Thursday, October 1, 2015

Mass Shootings & Gun Control

On 10/1/15 there was a mass shooting on a college campus, where according to reports there are 10 dead plus the shooter and 7 wounded. The investigation is ongoing as to the facts of the incident and the motive of the shooter. Nevertheless, the thin skinned, big eared, Community Agitator, Hussein Obama without knowing the facts, politicized the mass shooting calling for “gun control.” In his speech, Obama erroneously states, “We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths.” Really? Tell that to the citizens of Chicago in the state of Illinois. We may not know the motive to the shooting, but, as in all of these incidents, we do know that the campus was/is a “gun free” zone, being guarded by one unarmed security guard.

Once again, the gun grabbers always come out when an EVIL doer commits an evil act and Hussein Obama did not disappoint. Their response is MORE restrictions on guns, which have an adverse effect on law abiding citizens. In ALL fifty states MURDER is against the law, yet EVIL doers who commit murder do not care about the law and the law does not prevent them from doing the act. Background checks do nothing to stop evil doers; they only restrict law abiding citizens and create a database for confiscation from the government. Let’s not forget that the school was a gun free zone, as was Fort Hood, where a Muslim jihadist massacred the soldiers there. There is evil in the World and no laws will stop an evil-doer from committing these kinds of acts. It takes an armed citizen willing to stand up to this person to end or at least minimize the damage and loss of life.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There are many na├»ve people out there, Obama being one, who have not a clue about the US Constitution, and the people’s rights. You have a God-given right to be able to defend yourself and your family. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or tradition; it is about the people being able to defend themselves from an overreaching tyrannical government. And the Founders did envision the people being able to arm themselves with the weapons of today, because they had fought a revolution against a tyrannical government. Where would this country be today if the Founders were not armed to fight the British? Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

The Statists’ goal is for total confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens; the assault weapons ban, registration and amount of rounds are the slippery slope. The registration lets the government knows which law-abiding citizens own guns and how many guns they own making it easier for confiscation. And one bullet can kill. So, if the government implements the ban and the killing continues the government would have a reason for banning more guns and limit the amount of rounds till eventually, the government would call for total confiscation. For those people who think that confiscation will not happen need only look to what occurred after Katrina where the government disarmed law-abiding citizens of their guns. There are people, who do not want to own a gun, then they should not get one, but they should not try to force their agenda on others.

Friday, December 13, 2013

It is about FREEDOM



I watched some video of previous Jefferson County Council meetings regarding these compliance checkpoints. What I heard from County Executive Ken Waller was very troubling. In his justification for it he quoted from a Supreme Court ruling:

“There was compelling Government interest in that DWI checkpoints were a means of advancing that interest.
1) The state had a compelling interest in preventing drunk driving.
2) Use of sobriety checkpoints were effective in achieving that goal.
3) The level of intrusiveness on individual liberty was slight.”

There is no such thing as being a little pregnant. The woman either is or is not pregnant. The same can be said with the people’s liberties. There is no such thing as violating someone’s right to travel freely on and about our roads without being stopped at a checkpoint, when they are not doing anything wrong. Violating the people’s rights just a little bit does not make it right.

Waller also justified the checkpoints because these checkpoints have been done in the past. What? Just because people’s freedom has been violated in the past, does not make it right to do it in the future. The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

County Executive Waller, the council members as well as the Sheriff take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. They are in breach of that oath when they violate the people’s rights, even if it is just a “little bit.” What I would like to see the Jefferson County Council do is to enact an ordinance making it clear that these checkpoints violate the Constitution and make these checkpoints illegal to set up.



No Compliance Checkpoints


Everyday this country is getting closer and closer to a Police State. The American People are being attacked by all sides limiting our freedom. There are many things on the horizon that our Government wants to impose on the People in order to CONTROL THEM. Along with Compliance Checkpoints there is the NSA, IRS, FBI, CIA and local police departments spying on American citizens. They are doing this with the help of major corporations. Sixty Minutes did a piece on Amazon recently and many people focused on that company experimenting with drones to deliver packages. What concerned me was their admission that they were helping the CIA to spy on American citizens. And if Amazon is doing it, it would be a good bet that many other companies like Facebook, Google and phone companies are doing it as well.

Lindsey Graham, for the time being is a US Senator, doesn’t have a problem with the Government spying on him, because he claims he has nothing to hide. And the citizenry should not have a problem with it either, if they have nothing to hide. Apparently, Lindsey forgot about his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

They try to sell the need for these checkpoints under the guise of “Safety,” however, in reality the reason is twofold. First, it is about revenue production. For you see, Governments get money through taxes, fees and fines. Secondly, but more importantly, it is about intimidation. That is where Lindsey Graham gets it WRONG. It is not whether you have something to hide; it is because who you might be a targeted group. In the 2008 Presidential election the Obama Regime set up “Truth Squads,” made up of people in POWER, like prosecutors and sheriffs to intimidate people from using their First Amendment right of Free Speech to criticize the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama. Sheriff Boyer was a member of the Truth Squad. During that election cycle the police were also given a directive to take caution when stopping vehicles displaying the Gadsden Flag, Tea Party stickers, or Ron Paul stickers. They were targeting groups they considered the enemy.

Sheriff Boyer was upset when these checkpoints were described as something the NAZI’s did during WWII. Then stop acting like the Gestapo, by setting up checkpoints asking to see their papers. People should be able to travel freely on and about our roads without being stopped at a checkpoint when they are not doing anything wrong. Speaking as a former police officer, there is no need to have these “Compliance Checkpoints.” And hope the Council decides not to fund the program. There are better uses for the money, which does not restrict our FREEDOM.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Thanksgiving; Remember the reason for the season

More stores are to be open on the holidays. Can we not have two days, Thanksgiving and Christmas, where people can spend time with family and be thankful for what they have? I believe in keeping some of our traditions and care about the people who will be forced to work that day, instead of being with their family. Being open on Thanksgiving or Christmas is about greed, nothing more and nothing less. The Corporations that are open are looking to make a buck and the people who shop on those days want to save a buck. The sad truth is the corporations made a buck and the people saved a buck when the stores were closed on the holiday and opened the next day. The reason the corporations are open is because there are some people who are selfish and are only thinking about the “great” deal they are going to get, forgetting about the reason for the season. These people, along with the Corporatists do not think about the employees who have to work those days and be apart from their family. What is going to happen when the companies these people work for decide to be open in coming years and the traditional Thanksgiving and Christmas become just another work day? Will they even be in the mood to shop? It is up to the people to refuse to shop on Thanksgiving or Christmas at these stores to send a message to the corporations that we should keep some traditions. If the stores are open and no customers show up, what would the corporations do in the future? I would say they would be closed. There is no need for these stores to be open, because the people will come the next day like they always have and they will be able to get that great deal and the companies will still make money. Again, let’s remember the reason for the season.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

No to Amnesty

A few Republicans in the House are working to advance immigration overhaul legislation. What are they thinking? And why are they doing it? Those supporting the Immigration/Amnesty bill are Democrat/Statists who look to the illegal immigrants as votes; Union Bosses who look to the illegal immigrants as dues paying members; Corporatists who look to the illegal immigrants as cheap labor; Churches who look to illegal immigrants as contributing parishioners; Establishment/RINO Republicans who look to be liked by illegal immigrants; and the illegal immigrants themselves looking for stuff. However, the proponents of amnesty never talk about the effects it has on legal American citizens. The immigration problem has put a strain on our economic system. It over-extends the healthcare, welfare, schools and legal systems in this country. This amnesty bill, accompanied by Obamacare will only exacerbate the unemployment and underemployment of American citizens, because employers could terminate many legal Americans, replacing them with the illegals due to Obamacare. As for paying taxes; many of these illegals are low skilled, working low wage jobs and if you believe Jeb Bush are more fertile than legal white American citizens. Therefore, they will not be paying any income taxes. In fact, they will be getting tax credits i.e. money from the taxpayers, unless our tax system is changed. Furthermore, what happens to the people who are waiting to get in legally? Will they be allowed to enter too, which would double the amount of people being let in? Putting an even bigger strain on this country. President Ronald Reagan made a mistake when he granted illegal immigrants amnesty. Let’s not let it happen again. There is no reason to pass a monstrous "immigration/amnesty" bill or any immigration bill, just enforce the laws already on the books. What part of ILLEGAL do these people supporting amnesty not understand? If a law is not enforced, is it a law? You do not reward people for bad behavior and by allowing illegal immigrants to stay the government would be doing exactly that. Current immigration laws are not being enforced by the Obama Regime and that is the problem; they want to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce. The supporters of amnesty talk about bringing those [illegal immigrants] out of the shadows; when in reality they are out of the shadows, picketing and demanding they receive amnesty and welfare benefits. The inmates are clearly running the asylum. What would you call 11 Million + illegals in this country if not an invasion? Check out Laraza. It is a racist organization that will be running many facets of the Amnesty law. The United States is a sovereign country with borders and laws. The Federal Government’s primary responsibility is to protect its citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic. Our immigration laws are being violated and not being enforced. Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” I would consider the 11+million illegal immigrants in this country amounts to an invasion. Therefore, the 68 Senators who voted for the amnesty bill are TRAITORS to this country and in violation of their oath to defend the Constitution. What must and should be done is the following: secure the borders; enforce current immigration laws against the illegal’s and the people and companies who hire them; let it be known to the people living here illegally that when caught they will be deported; and then work on reforming and streamlining immigration policy. No one is saying they are going to be rounded up and deported right away or all at once. The illegal immigrants did not get here all at once, therefore will not leave all at once. Nevertheless, if the United States started to enforce immigration laws and let it be known the illegal’s would be deported many of them would self deport. This bill if made into law will destroy this country. The US House is the firewall to the Amnesty bill being passed. Everyone needs to burn up the phone lines to your US Representative to keep this amnesty bill from becoming law!

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Alternative to bombing Syria

Barack Hussein Obama makes a plea to bomb Syria because of "400" dead children (tugging at heart string) claiming it is abhorrent for a Government to use chemical weapons/gas, a WMD on its people. Obama claims they have overwhelming evidence the Syrian Government was responsible for the gas attack that killed 1400, including 400 children, but have produced none implicating the Syrian Government. The Obama Regime is using Elizabeth O’Bagy, as an expert to support the attack on Syria. However, O’Bagy is the political director of Syrian Emergency Task Force, a political action committee that supports the removal of Assad, which makes her reporting suspect. Nevertheless, there has been evidence to the contrary as to the number of people killed and those accountable for the attack. Assad and the Russians claim it was Al-Qaida. Then there is the independent group, Doctors without Borders who said 355 people who showed “neurotoxin symptoms” died from the attack, but did not identify the culprits. The problems with attacking Syria are the conflicting reports on the number of people killed and who actually launched the attack. Especially since the Obama Regime is not TRUSTWORTHY. Is Obama trying to save face for acting “stupidly” when he drew the red line? Who are we to believe? Furthermore, Al-Qaida and Hezbollah are like two rival gangs fighting each other and one is just as bad as the other. Both are enemies of the United States. It is not in the best interests of the United States to attack Syria and potentially start WWIII, because of Obama’s lack of leadership and his loose lips. One might question, why are there chemical weapons available to use in the first place? Well, that is because the 1925 convention only bans the use of chemical weapons in war; not the production or storage of them. And current international law bans the use of chemical weapons not the production or storage of them. The reasons to produce or stockpile chemical weapons are many nations, including the United States retained the right to retaliatory use of chemical weapons. In other words, many nations have chemical weapons so they can use them on other nations in retaliation for a strike against them, just not on their own citizens? The problem with that is it is a known fact that the United States has used chemical and biological weapons experimenting on its citizens since the 1925 treaty, with little to no consequences. You would think that if you cannot use chemical weapons in war, it would be logical to ban the production and storage of them. Then go after the companies that produce the deadly WMD’s or the countries that have them. Getting back to Syria, if the objective is for chemical weapons not to be used, why not make a proposal to Assad to have the stockpile of chemical weapons confiscated by the UN to be destroyed. Since we do not know who launched the gas attack, Al-Qaida or Assad and Hezbollah, it would seem confiscation and destruction of the chemical weapons by the UN would be a better solution to the current crisis in Syria; instead of the United States launching an attack on Syria possibly starting WWIII.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Alternative to bombing Syria

Barack Hussein Obama makes a plea to bomb Syria because of "400" dead children (tugging at heart string) claiming it is abhorrent for a Government to use chemical weapons/gas, a WMD on its people. Obama claims they have overwhelming evidence the Syrian Government was responsible for the gas attack that killed 1400, including 400 children, but have produced none implicating the Syrian Government. The Obama Regime is using Elizabeth O’Bagy, as an expert to support the attack on Syria. However, O’Bagy is the political director of Syrian Emergency Task Force, a political action committee that supports the removal of Assad, which makes her reporting suspect. Nevertheless, there has been evidence to the contrary as to the number of people killed and those accountable for the attack. Assad and the Russians claim it was Al-Qaida. Then there is the independent group, Doctors without Borders who said 355 people who showed “neurotoxin symptoms” died from the attack, but did not identify the culprits. The problems with attacking Syria are the conflicting reports on the number of people killed and who actually launched the attack. Especially since the Obama Regime is not TRUSTWORTHY. Is Obama trying to save face for acting “stupidly” when he drew the red line? Who are we to believe? Furthermore, Al-Qaida and Hezbollah are like two rival gangs fighting each other and one is just as bad as the other. Both are enemies of the United States. It is not in the best interests of the United States to attack Syria and potentially start WWIII, because of Obama’s lack of leadership and his loose lips. One might question, why are there chemical weapons available to use in the first place? Well, that is because the 1925 convention only bans the use of chemical weapons in war; not the production or storage of them. And current international law bans the use of chemical weapons not the production or storage of them. The reasons to produce or stockpile chemical weapons are many nations, including the United States retained the right to retaliatory use of chemical weapons. In other words, many nations have chemical weapons so they can use them on other nations in retaliation for a strike against them, just not on their own citizens? The problem with that is it is a known fact that the United States has used chemical and biological weapons experimenting on its citizens since the 1925 treaty, with little to no consequences. You would think that if you cannot use chemical weapons in war, it would be logical to ban the production and storage of them. Then go after the companies that produce the deadly WMD’s or the countries that have them. Getting back to Syria, if the objective is for chemical weapons not to be used, why not make a proposal to Assad to have the stockpile of chemical weapons confiscated by the UN to be destroyed. Since we do not know who launched the gas attack, Al-Qaida or Assad and Hezbollah, it would seem confiscation and destruction of the chemical weapons by the UN would be a better solution to the current crisis in Syria; instead of the United States launching an attack on Syria possibly starting WWIII.