Tag: Second Amendment

Why I am an Independent Voter!

american-pride-ebook-stories-usa-logo_full

A comment was aimed at me the other day beginning with the words, “You republicans …….!”   Some people just do not get it at all.  It is no longer about Republican versus Democrat.  It is about the destruction of America!

I am not a Republican although I was for a period of time.  The Republican Party has let me down too many times now.  Can you tell me what the Republican Party stands for?  I can!  It stands for nothing.  They make promises to constituents to get elected and then cave on those same issues at the slightest pressure from the White House, the Democrats, or the press.  And, they do this despite having been given a majority in both Houses of Congress by the voters.  So either they suffer from completely deflated balls or they are RINOS.  It really doesn’t matter at this point.  I know there are a few truly conservative Republicans trying to do something to protect Americans but they are hamstrung and attacked by their own party.  This is why I am no longer a Republican.

I can certainly see what the Democratic Party stands for today.  It is obvious if you watch the news.  The current Democratic Party stands for Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts, making terrible deals with our enemies while abandoning our allies, giving illegal aliens free rein to steal from, rape and murder American citizens.  You think Trump is wrong?  He may not be the candidate of choice for me, but at least he speaks the truth.  The murder of Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero in San Francisco by an illegal alien is only the most recent example of a crime committed by an illegal alien.   Laura Wilkerson’s 18-year-old son was brutally tortured and murdered by a classmate he had offered a ride home.  The classmate would have been one of Obama’s “Dreamers.”

laura-wilkerson

During testimony before the Congressional Judiciary Committee by parents of victims and Texas State Officials, it was revealed that illegal aliens have been involved in thousands of crimes in Texas alone, including nearly 3,000 homicides.  According to the analysis conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, illegal aliens committed 611,234 unique crimes in Texas from 2008 to 2014, including thousands of homicides and sexual assaults.  The report describes an alien crime wave of staggering proportions exacerbated by federal officials unwilling to enforce immigration laws. The Texas DPS report says well over 100,000 individual criminal aliens have been booked into Texas jails.

Let’s see.  In light of this illegal alien crime wave and increasing terrorist attacks on American  soil, the Democratic Party stands for disarming law-abiding American citizens.  They also stand for ignoring the rule of law and dismantling or circumventing the U.S. Constitution, dismantling our military, destroying our economy while fudging unemployment numbers, and subjecting U.S. Citizens to being ruled by the United Nations.

As a friend of mine posted:

Can we stop calling those on the far left liberals and progressives? Nice sounding terms but their actual political platform is Statism and Totalitarianism. Obsessed with “correct thought” and “Correct speech”, [and] the sacrifice of individual choice to ideological “experts”.  In no way is this thinking liberal or progressive. It is very regressive, the exact same policies were the foundation of Statist and Totalitarian regimes from Mao to Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler.  Identity politics, class warfare, racial politics, statistical law making, central planning, there is no correlation between these ideas and classical liberalism, or any of the founding documents of this country. These factors were the dominant trends that made people leave Europe and establish a country based on sovereign States, individual liberty and property rights. Our “liberals” fight against State sovereignty, individual liberty and individual property rights. And our population is apparently too poorly educated to understand our own history.

4736dfdea0e9dd131cb3120ab3edc1e3

Nuff said!

Media Matters Founder Wants Armed Protection … just not for you!

Glock

The founder of Media Matters, David Brock, recently accepted more than $400,000 from the Joyce Foundation.  This money was specifically earmarked to promote a $600,000 initiative on “gun and public safety issues” which is simply liberal double-speak for “more gun ban efforts.”  However, it seems David Brock walks the streets of Washington protected by a Glock toting personal assistant/bodyguard!  If it weren’t for the hypocrisy of most liberals, this might make it a little awkward for the group the next time it seeks a donation from a gun control advocacy group.

It is also typical that the liberal champion, David Brock, feels his life is certainly worthy of protection under the Second Amendment (hence, the bodyguard armed with a Glock).   It is just you and I whose lives, it seems, Brock deems are not worthy of the very same protection!  I remember comedian Rosie O’Donnell having the same view.  She also felt that the Second Amendment should go away … just as long as she got to travel around with her armed bodyguards.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/16/brock-and-glock-armed-men-guarded-media-matters-boss-as-took-400000-gun-control/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz1nKMRS200

U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp takes aim at Obama

U.S Rep. Zach Wamp, who is seeking the GOP nomination for governor in 2010, spoke at a town hall meeting held at Gunny’s Indoor Shooting Range in Maryville.  The town hall meeting was sponsored by a local Knoxville radio station.  Flanked by Phil Williams (of Knoxville News Talk Radio) and David “Gunny” Perry (owner of Gunny’s Indoor Shooting Range), Wamp told the crowd who had gathered for the meeting that if President Obama ever issued an executive order “taking up guns” that, as governor, “We will meet him at the state line.”

All I can say to that is HOOYAH! 

Now …. I may not agree with Zach Wamp on every issue, but … if he means what he says when it comes to supporting honest, law-abiding Tennessean’s Second Amendment Rights against the soon to be renewed attacks by the most conniving, anti-gun administration the U.S. has ever seen … then he will probably get  my vote as governor in 2010.  Unless … of course  … he screws up!

A Two Party System?

In the past, I have always considered myself an independent voter who most often leaned toward the Republican side of political issues.   That was back when the Republican Party’s platform was built on certain conservative values such as fiscal responsibility and limited government.  However, it seems that over the last decade … or maybe since Ronald Reagan … the Republican Party has losts its focus and has simply become just another version of the same incompetent politicians who currently make up the the leftist leadership of the democratic party.  Both party’s political leadership  simply push their own agendas and self-interests … rather than doing the job we elected them to.

Have you ever noticed that the only real difference between the last Bush administration and the current Obama administration is scale!   Do you remember that popular liberal mantra, “Bush Lied, People Died.”  

Try “Obama Lied, America died” on for size. 

Now … I am neither a Bush fan or a Bush basher.  President Bush did some good things while in office and he kept this country safe for almost 8 years.  He also made some mistakes … all presidents do.  Bush was a moderate Republican and did spend way too much money.  That being said, he did love his country and, though we can argue over his methods in hindsight, he did his best to keep it safe from the threat of Islamic terrorism!

However our new Messiah, Obama, is an altogether different story.  Obama detests what America stands for and is doing his best to change America into a socialist state modeled on his own peculiar vision of  utopia  … a two class society with a benevolent, super-rich, liberal elite running things and everyone else living a useful, lower-middle class life according to the  dictates of the benevolent left-wing elitists. 

That Obama is a product of the radical leftist Chicago machine is nothing new.  Have you read his books?  Do you remember his chosen friends and/or mentors like Bill Ayers (Terrorist), the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation Theology),  Frank Marshall Davis (Marxist), Alice Palmer (Leftist Illinois Senator),  Gregory Galluzzo (Saul Alinsky Protege #1), Mike Kruglik (Saul Alinksy Protege #2), and John L McKnight (Saul Alinsky Protege #3). 

In fact, Obama said that being tutored by McKnight, Galluzzo and Kruglik was “the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School. 

The truth is that behind his charming good looks, winning smile, and charismatic manner; Obama is actually a product of the Chicago political machine; a  power-hungry politician well-schooled in the Saul Alinsky method of community organization. 

Saul Alinsky (a communist) was known as the Godfather of modern community organizing.  He taught his followers to manipulate an individual’s self-interest as a lever to seduce people to support their cause. 

The beginnings of Saul Alinsky’s modern approach to effective community organizing can be traced to the slums of Chicago’s South Side in the 1930s. Alinsky organized the people who lived in the Back of the Yards, a rough neighborhood Upton Sinclair made famous in his book, The Jungle.  It was, as Alinsky stated  later in a interview for Playboy Magazine in 1972,

a cesspool of hate: the Poles, Slovaks, Germans, Negroes, Mexicans and Lithuanians all hated each other and all of them hated the Irish, who returned the sentiment in spades.

That was just what Alinsky needed.  His goal was not to get the people he organized to love each other, just to work together to help him achieve his goals.  Alinsky was once quoted as saying, “to [expletive] your enemies, you’ve first got to seduce your allies.” 

Obama learned this lesson very well and used it to win the 2008 Presidential Election.

Do you ever wonder why, despite the growing mountain of evidence of voter fraud and other criminal activities by ACORN, Obama’s administration officials refuse to invistigate this organization’s activities?  Did you ever stop to wonder how an idiot like Al Franken got elected a U.S. Senator in the state of Minnesota?

So … the Federal Government simply goes on conducting business as usual … bashing the last administration, making itself bigger, voting itself more power, wastefully spending more and more taxpayer money … then coming after still more of our hard-earned money.  They are intruding more and more into our private lives, slowly eroding our Constitutional Rights, and riding roughshod over States Rights.  Nothing has really changed except the scope … and the  speed at which it is being done. 

Liberals used to screech, rant, rave, and yank out their hair when raging about the evils of George Bush … the money spent by the Bush administration. the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, etc. 

However, the Bush administration’s spending is dwarfed when compared to the money spent by Obama in just his first year as president.  And …we are still in Iraq and getting deeper into Afghanistan.  The War on Terror is still on going … we just now call it “The War on Man-Caused Disasters.” 

Where is the screech, ranting, raving and yanking of hair now? 

President Bush passed Stimulus I which achieved nothing … giving each American family about $600 (or a car payment).  Obama passed Stimulus II which,  as it turns out, nobody bothered to read … and incidently, while costing us $1 trillion, has failed to stimulate anything except government growth.  That’s because it was actually a pork spending bill and not a stimulus bill at all. 

The American people might have discovered that truth had this bill actually been read … and not rushed through at breakneck speed (Hey wait … isn’t that happening again … can you say “public healthcare”).

So … we now also have the National Bank of Obama, Obama Motors, … and soon ObamaCare; because,  despite the concerns and questions of the majority of the American people, Obama arrogantly stands at the podium and vows that health care reform will pass this year. 

I guess this is so that nobody will have a chance to read  this legislation either … and discover how bad it actually is!

Patients in countries with socialized medicine already have unbearable tax burders, long waits for routine doctor visits, rationed care, and treatments that are not available because the government can’t afford them.  Why do you think Canadians come to the U.S. for treatment when they have serious health issues?  Why do you think that people in the U.K. who can afford it purchase private health  insurance even though they have “free” healthcare?

So …. what does this have to do with a two party system?

Well, let me tell you!  It is like this … To me there is little difference between the leftist Democratic Party and the current Republican Party.  They have become slightly different flavors of the same political mess.  They have essentially now formed a Democratic/Republican Party.  Thats why I am a member of the Independent Party. 

Just the other evening I was talking on the phone with Mark DeVol.  I had written about Mark in an earlier post on the blog.  Mark is running for the U.S. House of Representatives, Third District, Tennessee in the November, 2010 election.  Mark and I were discussing this very same topic when Mark stated that he strongly believes in the two party system.  He went on to explain saying that he belonged to “the political party that respects the Constitution, the limited role of the Federal Government, the rule of law, and the rights of the individual.”   It is because of this belief that Mark is running as an Independent.  It seems Mark too, is a member of the Independent Party.

In truth, the Democrat/Republican Party has has simply failed to produce any elected officials with the guts and integrity to fight for a return to a constitutionally-based government; or other important issues such as  Securing Our Borders, States Rights, Term Limits, the Fair Tax, Balanced Budget, or Tort Reform.

Mark DeVol is not a politician.  He is a local businessman.  He is an honest, traditional, conservative American.  Like me, Mark believes in the America that was founded on the ideals of  individual rights, individual responsibility, the Rule of Law, and Religious Freedom … the America that we are in real danger of losing if Obama gets his way. 

Unlike Barack Obama, Mark is the kind of man who will try to do what he says he will do if elected.   However, Mark is also a realist … and knows he can’t work miracles.  One man cannot change the government!  However, if we did get Mark DeVol elected … and … if there are other men like Mark DeVol in other states as well;   men who love this country as it was founded;  men not bent on transforming our Country into just  another failing socialist state like France or Sweden. 

What if, using a grassroots approach, we could get some of these other true conservative Americans elected . .. perhaps we could stop this liberal madness … perhaps we could save our Nation from extinction.

For more information about Mark DeVol, please visit www.devol2010.com

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)] 

TEA TIME!

Have you sent a tea bag to your representatives yet?  I was watching Fox News coverage of the Tea Parties across America and was thrilled.  It is about time conservative Americans got angry and spoke out.  It is time to “Draw A Line In The Sand!” 

We simply cannot borrow our way out of debt!  Nor can we spend our way to economic security!  How many households or businesses would survive on that model?  Our government is gleefully mortgaging the future of our great, great grandchildren and busily saddling them with a debt they can never hope to pay.  The government is simply put … out of control! 

And we … my fellow Americans … have lost sight of the fact that they work for US!   We actually are the WE THE PEOPLE!

This is not a Republican issue!  This is not a Democratic issue!   This is a “we want America back” issue.  I am sorry but this country was not founded by socialists, communists, left-wing radicals, or liberal egalitarians.  It was founded by individualists who believed in and fought for the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

A few other observations and pet peeves:

Obama Lies, America Cries

The simple truth is that  Obama’s  presidency, while still in its infancy, has already failed in keeping its campaign promises.  I seem to remember Obama’s eloquent campaign speeches in which he stated clearly that there would be no pork in his adminstration and that he would go through each bill “line by line” if needed to cut wasteful spending …. but surprise … surprise;   he supported and helped push through the largest single piece of pork legislation in the nation’s history … one not so cleverly disguised as a “stimulus” bill. 

I have read that  Obama has already committed to spend more tax dollars than all the Presidents from George Washington to George W put together.   But … surely the new liberal democratic leadership should have known that  … if only they had they had time to read the legislation they so swiftly passed … or maybe they just don’t care!

Second Amendment Supporter?

For a president who respects Second Amendment rights, Obama has a strange way of showing it.  After pledging support for the Second Amendment during his campaign, Obama quickly appoints fanatical gun-ban supporter Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.  Next, he selects former Clintonite and rabid anti-gunner Eric Holder as his attorney general. 

And … we all know where his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stands.  She should fit in well with the members of the U.N. working hard to take away American’s Second Amendment rights. 

Obama-Speak For Terrorism?

What the heck is this liberal crap?  A terrorist act is no-longer a terrorist act.  It is now a man-caused disaster?  While President Obama makes speeches that compare bankers to suicide bombers, his new Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, claims that the T-word, terrorism, is just too inflammatory and representative of the old-fashioned “politics of fear.”   She prefers a new term: “man-caused disaster.”    I’m sorry!  But … I have to ask … what if the suicide bomber is a female?  Isn’t it sexist to use “man-caused disaster”?

Oh Yeah … and …. the war on terror is now an “overseas contingency operation.”   Sounds like a load of Bravo Sierra to me!!

In addition, according to the recently released report by her Department of Homeland Security, Ms. Napolitano is very concerned about the vast right wing conspiracy to overturn her Messiah’s new govenment of Hope and Change.  You know the one  made up of:  (a) law-abiding American gun owners,  (b) any American veterans returning from the War on Terror (ooops … overseas contingency operation …. my bad), (c) anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers had the right idea, and  (d) everyone and anyone who did not vote for Barack Obama in the last election.

God Bless Australia Again

Wow!   Is there an American version of Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard hiding in the background somewhere?  Please step up!   

Prime Minister Howard says “IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.”  He is sick and tired of his country worrying about whether they are offending some individual or their culture … especially when that culture harbors and supports terrorists and pirates.   According to John Howard, fundamentalist Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law should simply leave Australia and move to an Islamic state;  or … if they want to stay and live in Australia … they must do so under Australian law.  Wow!   What a concept!

I like it!

Wal-Mart Joins Michael Bloomberg’s War On Law-Abiding Gun Owners!

Wally World To Police Gun Owners!

Walmart & Bloomberg

I have always disliked shopping at Wal-Mart for several reasons: First, because they put local retailers out of business. Second, because they are so big they can dictate to their distributors the prices they will pay for the merchandise they sell …. often causing their distributors to go out of business. Now I have another reason … and I will no longer shop at Walmart …. period!

Wal-Mart recently joined New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s war on law abiding gun-owners by attending a gathering of Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, to announce a series of changes to the way in which Wal-Mart will handle future firearm transactions. At the gathering, J.P. Suarez, chief compliance officer for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., stated: “The costs are, we think, part of what it takes to be responsible.” Suarez also added, “This is not a signal that we’re getting out of firearms.” Well, I think they may as well be … I hope their firearms sales fall through the floor.

Once these changes have been instituted, firearm purchases at Wal-Mart will involve getting a video record of the sale, which the chain will then keep on file . It seems Wally World is now getting into the law enforcement market and effectively creating its own video database of gun purchasers. Wal-Mart also is giving its employees the discretion to deny the sale of a firearm to anyone who has ever had a firearm traced by BATFE for any reason …. including those who have had a firearm stolen that was later used by a criminal in the commission of a crime.

I say anyone who gets video taped buying a firearm at Wal-Mart deserves what they get!

Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President, said, “I view it as a public relations stunt that stigmatizes law-abiding firearms purchasers exercising their constitutional freedoms. I honestly think it’s a corporation trying to curry favor with politicians as opposed to doing anything meaningful about stopping crime.”

I agree with Wayne LaPierre’s comment.

And … I think all American gun owners should boycott Wal-Mart permanently!

I, personally, will never give Wal-Mart another dime of my money. It is time for the 80 million law-abiding gun owners in this country to start making a stand against these consistent, and unconstitutional attacks on our Second Amendment Rights by liberal elitists whatever stripe they choose to hide behind.

Clinton and Obama Now Support The Second Amendment?

As Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battled each other at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia last week, the debate moderator Charlie Gibson, from ABC News, opened the debate on the gun issue by stating, “Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual’s right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.” (Sound familiar to you? It does me!) “Why don’t you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?”

Hillary answered with her typical stream of generic generalizations, but manage to be clear on at least one position stating, “I will [also] work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” also noting that, “the Republicans will not reinstate it.”

Gibson then asked Obama about the Heller case which is now before the United States Supreme Court, and specifically whether he thinks the D.C. gun ban is somehow “consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms.” Obama’s response was, “ I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”

Mr. Gibson again asked, “But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?”, while Barack Obama was very evasive and never really gave a straight answer, causing the moderator to comment, “I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama.”

Senator Clinton was then asked, “Do you support the D.C. ban?” Hillary, too, was very evasive but did state that she wants, “to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining…” firearms law. Again Gibson pressed her about the D.C. Gun Ban, “But what do you think? Do you support it or not?”

“Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms,” she said.

“Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?” asked the Charlie Gibson.

“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don’t know the facts,” Clinton concluded.

At least Hillary Clinton was right about that.

The fact is that neither candidate joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment, and both candidates’ records are well documented and show, without doubt, that they’re both radically anti-gun. For either of them to now even attempt to convince Americans they support gun-owner’s rights is absurd. If neither one of them can plainly state that a ban on guns in the home for self-defense runs contrary to the Second Amendment, one can have little doubt that either candidate believes any gun law would.