Obama Control

Obama is ignoring constitutional separation of powers to implement gun control measures. By doing so he’s fundamentally transforming the American regime into a progressive dictatorship in which he can remove your natural law right to protect yourself and your family by himself, without Congress. — Mark Levin

Chris Pandolfo is a fellow at Conservative Review (CR), writer for the CR Wire, and works for CR editor Mark Levin. But like most of us, Chris is also a big fan of The Great One, noted radio talk show host Mark Levin. Share his work:

Levin: We Need Obama Control!

Back from his holiday vacation, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin took to the airwaves Monday night to lay out exactly what’s at stake with President Obama’s executive action on gun control.

Levin argues that, by ignoring the separation of powers in the constitution to implement gun control measures, President Obama is fundamentally transforming the American regime into a progressive dictatorship in which he can remove your natural law right to protect yourself and your family by himself, without Congress.

The Founders separated the powers of government into three co-equal branches in the constitution to prevent this and ensure that one branch of government would be kept in check by the others. Levin argues that the American Constitution was specifically designed to prevent someone like President Obama from taking away your liberties.

Listen to Mark Levin on SoundCloud.

The constitution empowers the Republican-controlled Congress with the power of the purse to stop President Obama. But Republican leadership has long since surrendered that power.

Without the right of self-defense, humans have no rights at all.

We don’t need or want anyone’s permission to arm and defend ourselves. We don’t need a law — or in this case a fascist’s diktat — to tell us it’s right or wrong. Those are our primal freedoms, they come before and above any arbitrary man-made law.

It is the truth that matters. Be thankful there is a Second Amendment, not for our liberty, but to define the limits of those who think they have some special right to rule over us and our liberty. And that specifically applies to presidents.

God Preserve the United States of America.

Share

Executive Shenanigans, Again

More executive action by the Obama social fascist regime will be part of a new year push — to make progress on a long-stalled attack on American firearms freedom before the 2016 election heats up.

o-smug.jpg

The Obama regime wants the second-most (many believe most) important of every United States citizen’s Bill of Rights erased, or at least made irrelevant. What’s worse, there is an institutional hostility throughout America’s enabling media toward gun owners.

I know, I know, progressive regimes always try to disarm the people. It’s what social fascists do. Still, it’s hard to believe that in a nation of more than 100 million gun owners, Obama and his minions will not stop until you can no longer defend yourself, your family, or your property from… anyone.

Read more

Share

God-given Right

Lt. Patrick Cook, a Ft. Hood soldier and 2014 massacre survivor: "Stripped of God-given right, all I could do was wait to die."

fthood.jpg

My son was a Sergeant in the U.S. Army, a combat veteran, and served for seven years. He now works at Tampa International Airport with David Ferguson, whose son was a First Sergeant in the U.S. Army, a combat veteran, and served for 21 years. The similarities end there.

You see, David’s son, First Sergeant Daniel Ferguson, was among three troopers murdered and 16 wounded at Ft. Hood in Killeen, Texas, by a deranged soldier named Ivan Lopez.

Sgt. Ferguson was mortally wounded while holding an unlockable door closed so that Lopez couldn’t shoot his fellow unarmed soldiers trapped in the room. Even with the last of his life ebbing away, Danny Ferguson denied access to the armed madman. I didn’t plan on commenting on this latest Ft. Hood butchery — didn’t, that is, until I heard that fraudulent excuse for a president speak yesterday: "…Part of what makes this so painful is that we’ve been here before. This tragedy tears at wounds still raw from five years ago." Ah yes, 2009. Major Nidal Hasan — the Muslim terrorist whom the Obama regime still refuses to acknowledge as a Muslim terrorist — mass-murdered 13 and wounded 30.

Read more

Share

Convenient Leftist Memory Loss

A chance email sent my way serves to remind us all how conveniently selective is the Left’s anti-constitutional recollection. Leftists choose to remember when it suits their aims — Bury My Gun Control at Wounded Knee.

massacre.jpg

Did I miss something? Isn’t this the same Democrat Party that in 1970 lauded Dee Brown’s compelling novel Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee? They are.

Aren’t the radical leftists of today of the same ilk as those who championed reparations and justice for the 1890 Wounded Knee Creek massacre, where 279 men, women, and children of the Lakota Sioux were killed and 51 wounded? They are. The same who supported Russell Means and the American Indian Movement’s (AIM) 1973 occupation of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation against the United States government? They are. Well then, I’m confused…

You see, on the morning of the massacre, what is arguably the first federal government firearms confiscation in the United States occurred at Wounded Knee Creek. It was at the outset of the gun confiscation that a firefight erupted, ultimately resulting in mass murder. And yet today, you will not hear one mention by the Left of what was for years a dramatic call for anti-American "action." Oh no, not today’s gun-grabbing, liberty-despising sociofascists. You will never hear a solitary peep about Wounded Knee from them because it is a real-life reminder to the American people of what could happen if the nation were disarmed.

I mentioned an email earlier. Here it is:

Wounded Knee – Think About This

December 29, 2012, marked the 122nd anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms for their own safety and protection. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. Gunfire erupted and the Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. Two hundred of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the three Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry’s death squad were deemed national heroes and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts.

We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized official government explanation. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally-mandated gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally-charged bandwagon for gun control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment — The right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of an invading army or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the Constitution of the United States of America was drafted, hunting was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night; target shooting was an unheard-of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on target shooting. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or liberty. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of public safety or protection. The Patriot Act signed into law by President Bush was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table and will most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of "public safety."

Before we blindly accept whatever new firearms legislation that will soon be doled out, we should stop and think about something for just one minute. Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history, evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel — We cannot legislate evil into extinction. Good people will abide by the law and the criminal element will not.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years across the globe, evil and malevolence are most often found in the hands of those with the power — the governments. The greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who have governments always targeted? Scapegoats and enemies within their own border, but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate more than a million of them and they will answer, "We were disarmed before it happened." Ask any Jewish elder about life in Hitler’s Germany prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust.

Wounded Knee is a prime example of why the Second Amendment exists and why we should vehemently resist attempts at any infringement upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment, we will be stripped of any ability to defend ourselves, our families, and our nation.

In Obama’s version of America, words have lost their meanings and concepts are reinvented as the situation demands. Constitutional law and institutional authority are now routinely derided, then ignored. From the loss of simple civil courtesy to actually considering the notion of droning American citizens, the Left has shown it has no compunction to in any way tolerate our heritage, spirituality, moral principles, or fundamental, God-given liberties.

It is natural for a free society to reflect upon its laws and norms when a madman kills innocents, or when terrorists bomb, murder, and maim. It is important, however, that constitutional and consequential realities not get lost to hysteria and partisan bullying. The right to defend oneself and one’s property is unalienable. However, the left continues to assault the gun rights of Americans using the false claim that gun control or even an outright firearms ban is necessary for our own safety. If you have learned anything from Wounded Knee, remind the next ‘progressive’ you encounter that the Lakota had their rights forcefully abrogated. Remind them, too, that by definition, they are also committing an assault upon the Constitution of the United States of America.

biteme.jpg

God Preserve the United States of America

Share

Deflating the Left’s Gun Fantasy

PoliceOne.com released the findings from last month’s Gun Policy and Law Enforcement survey, drawing more than 15,000 completed responses from verified law enforcement professionals. The results are remarkable.

gunz.jpg

On April 8 in San Francisco, PoliceOne.com, the leading online resource for law enforcement, released findings from a national survey of police professionals that provide insight into the opinions of American law enforcement. The survey focused on gun control policies and the root causes of and potential solutions to gun crime in the United States.

The survey, conducted in early March 2013, received 15,000 responses from law enforcement professionals across the nation. Additionally, respondents represented law enforcement agencies from urban, suburban, and rural environments.

Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel were eligible to participate in the survey. The survey sample size was broadly distributed by geography and rank in proportion to the U.S. law enforcement community at large. Respondents comprised a variety of ranks from departments of all sizes, with the majority representing departments of greater than 500 officers. Of those that took the survey, 80 percent were current law enforcement officers and 20 percent were former/retired law enforcement.

Findings

Covering a broad range of topics related to the gun control agenda being actively promoted throughout the nation, the survey found that the overall attitude of law enforcement is strongly anti-gun legislation and pro-gun rights. It also found that law enforcement strongly holds the belief that an armed citizenry is effective in preventing crime and stopping their commission. Listed below is a concise overview of the PoliceOne survey (survey in .PDF format). Response percentages varied only slightly when analyzed by rank and department size. Among the results:

86 percent think the currently proposed legislation would have no effect or a negative effect on improving officer safety;

92 percent similarly think that banning semi-automatic firearms, or so-called "assault weapons," would have no effect or a negative effect on reducing violent crime;

Demonstrating the opinion that the best way to combat gun crime is through harsher punishment, 91 percent said the use of a firearm while perpetrating a crime should lead to a stiff, mandatory sentence with no plea bargains. Likewise, 59 percent believe increasing punishment severity for unlicensed dealers would reduce crime;

Respondents were more split on background checks, with 31 percent agreeing that mental health background checks in all gun sales would help reduce mass shootings, while 45 percent disagreed;

71 percent support law enforcement leaders who have publicly refused to enforce more restrictive gun laws within their jurisdictions;

82 percent believe gun buy-back or turn-in programs are ineffective in reducing the level of gun violence;

91 percent support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or have not been deemed psychologically incapable;

Likewise, 80 percent feel that legally-armed citizens would likely have reduced the number of casualties in recent mass shooting incidents; and

38 percent believe the biggest cause of gun violence in the United States is the "decline in parenting and family values." This was trailed by "overly lax parole and short sentencing standards" at 15 percent and "pop culture influence" (eg., violent movies and video games) at 14 percent.

"This survey captures the perspective of an audience that has an intimate professional connection to gun policies in our country, yet is rarely heard from as a group in discussions on the issue," said Alex Ford, CEO of the Praetorian Group, PoliceOne’s parent company. "Our standing as the leading online community in the law enforcement market enabled us to gather what we feel is the most meaningful sampling of police attitudes about gun control ever compiled. There is clearly a wide range of opinions regarding this issue nationwide and we believe it’s important for our audience’s voice to be heard."

Implications

As PoliceOne’s Ron Avery wrote in his analysis of the survey, most officers of all ranks and department sizes say that to help prevent large scale shootings in the future, law-abiding citizens should be armed, not disarmed. To emphasize his point, consider the fact that just four percent of all respondents think that guns are too"Ironically, four percent is the same meager percentage of Americans who said they thought gun control was a serious issue." prevalent and easy to obtain. Ironically, four percent is the same meager percentage of Americans who said they thought gun control was a serious issue. In fact, despite the Obama surrogate media’s non-stop shilling for his anti-gun agenda, public support for gun control is rapidly ebbing. During the recent terrorist attack in Boston, when the lock-down was imposed and the manhunt underway, how many Bostonians do you suppose were wishing they had firearms in their homes to defend their families?

It is important to note that whenever you see Obama, Bloomberg, Feinstein, or some other public official in a news interview leading another assault against firearms, they do their best to share the podium with the heads of local law enforcement agencies. Next time, take note — the agency props usually represent municipal police departments and not Sheriff’s offices (ignore state agencies, as they are predominantly political). That’s because police chiefs are appointed and sheriffs are elected. If city politicians are against gun ownership (Chicago, Washington, D.C, San Francisco, and New York, for example) and the chief doesn’t agree, he can (and probably will) be fired or demoted by the mayor or possibly by a simple majority of the City Council. This is why you see chiefs and their officers in the background when privileged officials posture against citizen firearm ownership and, by definition, the Constitution of the United States.

As promised, Obama has issued 23 executive orders as part of his and his political allies’ campaign to disarm the American people and strip us of our Second Amendment rights. Obama’s agenda is diametrically opposed to the wishes of most sworn law enforcement professionals. The PoliceOne survey clearly illustrates that, with the exception of political appointees, the vast majority of law enforcement personnel nationwide stringently oppose restrictions on your gun rights — They would rather see greater enforcement of existing gun laws and more severe consequences for crimes involving guns.

And the survey? The nation’s law enforcement professionals have just burst the Left’s anti-gun bubble.

biteme.jpg

God Preserve the United States of America

Share