Thursday, January 31, 2013



You’re on your own

Police NOT Obligated to Protect Citizens

Homeland Security Advice:

Homeland Security Advice: Don’t take a knife to a gun fight.  TAKE A PAIR OF SCISSORS.

NBC News Using Deceptive Edits. Again

NBC News Caught Using Deceptive Edits to Tarnish 2nd Amendment Advocates

Wednesday, January 30, 2013


Feinstein's plan bans any gun with a 'grip'?

Analyst says list 'a smokescreen' to conceal true intent of bill

From World Net Daily 
A key gun law analyst who has published books on the issue of the Second Amendment and its rights and responsibilities for decades says the Feinstein gun ban bill is just exactly that, a gun ban bill.

Not, essentially, a plan to limit certain guns. Not a limit on the size of magazines. Not a plan for restrictions on those with certifiable mental instabilities, a ban on criminals’ access or a plan to encourage gun safety.

Alan Korwin is a nationally recognized expert resource on the issue of gun laws, and runs Bloomfield Press, which is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country.

He said if the plan by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is made law, “any semiautomatic firearm with uses a magazine – handgun, rifle or shotgun – equipped with a ‘pistol grip,’ would be banned.”

He explained, “That sounds like a limitation, but it is not. A pistol grip (on page 2) is defined (on page 13) as ‘a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.’”

He said, “In other words, the gun list does not matter. It is a smokescreen designed to distract people from the true meaning of the bill. And it has done a magnificent job. It worked! Any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned. (There is a grandfather clause for old stuff.)

Read the proposed bill here.

“The list is meaningless tripe. It is camouflage for the real purpose of the bill. When the president said he is not going to take away your guns, well, Feinstein’s bill puts the lie to that. Magazine size does not matter. Brand name does not matter. It doesn’t matter if it’s black. If you can grip it, it’s banned under this bill.”

The bill, in fact, states, “‘Pistol grip’ means … any … characteristic that can function as a grip.”

That definition follows on the bill’s specific reference that a “pistol grip” is a banned component.

Make preparations, with a comprehensive guide to self-defense, “Armed Response.

Korwin wrote his first book, “The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide,” in 1989, and it now is in its 25th edition. He subsequently wrote or helped with nine more books on gun laws for several individual states, as well as federal guides to national laws and Supreme Court gun cases.

He maintains on his website a free directory to every gun law in the nation.

He told WND that the list of guns that Feinstein would ban is meaningless.

The definition, Korwin said, “invalidates her entire list of guns, and I’ve written 10 books on this topic, I know what I’m saying.”

He said while there is a grandfather clause for “old stuff,” the reality is that, “Any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned.”

“Pro-rights and anti-rights attention has been focused on the tremendous list of guns that would be banned under Feinstein’s bill, which takes up a significant portion of the 122 pages of this proposal,” he said in his analysis. “Here’s the problem none of the ‘news’ reports have spotted.

“The list of guns doesn’t matter. Magazine size doesn’t matter. If the semi-auto firearm has anything to grip it by, it is banned. It’s very clever actually,” he said.

He also noted there are a number of significant omissions.

In Feinstein’s plan, “nothing addresses criminals – everything is aimed at innocent people who haven’t done anything wrong. … It is all ‘wrong because we say so,’ the worst kind of government abuse – crime by decree,” he said. “The critics appear to be right. This is not about gun control, it is purely about control. The bill simply removes the right to own property Americans currently own.”
He said there also is “nothing” that addresses people “who are nuts, borderline nuts, formerly nuts or no longer nuts and still perpetually banned from their rights.”

He noted there also is no mention of psychotropic drugs that “may cause psychotic episodes, suicidal tendencies, manic behavior, sudden death and various social and psychological disturbances” in the bill. A significant number of perpetrators in most of the mass shootings in recent years have been linked to some sort of drug activity.

Keep your gun rights: Sign new petition

And, he said, there is “nothing in her 122-page bill [that] deals with gun safety. No training, no marksmanship, nothing for teachers, no self-defense awareness, no public education, nothing for schools, everything the president has asked for to increase child safety is missing in her long list of guns she would remove from the hands of the innocent,” he said.

The bottom line is that her proposal is something Congress should fear, he said.

“Every aspect of this bill appears to be an infringement on the Bill Of Rights, with no legitimate justification. Congress cannot pass infringements by majority vote. That is forbidden, although the word ‘infringement’ itself is universally missing in ‘news’ reports, in case you haven’t noticed,” he said.

“Congress can’t just enact whatever they want by majority rule. If they could, we would not have government of limited delegated powers, the hallmark of freedom and The American Way. It must just be a typo, on page two, continuing for 121 pages.”

Feinstein has claimed she wants banned “sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of 120 specifically named firearms, certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.”

Irishman wants to become Citizen

Irish Citizen: ‘I’ve waited 9 Years to Get a Visa and 11 Million Law-Breakers Will Skip the Line in Front of Me’

Should Marijuana be Legal? part 1 of 2

Marijuana legalization proponents claim that marijuana is not dangerous like alcohol.
The facts reveal otherwise.  15 percent of shock-trauma patients who were injured in car accidents had marijuana in their blood, and another 17 percent had both marijuana and alcohol in their blood.  33% of fatally injured drivers who were tested for drug use had drugs in their system; 3,952 drivers total in 2009.  Marijuana is the second most commonly found psychoactive substance among drivers after alcohol.  In 2009, 376,000 emergency room visits nationwide involved marijuana.

There is a strong correlation between marijuana use and crime.  60% of those arrested across the U.S. test positive for marijuana.  This isn't just crime related to drug use, there is a positive correlation between chronic marijuana use and increased risk of violent behavior.  In fact, there is a stronger correlation between property crimes and frequent marijuana use than there is with alcohol use or other illegal drug use, particularly among teenagers.  A study of postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more accidents, 85% more injuries and a 75% increase in being absent from work.

Alcohol contains one substance only, ethanol, whereas marijuana contains more than 400 known chemicals.  It has 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco. THC, the main chemical in marijuana, damages the immune system.  What should frighten even proponents is that marijuana use diminishes mental function.  THC disrupts nerve cells in the brain affecting memory.  Any marijuana user can tell you it causes paranoia.  Exacerbating this is that marijuana is much stronger now than it was in the hippie era.  It used to be grown with THC levels of less than 1%.  Now those levels are at 9.6% and increasing.

Another myth put out by marijuana proponents is that it is not addictive.  One in six teenagers who tries it will become addicted.  Even worse, marijuana is a gateway drug; 99.9% of cocaine users began by first using a substance like marijuana.  When the high fades, drug users must increase their dosage or switch to something stronger in order to maintain the euphoria.  Marijuana is frequently dipped in PHP, a powerful hallucinogen, which can cause severe physical reactions like seizures, coma and death.

Even if the government legalizes marijuana, there are consequences in the private sector for those who use it.  Many employers prohibit the use of marijuana, and since traces of the drug stay in the body for quite awhile after usage, many marijuana users in the states that have legalized it may lose their jobs.  Marijuana remains in urine for up to 30 days and in hair for up to 90 days.

Legalization proponents point to the enormous amount of money the government has spent on the “War on Drugs,” which has done little to decrease illegal drug use.  However, if society is no longer deterred from using drugs, the numbers of drug users will increase, and we will see those costs reflected elsewhere: increased drugged driving crashes, treatment costs and lower productivity. 
 Robert DuPont, president of the Institute for Behavior and Health and former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, characterizes it this way, “Legalization of marijuana would solve the marijuana problem the way legalizing speeding would solve the speeding problem: it would remove the legal inhibition of a dangerous behavior, and thereby encourage the behavior.”

Another myth is that the government is wasting money locking up marijuana users.  No one in jail for marijuana is actually serving time for using the drug; they were arrested for a more serious offense and were permitted to plead guilty to the lesser charge in order to reduce their sentence.

Who does not have compassion for the terminally ill elderly person slowly dying a painful death, whose pain could be greatly eased by marijuana?  The problem is medical legalization is not only benefiting those in medical need of it; in states where marijuana has been legalized for medicinal use, 94% of those using it do not suffer from a debilitating illness, but are simply regular users.  This is a result of more dishonesty by legalization proponents.

A free society does not mean that every action must be legal.  Free society is governed by the harm principle; the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to others.  Yet why do we accept that certain things cause harm to others, but not other things?  For example, society – through a handful of judges in black robes - has arbitrarily decided that killing a baby in the womb by abortion is not a crime that must be prohibited.  Whereas the situation of someone defending themselves with a gun in many cases is considered to be a crime.  A persuasive argument can be made that marijuana use causes harm to others.  While it may not be as strong or as black and white of an argument as others, the thousands of lives that are saved as a result may be enough to persuade some free thinkers.

If marijuana is legalized everywhere, there will be an escalation of the types of problems currently associated with alcohol abuse.  “Freedom” for some will come at a cost of freedom to others, who may lose their lives in car accidents or their wallets as their insurance goes up to pay for the treatment costs and insurance of addicts.  While it is true there is some hypocrisy when it comes to legalizing alcohol but not marijuana, it is irresponsible to hide the truth about the dangers of marijuana and the consequences of legalizing it.  Even if one comes down on the side of legalizing marijuana for philosophical reasons, the costs it will bring to society cannot be ignored.

Charley Daniels

A few words of wisdom from Charley Daniels

Tuesday, January 29, 2013



1) Only in America could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.

2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black

3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.

6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."

7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.

10)  Only in America can a man with no background, no qualification sand no experience ... and a complete failure at his job ... be reelected.

Obama Threatens Fox News, Limbaugh

Obama Threatens Fox News and Rush Limbaugh

Hey, King Obama, Freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and is guaranteed to all Americans.

UPDATE TO Obama to arm Muslim Brotherhood

Why Does it matter that Obama Gave Fighter Jets to Islamic America-Hating Egypt

    UPDATE TO Obama to arm Muslim Brotherhood

On January 22nd four of the proposed 20 F-16 fighter jets were delivered to Egypt. The jets, decorated with Egypt’s flag on their tails, are part of a $213 million “gift” from the United States, including 200 Abrams tanks. To paraphrase the contemptible Hillary Clinton, Why should that matter? After all, Egypt is already in possession of more than of 200 such aircraft, courtesy of their “friend,” America. What do another four or even 20 such military aircraft in Egypt’s bloody hands matter?

Perhaps it’s because the highly questionable “gift” of such military might was originally intended for Hosni Mubarak in 2010. A fawning Lyin’ King, in collusion with Congress, finding fault with Israel’s ability to defend herself, was working overtime to level the playing field. In case anyone in Washington is paying attention, Hosni Mubarak is no longer in power in Egypt; Mohamed Morsi is. And we don’t know how long that will last.

Morsi is head of a Muslim Brotherhood government. He has threatened to renege on the treaty Egypt has with Israel. He has publicly likened Jews to pigs and dogs. He publicly prays for Israel’s destruction. His thugs employ murder, beatings, and rape to suppress protesters. He has publicly declared (quite accurately in this case) our president to be a liar and the United States an “enemy” of Egypt. In short, he kicks America in the pants while picking our pockets, all with the blessing of our sycophantic, anti-Semitic, imperial President.

Perhaps it matters because development of the F-16, a staple in the military arsenal for more than 25 years, is not static. The aircraft delivered to Egypt are 4th generation models with advanced electronics. John Larson, the vice president of Lockheed, is ecstatic about the deal:
“This is a great day for Lockheed Martin and a testament to the enduring partnership and commitment we have made to the government of Egypt… We remain committed to providing our customer with a proven, advanced 4th Generation multirole fighter… In an air combat role, the F-16′s maneuverability and combat radius exceed that of all potential threat fighter aircraft.”

Why shouldn’t Larson be happy? Thanks to our Commander in Chief, America won’t be purchasing any F-16s. The fiction about calling Egypt a “partner,” though, is a bit difficult to swallow. But if our president gets away with it, day in and day out, why shouldn’t Larson have a crack at it?

The U.S. Air Force adds to the F-16s virtues: “The F-16 can fly more than 500 miles, deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point. An all-weather capability allows it to accurately deliver ordnance during non-visual bombing conditions.” How nice for Egypt.

The only countries it has declared worthy of aggression are Israel and America. Israel is considerably closer to Egypt. Well within striking range, according to the Air Force. So, conspiracy theories aside, why is America arming a hostile, insurgent nation?

Perhaps it matters because Egypt’s “Arab Spring” has become a Sha’aria-dominated, winter wasteland. Let us not forget where the “spontaneous,” Muslim uprisings began. They ended with the nothing-to-see-here Benghazi disaster.

It matters because, among Mohamed Morsi, our Congress, and our president, it’s a crapshoot as to who is the most duplicitous…and dangerous.

High Crimes from the Obama Administration

What’s Being Done About High Crimes from the Obama Administration? 

Not a DAMN Thing!

UPDATE TO (Will you fire on US citizens)

THIS IS AN UPDATE TO MY POST OF JANUARY 25th  (Will you fire on US citizens?)

Garrow’s claim is even more explosive given that the country is in the throes of a national debate about gun control, with gun rights advocates keen to insist that the founders put the second amendment in the Constitution primarily as a defense against government tyranny.

It also follows reports on Sunday that General James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, “is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”

Concerns over US troops being given orders to fire on American citizens in the event of mass gun confiscation first arose in 1995 when hundreds of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which asked the Marines if they would, “Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”

The survey was subsequently leaked because many of the Marines who took it were shocked by the tone of the question.

The US Military has clearly outlined innumerable civil emergency scenarios under which troops would be authorized to fire on U.S. citizens.

In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.

The 2006 document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law.

On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” on American soil are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.”

Given that second amendment advocates are now being depicted as dangerous terrorists by the federal government and local law enforcement, Garrow’s claim is sure to stoke controversy given that Americans are seeing their gun rights eviscerated while the federal government itself stockpiles billions of bullets.

Last week, Gloversville Mayor Dayton King warned that any federal gun confiscation program could lead to a “Waco-style standoff” in rural areas of America.

Monday, January 28, 2013


Parallels of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Hussein Obama:

You might be quite surprised ....
Most of us know of the comparable relationship between Lincoln and Kennedy;
but have you ever considered the comparisons between President Obama and Lincoln?

1. Lincoln placed his hand on the Bible for his inauguration.
Obama used the very same Bible Lincoln used, for his inauguration.

2. Lincoln came from Illinois.
Obama comes from Illinois.

3. Lincoln served in the Illinois Legislature.
Obama served in the Illinois Legislature.

4. Lincoln had very little experience before becoming President.
Obama had very little experience before becoming President.

5. Lincoln rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.
Obama rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.

6. Lincoln was highly respected by some, but intensely disliked by others.
Obama is highly respected by some, but intensely disliked by others.

7. Abraham Lincoln was a tall, skinny lawyer.
Barack Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

8. Lincoln held to basic Conservative and Christian views.
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

9. Lincoln volunteered in the Illinois militia; once as a captain, twice as a private.
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

10. Lincoln firmly believed in able persons carrying their own weight.
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

11. Lincoln 's administration had to borrow a lot of money to abolish slavery and save our nation, via the Civil War.
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer. But He too has borrowed lots of money in fact more than all the other presidents before him combined so he wants to keep spending and taxing taxing taxing.

12. Lincoln was undeniably, and without any doubt, born in the United States .
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

13. Lincoln was honest - so honest that he was called 'Honest Abe'.
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer

14. Lincoln preserved the United States as a strong nation, respected by the world.
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.

15. Lincoln showed his obvious respect for the flag, U. S. Constitution, and the military.
Obama is a skinny lawyer.
Amazing , yes?


A Lesson to be Learned From Wounded Knee
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. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.

Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms.  Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed “National Heroes” and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.

We do not hear of Wounded Knee today.  It is not mentioned in our history classes or books.  What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the sanitized “Official Government Explanation” or the historically and factually inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre on the movie screen.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed 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 invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine.

When the United States Constitution was drafted “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept, musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of early America, and were certainly not wasted “target shooting”.

The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defense purposes should such tyranny rise in the United States.

As time goes on the average citizen in the United States continues to lose personal freedom or “liberty”.  Far too many times unjust bills are passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”.

The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, then expanded and continued by Barack Obama is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”.  Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be taken away for “our safety”.

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they 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 can not legislate “evil” into extinction.  Good people will abide by the law, defective people will always find a way around it.

And another thought: Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found?  In the hands of those with the power - governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments.  Who do governments target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…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 millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”.  Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was - confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms.  Without the Second Amendment we have no right to defend ourselves and our families. 

Many of you were not around when the ATF raided the property of the Branch Davidians.   They attacked them, used a MILITARY TANK to push the buildings in and set them on fire, and burned the women and children who were hiding in an underground bunker, to death. 

For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, it took place when Bill Clinton was President.  They killed everyone in the buildings including CHILDREN.  That is the reason Janet Reno’s picture is included in the above picture.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Who has killed more children

Who has killed more children, Adam Lanza or Barack Obama?
You probably think this is about abortion because this year is the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade.  Well, that’s a good point considering Obama’s long history of supporting late term abortion and partial birth abortion.  But this is about something else entirely.

The president himself has directly killed about 176 children in Pakistan by the use of CIA drones.  These drones have been dispatched by him, and him alone -- not pursuant to any congressional declaration of war.  At least two of these murdered children were Americans.  But since the cameras were kept away, and since all of this takes place 10,000 miles from America, and since the survivors are legally and politically helpless, no one here hears the Pakistani children's cries of pain and anguish.

One of the reasons we have the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is to enable us to resist a drone sent to the path of our children by shooting it down, no matter who sent it.  But you can't stop a drone with a BB gun.  Hence the need for serious firepower in the hands of ordinary Americans -- to give tyrants pause and to stop tyrants when they don't pause.  The president wants to use Lanza's horrific slaughter of 20 babies in a public school in Connecticut with a stolen gun as an excuse to restrict the freedoms of all law-abiding gun-owning Americans, any one of whom would have stopped Lanza in a heartbeat with a lawful gun, before the police could, had they been in that school.

Does a president with blood on his hands have any moral standing to infringe upon the natural right to self-defense of those whose hands are clean?  Would you sacrifice your liberty to defend yourself and your children so that the government can kill whom it pleases?

If you agree with what I have written in this post, please forward the link to this post to everyone you know.  If you do not agree, then just poke your head back into the sand and forget about it.


 What the hell just happened? 
That is the question that many Americans should be asking themselves following the news conference where Obama unveiled his plan for destroying the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.

Saturday, January 26, 2013



Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws

Number Of Nation’s Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Gaining Steam

From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation’s sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

In New Mexico, 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.

Here is a nationwide list…

Jesse Jackson was Right

Jesse Jackson was Right  (before he was wrong)

By Steve Deace   1/26/2013

This week marked the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and since state-sanctioned slaughter via judicial fiat began at least 50 million Americans have been killed. Over the last 40 years there have been some eloquent attempts to win the defining moral argument of our age, but few have come close to being as effective as the one I’m sharing with you today.

And it was written by Jesse Jackson.  Yes, that Jesse Jackson.

To commemorate the 4th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 1977, Jackson wrote an editorial titled How We Respect Life is the Over-Riding Moral Issue. What’s particularly unique about the article is that it both defends the right to life and reconciles it with Jackson’s liberal politics. The article is too big to post here in its entirety, and I would certainly recommend reading all of it in context. But just to whet your appetite, here are a few powerful excerpts:

• “The question of abortion confronts me in several different ways. First, although I do not profess to be a biologist, I have studied biology and know something about life from the point of view of the natural sciences. Second, I am a minister of the Gospel and therefore, feel that abortion has a religious and moral dimension that I must consider. Third, I was born out of wedlock (and against the advice that my mother received from her doctor) and therefore abortion is a personal issue for me. From my perspective, human life is the highest good, and God is the supreme good because He is the giver of life. That is my philosophy. Everything I do proceed from that religious and philosophical premise.”

• “Therefore, life is the highest human good because life is sacred. Biologically speaking, thousands of male sperms are ejaculated into the female reproductive tract during sexual intercourse, but only once in a while do the egg and sperm bring about fertilization. Some call that connection accidental, but I choose to call it providential. It takes three to make a baby: a man, a woman and the Holy Spirit.”

• “Human beings cannot give or create life by themselves it is really a gift from God. Therefore, one does not have the right to take away (through abortion) that which he does not have the ability to give.”

• “Some of the most dangerous arguments for abortion stem from popular judgments about life's ultimate meaning, but the logical conclusion of their position is never pursued. Some people may, unconsciously, operate their lives as if pleasure is life's highest good, and pain and suffering man's greatest enemy. That position, if followed to its logical conclusion, means that that which prohibits pleasure should be done away with by whatever means are necessary. By the same rationale, whatever means are necessary should be used to prevent suffering and pain. My position is not to negate pleasure nor elevate suffering, but merely to argue against their being elevated to an ultimate end of life. Because if they are so elevated, anything, including murder and genocide, can be carried out in their name.”

• “Psychiatrists, social workers and doctors often argue for abortion on the basis that the child will grow up mentally and emotionally scared. But who of us is complete? If incompleteness were the criteria for taking life we would all be dead. If you can justify abortion on the basis of emotional incompleteness then your logic could also lead you to killing for other forms of incompleteness -- blindness, crippleness, and old age.”

• “There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of higher order than the right to life. I do not share that view. I believe that life is not private, but rather it is public and universal. If one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside of your right to concerned.”

• “Another area that concerns me greatly, namely because I know how it has been used with regard to race, is the psycholinguistics involved in this whole issue of abortion. If something can be dehumanized through the rhetoric used to describe it, then the major battle has been won. That is why the Constitution called us three-fifths human and then whites further dehumanized us by calling us ‘niggers.’ It was part of the dehumanizing process. The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do and not even feel like they had done anything wrong. Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder; they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore can be justified.

• “It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.”

Sadly, just a few years after he wrote these words Jackson reversed himself. A decade later Jackson appeared at a large Los Angeles rally in favor of child killing and urged the crowd to “fight for the right of self-determination” and that “God has endowed us” with the right to kill others.


My two cents:  I find it very difficult to believe he made such a drastic reversal of opinion on a matter he obviously had very strong convictions about.
It is my personal opinion that he reversed his statement, but not his convictions.  And I believe he did so for his own selfish political gain.   

Did you know or Do you care?

Did you know that we are giving F-16’s and tanks to Dictator Mohammad Morsi (the Muslim Brotherhood) of Egypt

That’s the same Morsi, and the same Muslim Brotherhood, who hates us and Israel.  The same Morsi who has transformed Egypt into a Sharia’h-compliant country by force.

He is paying for the equipment with money we sent him.

F-16′s were flown to Egypt earlier this week. Thanks to the US, Egypt has the most formidable army in the region and the 4th largest Air Force.

We’re also sending 200 tanks as if the aircraft wasn’t enough.

Why couldn’t we send them food and clothing or business people to provide them with the help to develop a free enterprise system?  Why equip their military?

We are told that we need to keep their military on our side but Morsi has already replaced the military leaders with his Brotherhood thugs.

Morsi is no friend to the US or Israel.

Morsi said on September 21st of this past year that amending his country’s peace treaty with Israel [1979 peace accords] is just “a matter of time.”  He wants Egypt in full control of the Sinai Peninsula.  Morsi added that the 1979 accord “preserves Israel‘s national security more than Egypt’s, which constitutes a blatant violation of Egyptian sovereignty,” and that it would not endure under Egypt’s new leaders.

Mohamed Morsi, and if fact all of the Muslim Brotherhood, hate the Jews.
Just what do YOU think they will use those F16s and tanks for?