NRA president David Keene appeared on The Mike Huckabee Show today where he told guest host J.D. Hayworth, a former congressman from Arizona, that President Obama is scared of America.
Keene claimed that Obama and his advisers don’t understand the gun debate because they live inside “the confines of urban Chicago or Cambridge, Massachusetts or Washington D.C.,” which Keene astonishingly seems to think are areas unaffected by gun violence.
He also blasted Obama for a comment about how he understands the appeal of gun ownerships in places like rural Iowa where law enforcement officers could be miles away, which Keene said is further proof that “he just doesn’t get it.”
Keene, whose group opposed background check legislation backed by a huge majority of Americans, including most gun owners and voters in “red states,” argued that Obama is out of step with the country and claimed that “frankly the rest of the country scares him.”
Keene: The amazing thing to me about this administration is just how parochial it is. These are people — remember when Barack Obama recently went to Iowa and he looked around and he said ‘well gosh I can understand why if my wife lived out here she might want a gun,’ what’s that about? You know, in other words, he just doesn’t get it. If you are outside the confines of urban Chicago or Cambridge, Massachusetts or Washington D.C., he and most of his advisers have no concept of what the rest of the country is like and frankly the rest of the country scares him.
Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt spoke with Stan Solomon about the Boston marathon bombing, and they both agreed that the left is actually pleased with the attack because it might result in increased government control.
After co-host ‘Chief’ Steve Davis said that the left doesn’t want anyone who doesn’t work for the government to have guns and “they don’t care how many of us get killed, blown up, assaulted, murdered or whatever as long as they can control us by taking away our guns,” Solomon maintained that liberals are even okay with other liberals getting murdered: “It’s not just how many conservatives or Republicans [die] because these people that were killed and maimed and devastated and traumatized were overwhelmingly their people, they don’t care, they are like the Chinese who don’t care if they have a million casualties because they got a billion backups.”
Naturally, Pratt agreed and likened liberals to terrorists.
“That’s exactly right,” Pratt said, “this is mission oriented, they don’t care who the victims are, if anything it might be to their liking because maybe they’re thinking that will make the liberals all the more prone to want more control, which plays right into the hands of terrorists and criminals, but then I repeat myself.”
In earlier interviews, Pratt and Solomon warned that President Obama is bent on launching a race war that will target upper-class white heterosexual Christians.
During his interview on The Blaze this afternoon on the Boston bombing, Rep. Louie Gohmert said we are living in one of those times that "the Bible talks about when right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right and people do not understand things that are spiritually discerned."
But, he added, what is needed now is simple common sense ... like not trying to pass gun control legislation:
What hit me this morning when I heard the residents there around Boston and in the area where they thought someone might be were ordered to stay in their homes, businesses were ordered closed, public transportation was ordered closed. Let me ask you, if you're sitting in your home and you know there are only two possibilities for people coming, one is law enforcement and the other is somebody who has already killed Americans and continues to do so, how many rounds do you want to be limited to in your magazine as you sit in your chair and wait?
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro declared today in the right-wing Washington Times that the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre do not deserve a vote in Congress.
Citing the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns, Shapiro claimed that the federal government has no authority to make any laws regulating guns.
However, the Manchin-Toomey bill that was just blocked by a GOP-led filibuster wouldn’t ban any guns. It would simply expand background checks for gun purchases. The Heller opinion also makes clear that lawmakers are able to enact certain regulations on firearms.
It seems Shapiro is upset about a bill that would ban all guns that was never proposed in the first place.
But that doesn’t stop him from attacking Obama for having “exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy by riling the emotions of already distressed parents and families, giving them false hope” and engaging in an “abuse of power.”
“The president is determined to launch a police war against American citizens for legally purchasing U.S.-made firearms for self-defense,” Shapiro writes. “Mr. Obama should stop exploiting the families of crime victims just to further his unconstitutional gun-control agenda.”
Even more strikingly, Shaprio says that it would be “just as unconstitutional to ask Congress to ban free speech, establish a national religion or reinstitute segregation.”
I don’t believe the families of the victims from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., deserve a vote.
It may sound harsh and uncaring, but even the greatest tragedies are not a valid reason to disregard the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the United States. If they were, our free speech and our rights against unreasonable search and seizure and against self-incrimination would have all been abolished long ago amid every crime wave in American history.
Five years ago, the Supreme Court settled the issue of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, making it clear that guns in “common use” were constitutionally protected. Nevertheless, President Obama recently flew several family members of Sandy Hook victims to Washington on Air Force One to pressure congressional legislators to enact new gun laws.
Congress creates laws, the president enforces laws and the courts are a check and balance to decide if those laws are constitutional. Since, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” the voice of the Supreme Court is the final word on any legal issue not Congress, and certainly not the president.
It’s a relatively simple principle, but one that Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to understand or care about. He seems to think the tragic shootings of innocent people at Sandy Hook is a justifiable excuse to completely disregard the Supreme Court and the Constitution. In places such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., thousands of innocent people have also been killed during times when comprehensive firearms bans were in effect. Don’t those families deserve a vote as well?
At every possible turn, the president has exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy by riling the emotions of already distressed parents and families, giving them false hope, convincing them they deserve a vote on an issue he knows has already been settled by the Supreme Court, a vote he knows would be unconstitutional and a vote that, short of a constitutional convention to repeal the Second Amendment, would be illegal.
It would be just as unconstitutional to ask Congress to ban free speech, establish a national religion or reinstitute segregation. That’s not leadership, nor is it compassion. It’s deceitful and preys upon broken families, who are lost in grief.
The president knows there is no chance of constitutionally expanding firearms regulations beyond minor changes, such as universal background checks. If the president has any common sense, he also knows that registration laws and universal background checks will accomplish almost nothing, since they will not obstruct criminals from getting illegal guns on the black market, just as they always have.
Everything Mr. Obama is doing to lessen the criminal use of firearms is counterintuitive to what makes sense. Instead of targeting criminals with illegal firearms, the president is trying regulate law-abiding citizens who buy legal firearms. Instead of waging war against Mexican cartels for trafficking millions of illegal guns into America each year, the president is determined to launch a police war against American citizens for legally purchasing U.S.-made firearms for self-defense.
Mr. Obama is wrong to say that if we can save one child’s life, we should do “everything” we can in our power. However, abuse of power is a dangerous thing in a constitutional republic.
Mr. Obama should stop exploiting the families of crime victims just to further his unconstitutional gun-control agenda.
Despite the tragic circumstances of what happened at Sandy Hook, pain, sadness and desperation are never a reason to jeopardize freedom and liberty. The families of Sandy Hook victims deserve sympathy, but they do not deserve a vote from Congress on a matter that has already been decided by the Supreme Court. The Constitution, not compassion, must remain the currency of our country’s lawmaking process.
Spokesman for Gun Owners of America have already warned us that background checks on gun purchases may lead to anti-Christian persecution and genocide, and last week the group’s communications director Erich Pratt warned that new gun legislation might include a “government enemy list” that could target Gun Owners of America members or “anybody who attends church or listens to Christian radio.”
Of course, the Senate gun bill actually has language meant to prevent the creation of such any gun owners’ registry, but that didn’t stop Pratt from criticizing the legislation’s plan to expand background checks.
Pratt said that while he has no problem requiring background checks for things like nursery employees, he argued that there should be no background checks at all for gun purchases since it is a “God-given right.” Pratt went on to maintain that such background checks may lead to government screenings of pastors, writers or couples seeking to get married or having children.
“If anybody has ever seen the movie ‘Minority Report’ that is where we end up going, where government sets up a pre-crime unit,” Pratt concluded.
People are thinking ‘well you know in my church we do background checks if I’m going to work in the nursery and you know, what’s wrong with that?’ Well to that I would say, I don’t have a God-given right to watch your children so if you want to do background checks on me to work in the nursery I’m OK with that. But I do have a God-given right to protect my children and my life and my wife so there is a big difference because now when you do that background check you are sending my name to the government and you have just created the framework for a gun registry. When you have people like Gov. Andrew Cuomo saying that confiscation is an option, the Democrats in the New York legislature put forth a plan for confiscating certain firearms and several legislatures around the country talking about confiscation, heck, right after Hurricane Katrina they did confiscate firearms when they went door to door in the city and the police chief announced that ‘no one is going to be allowed to have guns and we’re going to take them all,’ and they did, or at least they tried to, they confiscated thousands of firearms.
So with that threat that’s constantly there that is why any gun owner should strongly oppose background checks on anything related to their Second Amendment rights, it is a huge slippery slope problem. Plus the fact that quite honestly, why should government be screening law-abiding people before they exercise their rights? If you are a good person there is no reason why you should be screened before you preach a sermon, before you publish an article, before you get married. You could argue there are a lot of wife beaters out there so we need to check you out and there are a lot of child abusers so we need to check you out before you have children; no we don’t do that to rights. You don’t take God-given rights and say we’re going to have government check you out first just to make sure. If anybody has ever seen the movie ‘Minority Report’ that is where we end up going, where government sets up a pre-crime unit and it is screening everybody and catch us before we do anything wrong. Heck, they might as well put drones over our homes and spy on us; they could just as easily catch crime that way.
WorldNetDaily always has a rather interesting way of interpreting President Obama’s speeches. For instance, WND’s “forensic profiler” Andrew Hodges recently revealed that an offhand joke the president made contained secret clues about his plan to impose martial law.
Hodges is back in WND today, telling reporter Bob Unruh that the president’s statement that the government is not planning to seize firearms is actually a “wink-wink” confirmation of a mass confiscation plan.
According to Hodges, if Obama denies that he is going to do something like confiscate guns, that means he is going to do the opposite: “Read his condescending denial as a warning of the possibility one day the government’s coming for our guns.”
“We always contemplate denial as a revelation of the real truth,” Hodges said. “Ask yourself, if he carried out an illegal presidency and participated in election fraud what would he be capable of when it came to gun control?”
Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., who wrote “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury,” explained in an analysis of the president’s statements for WND that Obama’s words suggest the unconscious message that “one day the government’s coming for our guns.”
Hodges previously said Obama’s statement “I am not a dictator” actually meant, “I am the dictator president,” and concluded Obama unconsciously confessed to stealing the 2012 election.
Hodges wrote that Obama denies any reason to worry about the government “but we must keep in mind that denial attached to an idea can tell us to keep an eye on that particular idea and consider deception. Denying the very plan he secretly has in mind. For this reason we always contemplate denial as a revelation of the real truth with the cover-up, ‘Let me tell you what I’m not going to do – ‘wink-wink.”
“Obama follows with a second comment of denial and ridicule, ‘(you hear) we can’t do background checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.’ Again read his condescending denial as a warning of the possibility one day the government’s coming for our guns,” he wrote.
The proflier [sic] said, “Obama’s repetitive denial tells us what’s on his mind deep down: total gun control. While he could not get away with such a plan now we must ‘know our opponent’ – to whom we must stick closer than a friend. Understand Obama has a deep need stemming from his powerless background to take power away from others.”
Hodges also points out how Obama’s statements suggest he considers himself “the government.”
“Obama dramatically assures us in another full-fledged denial of exactly why citizens have no cause for worry about extreme gun control – because ‘the government’s us.’ Stop here. What comes to mind? Think back quickly to his recent sequester press conference on March 1 when he presented such images as ‘dictator…president,’ ‘apocalypse,’ ‘Jedi ‘mind-meld’ trick,” and having ‘the Secret Service block the door’ to Republicans. One image after another of government control,” Hodges wrote. “Now read the message ‘the government’s us’ as the ‘government is me, Barack Obama.’
“Such declarations are utterly frightening when paired with his previous spontaneous image in the sequester speech of ‘horns on his head.’”
And Obama’s references to officials who are elected suggests “a denial of his belief in the Constitution, a central reason our forefathers put the Second Amendment in the foundation document,” Hodges said.
“Ask yourself if he carried out an illegal presidency and participated in election fraud what would he be capable of when it came to gun control?” Hodges wrote.
Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America spoke to conservative talk show host Steve Deace yesterday to denounce the compromise background check proposal backed by Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV).
He predicted that if the Senate approves their proposal then Speaker John Boehner will push it through the House, saying that “Boehner has effectively become Nancy Pelosi in male drag” and “cries” in the face of Democrats and “RINO Republicans.”
Boehner has effectively become Nancy Pelosi in male drag. He’s doing what she would do as Speaker of the House. He is really the head of the Democrat Party plus a rump of RINO Republicans. It’s just stunning. Only twelve of the House caucus Republicans would vote against him for re-election. Now admittedly that means they get nothing for the next two years except heartache and abuse because the only people Boehner ever gets mad at and will fight are conservative Republicans. For everybody else, he cries.
Pratt and Deace later echoed claims made by Erick Erickson and Tony Perkins that the Obama administration may prohibit Christians and Republicans from owning a gun and turn them into the targets of the police.
Deace: Am I wrong to be paranoid that Pat Toomey’s new compromise federal background check may one day flag Christians as being dangerous and shouldn’t own weapons because they are part of a domestic hate group?
Pratt: That is certainly something that would suit Janet Napolitano, the head of the “department of homeland insecurity,” she has been publishing materials exactly to that effect. She doesn’t publish anything about how Islam is an inherently violent, murderous religion invented by some Arab imperialist long after the supposed death of Mohammad. No no no, it’s people that take the Constitution literally, people that are pro-life, people that are pro-Second Amendment, probably underscore those people because they have guns and guns are bad if they are outside the hands of anybody under her authority. I think that’s the mindset of too many folks in the federal government, certainly “department of homeland insecurity” has made that very clear when they’ve advised police departments: these are the chaps to look for and I’m sure they were saying if you had a Ron Paul bumper sticker, no doubt one time in the past if you had a Pat Toomey bumper sticker but I think he’s on the approved list now.
It looks like Family Research Council president Tony Perkins is embracing a conspiracy theory first floated by Buster Wilson of the American Family Association about how the Obama administration may begin preventing conservative Christians from purchasing guns.
Yesterday on Washington Watch, Perkins said he opposes a new Senate bill that expands background checks because such a system may prevent anyone identified as an “evangelical, bible-believing fundamentalist” from acquiring a firearm.
I’m very concerned about this measure; I am concerned about where it may go once it gets to the Senate floor and what might happen in the House. This idea of background checks is very concerning given the fact that the United States military has been increasingly showing hostility toward evangelicals and Catholics as being somehow threats to national security and people that need to be watched. Well, what does that have to do with gun control? Well, what happens if all the sudden you are identified as an evangelical, bible-believing fundamentalist and the government decides you’ve got to be put on a watch list? Part of the provisions of this background check is kind of a system where if a caution comes up when they put your name in, you don’t get a chance to buy a gun.
Buster Wilson of the American Family Association is no stranger to spreading anti-government conspiracy theories on his radio show, even sharing them with listeners who threaten President Obama’s life.
On his show this Tuesday, Wilson lauded a caller who said that “our boys will never use force against our own country but they will use it to protect this country and Obama, look out,” and went on to once again promote the Oath Keepers, of which he is a member:
At another point of his show, Wilson received a call from someone who wondered if he should “shoot somebody who is going to come in my house” and take his weapons.
Wilson, rather than give the obvious answer that it is not ok to kill federal authorities, responded by telling the caller that he is “neutral” on whether it is appropriate for someone “to shoot down United States Marshals when they come to take our weapons.”
Caller: I’ve got some information, what you guys were saying, about the government buying millions of rounds of ammunition and Homeland Security buying these 2,700 assault vehicles that are supposed to be for homeland security and what goes through my mind immediately, looking at the fools that are running our country, what am I going to do when they come to my house and say: ‘We want to come in.’ ‘What did I do wrong?’ ‘Nothing, we want to look and see.’ ‘No, you’re not coming in my house.’ Am I willing to protect my home and my family and my constitutional rights because I know where I’m going when I die, but am I willing to shoot somebody who wants to come in my house and basically devastate — if they can take your weapons they can come in and take your wife or your children or whatever.
Wilson: I appreciate that and I’m going to comment on what you said. You and I right now are talking about things at the level of anarchy. I want to tell you what I don’t want to do on this program; I don’t want to have a discussion about how we are ready, willing and able to shoot down United States Marshals when they come to take our weapons. I’m not saying you wouldn’t do that or you shouldn’t do that, I’m just staying neutral on that right now. But I don’t want to talk about it because if our society breaks down that far then we are really in trouble.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins yesterday hosted Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) who immediately started spreading conspiracy theories about the United Nations.
Fleming insisted that the recently approved global UN Arms Trade Treaty, which will restrict the sale of arms to countries and groups that commit war crimes and other atrocities and has been the subject of several discredited right-wing attacks, is an attempt by the left to weaken and ultimately “repeal” the Second Amendment.
The Republican congressman concluded by speculating that the UN may make it illegal for parents to spank their children.
Fleming: In the case of the UN small arms treaty what that means is that if we enter into a treaty with one or more nations that in some way controls firearms, protective arms, handguns, something like that, if it’s ratified by the Senate then that has the same effect as an amendment to the Constitution. So that would be a way that liberals could literally change the Second Amendment. I think as you well know, although it’s not going to have a full effect as part of the ‘votorama’ the other day the Senate had in their vote for their budget, a vote on an up-or-down on the acceptance of, or voting against in effect in their opinion, at least a resolution if you will, on the the acceptance of such a treaty, and Sen. Mary Landrieu from Louisiana actually voted that we should move forward on such a small arms treaty. This is a dangerous thing when it comes to the Second Amendment. People need to understand that there is an end-run around the Second Amendment that is available to the Senate and I do think President Obama and others do support this.
Perkins: We’re talking here for just a moment about the UN’s Small Arms Treaty and as he pointed out, an end-run around Congress on the Second Amendment through the Congress. This is a very real possibility in my opinion congressman because it looks like the efforts to get legislation through Congress, especially through the House, that would severely restrict gun ownership and attack the Second Amendment is unlikely to happen, so what’s the next best thing for the Obama administration? Pursuing a treaty like this.
Fleming: Well if for instance through the UN and with an agreement with other countries, we all come together and we say, you know what we as a group of countries, both inside and outside of our borders, are going to control the handling the use and access to handguns, for instance, then if we sign onto that treaty and it’s ratified by the Senate—the House doesn’t even have to vote on it—it’s ratified by the Senate and signed onto by the President, it is firm law. A simple passage of a law or a repeal of law by Congress itself can’t undo that is my understanding. So we wouldn’t have to have a repeal of the Second Amendment, we could just simply alter it or put into effect what is essentially a repeal of it. That is not the only thing. There’s another issue just to show you how broad scope this is on how we deal with our children and what control we have of our children as parents and how we may define child abuse and the responsibility of the state. That could potentially be up for a ratification of a treaty with other nations. So that if you for instance spanked your child, you could be in violation of a UN treaty and a law created as such.
Larry Pratt, the extremist and conspiratorial leader of Gun Owners of America, last week gave a speech to We the People Tea Party of Northwest Louisiana where he mused that liberals should not be allowed to own guns.
After saying that President Obama held a shotgun “girly like” while skeet shooting, the Shreveport Times reports that Pratt told the group that Democrats like Obama “almost got me convinced to modify my purist Second Amendment position: there are people that shouldn’t have guns, angry liberals should not have guns.”
The NRA's Wayne LaPierre spoke at CPAC today, where he was introduced by a video full of clips of people in the media calling him a radical lunatic before launching into a speech where he repeatedly called everyone else crazy for thinking that his positions and views are crazy.
And he proved how reasonable he is by saying that any effort to create a database of gun owners would either be hacked by the Chinese government, handed over to Mexican government, or used by the American government to confiscate them:
Gun Owners of America has been enjoying its moment in the media spotlight recently, placing spokespeople on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, drawing attention for its Capitol Hill lobbying efforts, and even being cited in official Senate Republican talking points about a filibustered judicial nominee.
Adding to the evidence this week was GOA’s legislative counsel Michael Hammond, who joined VCY America’s Jim Schneider on Crosstalk radio Wednesday in order to share his theories that universal background check legislation might well lead to government-led genocide; that gun control advocates “bear some responsibility” for the Sandy Hook shooting; and that liberals have become “paranoic” and “racist against people who hold traditional American values.”
Schneider kicked things off by reading an email he’d been cc’d on explaining how universal background checks would lead us down a slippery slope to “confiscation” and “tyrannization.” Hammond wholeheartedly agreed, adding that there is a “real danger” that those would in turn lead to “extermination” and “genocide” not unlike in Nazi Germany:
Schneider: Let’s talk about this universal background check. Someone was drafting a letter to the president and they copied me in on the email, and here’s what they said, and I’d like to get your reaction to it. They said that the consequence of a background check can be reduced to a simple formula: Examination (universal background checks) leads to registration (local, state and federal databases), which leads to investigation (bureaucratic decisions regarding fitness or need to bear arms), and that leads to confiscation, which leads to tyrannization (the oppression and genocide against a subgroup, whether by its ethnicity, religion, political views or status or against the entirety of a state citizen). So they use examination, goes to registration to investigation, confiscation, and tyrannization or…
Hammond: Which leads to extermination. And I was actively involved in rebuilding the Polish Solidarity Trade Union, which ultimately overthrew communism in the Eastern Bloc, and I can say that both when I talked to these people, they said, you know, ‘The Soviets have all these tanks stationed in our country and we have nothing.’ And let me say that 40 years before in the Warsaw ghetto uprising, the Nazis, who the first thing they did when they came into power was ban firearms, they exterminated the Jews in Warsaw and they did so because the government was the only one who was armed. And, if you watch documentaries of that period, the people facing mass slaughter and saying, ‘We just, what do we do? We have no firearms.” And so ultimately, registration, confiscation, tyrannization has the real danger of leading to extermination.
Schneider: So you wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that progression that this writer was talking about.
Hammond: No. I think there’s a danger that you go in that direction. There’s certainly been governments in our lifetime that have engaged in genocide on a very significant scale. And I have been on the radio in a lot of them, in places like Holland, in places like Poland, in places like the old Soviet Union, and I say to these people, ‘If, in America, we ever reach the point in which you were during our lifetimes, we would like to think that we would be able to defend ourselves.’
Later, discussing the Sandy Hook school shooting, Hammond said that Connecticut gun control advocates “bear some responsibility for what happened in Newtown” because they prevented teachers from carrying guns:
Hammond: Connecticut, as you probably know, had among the most stiffest gun control in the world prior to the shooting at Newtown, and as a result of politicians like Chris Murphy and Sen. Blumenthal and the other little Democrat politicians in that state. And all the gun control they had didn’t stop Newtown. As a matter of fact, what it said to Adam Lanza is, ‘You can kill all these kids, you can get your fifteen minutes of fame, you don’t have to worry that we’re going to allow any principles, staff or teachers to shoot back at you.’ These people in some respects, I think, horrifically bear some responsibility for what happened in Newtown.
Finally, Hammond reminisced about going to school during the Vietnam War and seeing “fourteen year-old kids walking up and down the hall with semi-automatic rifles.”
“Exactly what has happened to our country that we have become so paranoic, that we have become so gun-hating, in cases of the liberal media, and that the liberal media has become so almost racist against people who hold traditional American values?” he asked.
Hammond: When I was a kid, and there are very few advantages in life to being very, very, very old, but one, it means you have a little perspective. When I was kid during the Vietnam War, in high school, fourteen to seventeen year-old kids ended up walking back and forth across the campus, across the playground, up and down the halls, up and down the sidewalks of my ghetto school – it wasn’t a rural or suburban school, it was a ghetto school – with M1 semi-automatic firearms, fully functional, except they didn’t have a firing pin but you couldn’t tell that to look at them. Fourteen year-old kids walking up and down the hall with semi-automatic rifles, no one, no one thought that we were going to shoot up the school.
I graduated in 1967. 1968 they passed the first big gun control law, the Gun Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 [sic]. Now look, we’ve gone 40 years and we’ve reached the point in which holding up a Pop-Tart is considered threatening. Exactly what has happened to our country that we have become so paranoic, that we have become so gun-hating, in cases of the liberal media, and that the liberal media has become so almost racist against people who hold traditional American values?
In whatever world Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman inhabits, President Obama has “unleashed black helicopters in our major cities to intimidate people and set up committees to determine who in its estimation is a ‘subversive’ and may have to be eliminated.”
Klayman, once again calling for armed rebellion, writes in WorldNetDaily that President Obama is trying to crush an “imminent rebellion by the informed masses” against his “mission to enslave the nation in his brand of Marxist ideology” by “removing the people’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.”
He dubs Obama a “modern-day disciple” of King George III and laments that he won re-election by “pitting the poor and middle class against the so-called rich, black against white, Latino against Anglo, gay against straight, and Muslim against Jew and Christian.” He concludes that if “all non-violent means” to depose Obama are exhausted, conservatives must follow the example of the Founding Fathers and stage an armed revolt.
The First Despot, King George III, raped the rich colonies with high taxes, ignored their grievances, subverted their legal system and as a final stroke seized and destroyed the colonists’ caches of guns and other means of self-defense when it became apparent that the citizens could stand no more tyranny from the Crown. Even worse, 236 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, triggering the first American Revolution, the modern-day disciple of the king, demagogue President Barack Hussein Obama, has onerously raised taxes, engaged in class warfare, pitting the poor and middle class against the so-called rich, black against white, Latino against Anglo, gay against straight, and Muslim against Jew and Christian, in order to win re-election.
To insure that Obama’s mission to enslave the nation in his brand of Marxist ideology succeeds in the face of imminent rebellion by the informed masses, his government has armed itself to the teeth, unleashed black helicopters in our major cities to intimate the people and set up committees to determine who in its estimation is a “subversive” and may have to be eliminated with drone and other strikes on American citizens on U.S. soil. [See "Obama prepares to kill 2nd American Revolution"]. And, last but not least, to this end, Obama has also issued executive actions as the first step to removing the people’s Second Amendment right to bear arms to defend themselves against “his” government and its evil designs.
With the exception of a few, like Sen. Rand Paul, no one in the Republican opposition has the will or guts to oppose Obama’s dictatorial quest to remove our freedoms and civil liberties and potentially assassinate those American citizens who resist his and the rest of the government establishment’s claim of total “sovereignty” over us.
We the People, initially using all non-violent means, must ourselves rise up! But if in the end it means following the lead of our First Founding Father, Patrick Henry, we reserve our God-given rights to defend ourselves and to restore liberty to our shores.
As in colonial times leading to the birth of a free country, we will never surrender! Instead, must be prepared to use all legally righteous means to restore the country to greatness!
Give us liberty or give us death! God did not forsake our Founding Fathers, and He will not forsake us!
Back in December, The New York Times’ Linda Greenhouse wrote a great article explaining how the National Rifle Association has worked in concert with Republican senators to oppose many of President Obama’s federal judicial nominees – usually without anything close to a legitimate reason. The NRA’s “symbiotic relationship with the Republican Party,” Greenhouse wrote, led the group to oppose judicial nominees like Sonia Sotomayor, who had next to no record on the Second Amendment, and the party to chip in when the NRA didn’t like a nominee.
It is that symbiotic relationship that succeeded in sinking the nominations of two highly qualified women to federal courts this week. Both were unquestionably qualified and well-respected in legal circles. The NRA and the Senate GOP went after both for completely unfounded reasons.
Caitlin Halligan was President Obama’s nominee to fill one of four vacancies on the hugely influential Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Never mind that she had broad bipartisan support and sterling credentials. She had once represented a client, the state of New York, in a lawsuit against gun manufacturers. Back when John Roberts was being considered for the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans said that judicial nominees shouldn’t be held responsible for positions they took as lawyers on behalf of clients. But no matter. Senate Republicans twice voted to filibuster her nomination – most recently on Wednesday – never even allowing her an up-or-down vote.
Then today, Nevada District Court nominee Elissa Cadish withdrew her nomination over one year after she had been selected by President Obama. Her story was similar. Filling out a questionnaire in 2008, Cadish stated that under then-current law, the constitutional right to bear arms didn’t apply to individual citizens. She was correct. Two months later in a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court established for the first time that the Second Amendment does contain that right. Cadish made clear that she understood, and would follow, the new Supreme Court precedent.
But no matter. The NRA targeted Cadish and Nevada Sen. Dean Heller used a little-known Senate practice to keep her from ever even getting the chance to explain her views in front of the Judiciary Committee. Under committee procedures used by Chairman Patrick Leahy as a courtesy to his colleagues, a nominee is not granted a hearing unless both of her home-state senators give permission in the form of a “blue slip.” Heller simply refused to sign the blue slip for Cadish, thus single-handedly sinking her nomination.
The flimsiness of the arguments against Cadish and Halligan, and the fact that much of the opposition took place behind the scenes (in the case of Cadish without even a public hearing), betrays the real reason the NRA and the GOP were working to keep these women off the federal bench. They just don’t want President Obama to be nominating federal judges.
WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush is out with another unhinged rant, this time arguing that new gun control legislation in Colorado is a “precursor” to the rise of civil unrest and an American version of the Gestapo. Rush maintains that the government seeks to pass new gun laws in order to deliberately spark a violent response, which will justify the use of Gestapo-like tactics and the criminalization of gun ownership.
He contends that Obama administration officials want to confiscate guns because “they know that they are already guilty of prosecutable crimes and are planning many more” and “already merit being removed by force of arms. They simply want to disarm Americans before a preponderance of us come to that realization and respond accordingly.”
The Democrat members of the Colorado legislature have shown themselves to be enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America and the people of the state of Colorado. What occurred in Colorado on that day was nothing short of a disgusting outrage and a chilling precursor of things to come.
It is no secret among conservatives that for the last several years, Colorado has been a chief target of one high-profile progressive billionaire and former Nazi collaborator (George Soros) through his various radical astroturf political organizations. With this aid, and through the aforementioned methods, the White House effectively subverted Colorado’s legislative processes and is ruling by proxy, while maintaining the illusion of legitimate due process.
What concerns me most about the developments in Colorado and other states vis-à-vis firearms laws is that this progression has brought us that much closer to law-enforcement officials showing up at citizens’ homes and demanding their guns. Raised in the same environment as the rest of us, many peace officers won’t realize that they are operating well outside of the law.
And that’s when things will have the potential to get really ugly.
On Jan. 6, 2013, Nathan Haddad, a former Army staff sergeant and decorated combat veteran, was selling some gun magazines when he was arrested for violating a new New York state law prohibiting possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Haddad was charged with five felonies.
The officers who arrested Haddad, and those prosecuting him have shown themselves to be enemies of the Constitution and the people of the United States of America. Officials who enforce immoral laws are no better than Hitler’s Gestapo. Where, pray tell, do they plan to draw the line at what unlawful decrees they will and will not uphold?
Very soon, we are likely to hear of an individual who, upon being contacted by law enforcement, winds up in a firefight with them over their enforcement of newly implemented gun-control measures. Law-enforcement officers may be wounded or killed, as might our citizen. If arrested, he or she will be a political prisoner. This will be the final nail in the coffin for legal firearms ownership in America, as the government and the press will capitalize upon this event (and perhaps similar others) to prove once and for all that all gun owners are potential psycho cop killers.
Why does the government (and the Obama administration in particular) want Americans’ firearms? Because they know that they are already guilty of prosecutable crimes and are planning many more. They know that they represent precisely why America’s founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution in the first place, and that they already merit being removed by force of arms. They simply want to disarm Americans before a preponderance of us come to that realization and respond accordingly.
Last night's Glenn Beck Program kicked off with twenty five minutes of paranoid raving from Beck about how the federal government is stockpiling armored vehicles and billions of rounds of ammunition because "they know something we don't know," by which he presumably meant that President Obama is preparing to foment a civil war.
In fact, according to Beck, these developments are part of the administration's effort to impose gun control on the nation by buying up all of the ammunition to make it impossible for American citizens to obtain any, which is itself apparently part of an even larger conspiracy to re-institute slavery:
Gun Owners of America, a fringe group that hovers to the right of the National Rifle Association, is wading into the debate over Caitlin Halligan, one of President Obama's nominees to the hugely influential DC Circuit Court of Appeals. GOA's beef with Halligan is that when she was solicitor general of New York, she represented the state in its suit against gun manufacturers – a position she took for a client rather than one she espoused herself.
In an action alert today, GOA asks its members to call on their senators to oppose Halligan, calling her the “most anti-Second Amendment nominee in recent history,” a “zealot” and a “radical leftist.”
Among those who might disagree with GOA’s assessment of Halligan are former Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada, Reagan administration attorney Carter Phillips, and numerous law enforcement groups, all of whom have endorsed her nomination.
But the GOA’s extreme language should come as no surprise. After all, this is the same group that speculated that the Aurora movie theater shooting was an inside job, said that armed citizens could have stopped the Holocaust, claimed that the Affordable Care Act would “take away your guns,” and warned President Obama that he should “remember King George III’s experience.” Recently, GOA president Larry Pratt has gone even further, agreeing with theories that President Obama is raising a black army to massacre white Americans and that the president intends to pit “Christian, heterosexual white haves” against “black Muslim and/or atheist…have-nots.”