Is President Obama At War With America?

by Austin Hill at Townhall.com

If a frontal assault on the foundational principals and values of American life can qualify as being “at war” – then yes, Barack Obama is in combat with our country. And while the belligerence of both his administration and his party’s congressional leadership have seemingly created a sense of alarm across the U.S., their apparent disregard for their own self-inflicted political damage is all the more staggering.

Taking aim at America’s foundations has impacted us both here at home, and abroad. European allies France and England have both made note of our President’s “short shrift” treatment over the past fourteen months, while earlier this month French President Nicolas Sarkozy chastised Obama for his protectionist, anti-free trade policies ( “this is not the right way to behave” Sarkozy told our President). And just last week Vice President Biden took U.S.-Israel relations to a new low point by criticizing the nation on their own soil.

But domestically, Obama’s greatest offense to American life is fundamentally economic in its nature. And at its root, his assault on our sensibilities is best described in terms that he himself has used to criticize others.

…More

Democrats Charge Ahead…Against the Constitution and Our Will!

by John Allison III, Editor

Last year, President Barack Hussein Obama demanded Congress get Obamacare to his desk by the August Recess…then the Thanksgiving Recess…then the Christmas Recess. Didn’t happen. Why?

Because the American people didn’t want it.

And now he’s set another deadline…the Easter Recess. And again, the American people don’t want his government takeover of our health care system.

But Congressional Democrats don’t care what the people think, they are charging ahead. Earlier this week Pelosi basically told us we just have to trust her to know what’s best for us. “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” she told the American people. She plans to do just that this weekend.

She and her Democrat allies have even devised a plan to trash the constitutional provision demanding a House vote on the Senate bill using the “Slaughter Solution.” This latest trick was designed by House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) to help vulnerable Democrats avoid a direct vote that will very likely end their political careers.

If adopted, the rule will allow Democrats to “deem” the Senate bill passed without the up-or-down vote President Obama has called for recently. This blatantly disregards the constitution’s (which I’m now doubting any of these Democrats have ever read) Article I requirements for a vote on legislation.

Article I, Section 5 … Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal. …

So the constitution requires, if ¹/₅ of those present request it, that Yeas and Nays on any question be recorded!

I’m just about 100% sure we can get at least 20 Senators and 87 Representatives to request a vote be taken and the results recorded.

But these Democrat tyrants have no regard for the constitution! And no regard for the majority of Americans who oppose their tyranny! If they can disregard this clause, they can pick the entire document to pieces. An article here, a clause there, a section here, an amendment there…until our founding document has been completely shredded. Our rights, enumerated by our forefathers over 200 years ago, like so much confetti.

Rise up America! Use the links at the right to call, write, and email you Congressman and Senators today. Otherwise, this may be the last week our Constitution is worth the paper it’s written on!

Our Children are Going to Pay

by Curtis Coleman, Arkansas GOP candidate for US Senate

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) voted to borrow another $1.9 TRILLION this past week…and our children are going to pay. What kind of immorality is this that we are recklessly throwing away our children’s future? What happened to us that we care more about our comfort than their freedom?

Of course, Sen. Lincoln had little choice since she and her cohorts in Congress have been consistently spending more than is coming in. It’s called deficit spending. If it continues, it inevitably leads to bankruptcy. Which is where the U.S. is headed on a high-speed train.

There is a very important distinction between a deficit and the debt. Deficit spending means we’re spending more than we’re taking in. Debt is what results from deficit spending. The deficit is how much we are borrowing. The debt is how much we have already borrowed from lenders like China.

So, as a country we have already borrowed $12,400,000,000,000 to finance our deficit spending. That’s our debt. President Obama is now asking us to spend $1,700,000,000,000 more in 2010 than the federal government’s projected income. That amount will be our deficit this year. The result? We’ll have a new total debt of $14,100,000,000,000 at the end of year. Let me bring this closer to home. This debt is not the money somebody else owes. This is the money you owe. The only money the government has is your money.

Your portion is $45,000. Pay up, please! Don’t have it? Well, then we’ll have to borrow it from somebody (probably the Chinese if they’ll still lend it to us). So our children will have to pay it back – plus interest.

Is this really okay with you?

The POLR (Pelosi/Obama/Lincoln/Reid) Administration is now talking about reducing the deficit starting next year. (That’s kind of like me starting a diet- tomorrow.) All that means is that we’ll slow how fast we’re still borrowing money! We must stop deficit spending, but we must also attack the debt. Our country’s debt is a clear and present danger, an urgent matter of national security, and it must be attacked as our worst enemy.

What is the solution?

Well, let’s start with the profoundly obvious: Spend less than we have. When our outgo exceeds our income, our overhead will be our downfall. So, we can either increase our income or decrease our outgo. Or do both!

First, how do we increase our income? The liberals believe we do that by increasing taxes. That approach seems to make sense – but it doesn’t. Our economic history has consistently shown that when we increase taxes, we suppress growth in our economy and discourage initiative and achievement in our people. The government ends up taking a bigger piece of a shrinking pie. This process is a death spiral – and one the U.S. is on today.

What we must do is allow U.S. businesses and individuals to generate more income by (1) reducing taxes and (2) getting a stifling, smothering, anti-business bureaucracy out of our faces, out of our offices, and out of our pocketbooks. Our economic history has consistently shown that reducing taxes creates economic growth. The result is government can take a smaller piece of a much bigger pie and still increase its income. When Americans discover that they get to keep more of the income they generate, they’ll generate a lot more income – and the pie gets even bigger! But government’s intrusion into every aspect of our economy creates huge inefficiencies as businesses and individuals must deal with the demands placed upon them.

Increasing income is only ½ of the solution. We must also decrease our outgo. How do we do that?

The cost of government has gotten too big because the size of government has gotten too big. We reduce the cost of government by reducing the size of government. Easier said than done? You bet!

So where do we start? Well, you can poke the federal government just about anywhere and hit fat, so our choices are almost endless. Let’s start with eliminating some of these bloated, competitive, and duplicative bureaucracies. (I’ve been in the food safety business for the last decade. I’ve been told that there are as many as 17 different federal agencies that regulate food safety. That over-regulation could explain why we don’t have safer food – and a budget deficit!)

We must rein in some terribly out-of-bounds if not out-of-control federal agencies such as the EPA, which has become something like a 21st century American Gestapo. It recently told Congress that it will do by regulation what Congress refuses to do by legislation. When a federal agency blackmails Congress, it is time for that bureaucracy to have its wings clipped and its chain dramatically shortened.

But more fundamentally and much more importantly, we must make a multi-generational commitment to return and reshape the federal government to the original prescription of the Constitution.

The biggest challenge to reducing the size of the federal government is the inevitable battle over what we will be cut and what will be kept. Those decisions – though painful – are not as difficult as they are made to seem. We already have an adopted blueprint for the role of the federal government. It’s called the Constitution of the United States of America. It clearly defines what the federal government is supposed to do, and perhaps more importantly, what the federal government is not supposed to do.

We are far adrift from its prescription. If we’re going to survive this seemingly insoluble situation, we must make the commitment – an indisputable, multi-generational and solemn commitment – to reshape and restore the federal government according to the Constitution’s prescription.

This is the fundamental battle we must fight and win in Congress. We start now and we must not waver nor be deterred. We must put – not just politicians – but leaders in Congress; bulldogs instead of blue dogs; warriors who understand that nothing less than liberty and freedom for our children and their children are at stake.

If you agree that the battle to win the U.S. Senate seat in Arkansas will be nothing compared to the battle that must be fought after we win this seat, please stand with me by contributing your time and money. Please make the most generous contribution you possibly can today at www.CurtisColeman.com. This is the time to use every resource and leverage every relationship we have to carry this fight to Washington.

Thank you for standing with me in this fight for freedom!

Ensign, DeMint to Force Vote on Health Care Bill Unconstitutionality

Press Release from the office of Senator Jim Demint (R-SC)

December 22, 2009 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality. “I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.” “Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.” Americans who fail to buy health insurance, according to the Democrats’ bill, would be subject to financial penalties. The senators believe the bill is unconstitutional because the insurance mandate is not authorized by any of the limited enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The individual mandate also likely violates the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment. The Democrats’ healthcare reform bill requires Americans to buy health insurance “whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation.” If an American chooses not to buy health insurance coverage, they will face rapidly increasing taxes that will rise to $750 or 2% of their taxable income, whichever is greater. The Congressional Budget Office once stated “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” A legal study by scholars at the nonpartisan Heritage Foundation concluded: “An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented– not just in scope but in kind–and unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.”

Kenyan birth proven?

World Net Daily has posted pictures of what it claims may prove President Obama was born in Kenya after all.  Here’s one of their pics, you can read the rest of the article and see the others here.

What’s wrong with Obama’s 4th of July Message?

In his first Independence Day message to his supporters, the President demonstrated his fundamental misunderstanding of what is probably the most well known sentence of the Declaration of Independence.  That’s giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, because the alternative is he’s intentionally misinterpreting the intent of the founders to manipulate the people and consolidate power.

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

President Obama’s interpretation seems to ignore that little word wedged between ‘the’ and ‘of’–pursuit.

Now, it’s important to remember this document wasn’t put together in a day.  It wasn’t something Jefferson put together in one sitting on a cafe napkin.  Jefferson and the other founding fathers carefully chose their words to ensure their message to the King and the world was communicated effectively.  The phrase “pursuit of happiness,” survived the editing process and became permanently etched in the final document that initiated the formation of what would become the greatest nation on Earth.

From the President’s 4^th of July message:

Our country began as a unique experiment in liberty — a bold, evolving quest to achieve a more perfect union. And in every generation, another courageous group of patriots has taken us one step closer to fully realizing the dream our founders enshrined on that great day.

Read that paragraph carefully.

The first sentence references the lead phrase in the US Constitution.  Our founding fathers sought to form a more perfect union, but the current President seems to interpret this as the dream of the perfect union.  Our wise founders, by inserting that little adverb “more” into this sentence, recognized that perfection is unachievable.  Some may have believed such an achievement is unattainable due to the fallibility of man, others may have based their belief on the understanding that each man has a different definition of the “perfect” state.  But one thing is clear–the editors of Jefferson’s draft would have struck the word ‘more‘ if they wished to communicate that they sought the perfect union.

Our founding fathers made clear their belief that the guarantee of personal freedom was the most important role of government.  These great patriots recognized that the freedom to excel must be complemented by the freedom to fail.  Their acknowledgment that man has an inalienable right to pursue happiness rather than attain happiness seems incomprehensible to our current President.  The President and his Democratic lackeys in Congress believe the founders had it all wrong.  In their minds, your personal freedom creates inequities in society that can only be corrected by regulation and legislation.

Where the founders believed in an individual’s right to the fruits of his labors, Obama and his ilk would have you believe the role of government is to equalize the distribution of those fruits among the populace.  In their world, the man who works overtime or even two jobs to afford a larger house, a newer car, better health insurance, or even to treat his family to a vacation once in a while should be brought down to the same economic status as the man who chooses to work part-time, or not at all, so that he can sit on the sofa and watch Oprah or Dr. Phil.  Rather than allow each individual to strive for his definition of economic success, Obama and his Socialist pals want to define success and, through regulation and legislation, force all Americans to fit that mold.

Another paragraph from the President’s message:

As free people, we must each take the challenges and opportunities that face this nation as our own. As long as some Americans still must struggle, none of us can be fully content. And as America comes ever closer to achieving the perfect Union our founders dreamed, that triumph — that pride — belongs to all of us.

There it is again–the perfect union.  This is repetitive I know, but it seems our President can’t grasp such a simple concept so I’ll go on.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not acquainted with anyone who hasn’t struggled at some point in their lives.  I’m sure they exist, but they’re few and far between.  Again, the founders’ understanding that no such “perfect union” could exist is evidenced in the Constitution by the little adverb “more.”  They didn’t dream of a perfect union in the Utopian sense, they dreamed of a “more perfect union“–meaning better than the one that existed at the time.   To create a perfect union would require the existence of a perfect human being(s) and I believe the Bible when it says there is no such thing.

The President has described the Constitution as a document of “negative liberties” and he’s right, if you believe the Constitution was written to guarantee rights to our federal government.  However, the fact is the Constitution wasn’t written to secure the rights of government, but the rights of the governed.  It follows then, what the President views as “negative liberties” granted the federal government become simply “liberties” enjoyed by citizens.

Those liberties, especially the right to be as successful as one chooses, are precisely what allowed the United States to become the greatest nation–the most charitable, the most innovative, the most powerful–on Earth in less than 200 years.  Remove those liberties, through taxation, legislation, or regulation, and we may well achieve economic equality for all.  But at what price?

The cost of such equalization will be borne by all Americans.  Innovation will evaporate.  When the prospect of reaping the financial rewards for building a better mousetrap is stripped from our society, we’ll be stuck with the mousetraps of today.  Our health care system may be expensive, but we’re paying for the innovation that continually  increases the lifespan of our citizens.  The President and his cronies are currently hyping a government system that will eliminate the financial rewards for such innovation and result in the stagnation of medical discoveries, thereby stifling advances that would continue to increase longevity in the future.

Obama’s 4^th of July message implies that his reforms will move us closer to a “perfect” union, one in which all our countrymen are guaranteed an equal share of the nation’s economic pie.  The end result of such ideology will be a reduction in the size of that pie so that all Americans will have a smaller portion, but they’ll all be equal.  This was not the founders’ intent.

The system envisioned in 1776 rewarded hard work and personal responsibility. The President and Democrats in Congress seek to reward the opposite by punishing those traits so valued by our founding fathers.

It seems the founders, or at least Benjamin Franklin, knew this day would come.

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”–Benjamin Franklin

John Allison III Cabot, AR US
Visit MyBlogLog and get a signature like this!

In Honduras, Freedom Restored

ARRA News – The story out of Honduras is that the people of that stalwart little country have now taken it into their own hands to preserve their democracy in the most courageous action since they established their constitutional republic nearly three decades ago. Just as former Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales prepared to seize full power in direct violation of the nation’s Constitution, the military leadership – with the backing of the people – removed him from power.

Unfortunately, Barak Obama, after encouraging the Zelaya coup with his complicit silence, has now condemned the people’s move to uphold their Constitution and preserve their freedom. And, as expected, the mainstream media has joined Mr. Obama in censuring the restoration of democracy by censoring the full story. Yet, what actually occurred in Honduras is a case study in the survival of freedom against the most oppressive odds.

Earlier this year, in the face of strong public opposition, Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales declared that he would stage a referendum to have the country’s constitutional term limits law overturned, thereby allowing him to remain indefinitely in power. The people of Honduras had adopted the single, four-year–term limit as part of their Constitution in January of 1982. Significantly, the term limits provision is one of only eight “firm articles,” out of 375. By law, cannot be amended.

The Supreme Court of Honduras declared the Zelaya referendum unconstitutional, his own Liberal Party came out in strong opposition, and the public overwhelmingly opposed his power grab. Despite this, Zelaya, a leftwing politician with strong ties to Cuba’s Castro and Venezuela’s Chavez, scheduled the referendum for Sunday, June 28. At midnight, Wednesday, June 24, the strong-arm president gave a televised speech accusing his opposition of promoting “destabilization and chaos” by attempting to thwart his unconstitutional referendum.

As the situation in Honduras continued to deteriorate, the Zelaya’s attorney general called for his ouster; his Defense Minister resigned; he fired the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for stating that he would refuse to send out troops to put down public protests; the chiefs of the army, navy, and air force resigned; and the country’s Supreme Court ordered the nation’s army and police not to support the unconstitutional referendum.

Through all of this, Barack Obama abetted the Zelaya power grab through his calculated silence. Yet, the brave people of Honduras – enduring almost unfathomable duress – stood firm in support of their Constitution and the term limits embodied in it. Now that the will of the people has triumphed over tragedy, we believe the time has come for Mr. Obama to concede the defeat of his partner and policy, and for the U.S. media to support those who, putting principle above personal safety, have let freedom ring. We applaud the Freedom Fighters of neighboring Honduras. [Source by ALG News]

Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Obama’s Citizenship Status

So much for the constitution!

Obama has steadfastly refused to offer proof of his citizenship to show he meets the few constitutional requirements to be President and now the Supreme Court has refused to do its constitutional duty.

Will it be Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2012 for the GOP? Why not? It’s now apparent that none of the 3 branches of government are willing to abide by their oath to uphold the Constitution and demand a candidate actually meets the qualifications.

It seems a simple thing to produce the evidence. Most Americans have had to show proof of citizenship often enough. The President-elect’s refusal to do so only compounds the suspicion that something is amiss.

Congratulations President-elect Obama! Your first usurpation of the Constitution succeeded.

---

Court won’t review Obama’s eligibility to serve
Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a “natural born citizen,” one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

At least one other appeal over Obama’s citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg’s lawsuit.

---

Thank God for the 2nd Amendment!

I received this in an email the other day and decided to just post it as is here. It’s a true story from 1999 in Great Britain. Though many of us recall when these events actually occurred, I’m glad someone thought to forward it to me again because several years have passed and there are almost certainly many gun control proponents–too young to recall these events–who honestly believe that gun control reduces crime.

I don’t know who authored it, but it’s accurate.

It is now closer to reality than you think…………

---

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. Atleast two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.

“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times. But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.” The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for theburglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply. Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENTIN OUR CONSTITUTION.

“..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..”–Samuel Adams

---

Now, crime rates continue to climb in Britain. In 2003, the BBC must have hated to print this article stating the number of gun crimes increased by approximately 50% in two years. Here‘s an article from 2007 by the Cogito Ergo Geek with a lot more detailed numbers comparing the crime rates in the U.S. vs Britain after their gun ban.

This Citizen’s Journal article shows Obama’s cabinet choices should worry those of us who value our 2nd Amendment rights. Holder, Clinton, Napolitano, and more tend to share the views of the gun ban lobby.

With such an all-star cast of gun banners on Obama’s staff, gun owners need to be prepared to stand up for their rights for the next four years. Keep your Senators’ and Representatives’ email addresses and phone numbers handy, you’ll be needing them.

I’ll close with the actual words of the 2nd Amendment:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
 
*emphasis mine

Birth Certificate Issue Not Yet Resolved…

From World Net Daily by Janet Porter…

Rathergate II: Certification of Live Birth a clear forgery

The media bought it. The voters bought it. And now some in Congress are resisting the idea of congressional hearings because they believe that Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” has been posted online.

Not so.

What was posted was not a birth certificate, but something that resembles a “Certification of Live Birth” or COLB, which, even if authentic, does not prove “natural born” U.S. citizenship. You see, in Hawaii, a Certification of Live Birth is issued within a year of a child’s birth to those who register a birth abroad or one that takes place outside a hospital.

It’s Rathergate all over again with more amiss than a 1970s Selectric typewriter. But before I tell you what the experts found, let me ask you a few questions:

1) If you were a natural born American citizen and had it within your means to quiet all the lawsuits and questions with proof, would you do it?

2) If you were a natural born American citizen, would you spend thousands of dollars to fight the legal cases against you, or would you simply answer the legitimate question of whether you meet the constitutional requirements for office?

3) If you were a natural born American citizen, would you forge a document called a “Certification of Live Birth” and tell the public it was a real “birth certificate”?

Click here to view full article.

This question simply isn’t going to go away until the President-elect comes clean.

Dr. Ron Polarik, who has a Phd. in Instructional Media, has determined the document posted to the Daily Kos, supposedly supplied by the Obama Campaign, is a forgery. In this YouTube video, he details his findings. Or, if you prefer, you can read the details in this article on Townhall.com.

Several lawsuits have been filed requesting Obama submit the document for verification. One such suit was brought by attorney Philip J. Berg has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. From this article at The Valley Truth published on 11/7/2008…

At this point, Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.

 

Click here to view full article.

So the Supreme Court should have received a response to the writ no later than yesterday. It would seem a simple thing to do if they truly had a legal birth certificate in hand. But, according to this article on World Net Daily…

Obama, DNC elude citizenship lawsuit deadline

President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic National Convention have let a Dec. 1 deadline slip by without responding to Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg’s petition for writ of certiorari demanding Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate to document his eligibility for office.

 

Click here to view full article.

Why wouldn’t they just produce the document and make all this go away? Do the President-elect and his party believe they are above the reach of the Supreme Court? Our constitution is quite clear that this issue must be resolved…

Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Is there any ambiguity here?

Let’s resolve this issue once and for all. The following are links to petitions you can sign to demand the President-elect clear this matter up at once.

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

It’s time for Obama to come clean. If you agree, please sign the petitions linked above.