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322) 

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789) 

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America” – (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.) 

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) 

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) 

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169) 

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) 

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) 

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) 

“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.) 

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)) 

“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)) 

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.) 

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.) 

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) 

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) 

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) 

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) 

“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) 

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..) 

“The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,…taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386) 

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646) 

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) 

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) 

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)) 

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939) 

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) 

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson) 

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington) 

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967]) 

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) 

“…the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,) 

“Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.” (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]) 

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]) 

“Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame.” (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755]) 

“The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes.” (Dwight, Travels in New-England) 

“What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) 

(The American Colonies were) “all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them.” [George Mason, “Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)] 

“To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country.” (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823] 

“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (James Madison, “Federalist No. 46”) 

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833]) 

“The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” (Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” Abbey’s Road [New York, 1979]) 

“You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you….There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”) 

“You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”) 

“As much as I oppose the average person’s having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved.” [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.] 

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] 

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)] 

” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] 

“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)] 

“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] 

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]