Gun Control Tyranny-Not Here

On December 10th, 1918, the Soviet Union issued a decree forcing the population to surrender all of their firearms. The people had to give up their rifles, machine guns, all pistols, magazines and ammunition. In short, everything.

Anyone who hid weapons, refused to surrender them, or opposed the decree would be imprisoned for up to ten years.

In the 1920s Germany’s Weimar Republic required a gun registry. Law-abiding people obeyed. By 1931 the registration of all firearms was compulsory, and their confiscation was authorized if required for public safety. In 1933 Adolf Hitler seized power and used those records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents. Constitutional rights were suspended, mass searches and gun seizures occurred. Police revoked the gun licenses of those who were not “politically reliable.”

Hitler’s Nazis committed the systematic murder of 17 million civilians.

Communist China’s Mao Zedong, famous for his statement: “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” disarmed China’s population and ranks as the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century. The inability of people to resist the government led to fifty million people spending time in forced labor camps.

During Mao’s reign of terror, an estimated 65 million Chinese died.

In 1959 Fidel Castro decided Cuba required “common sense” gun control. When the term “common sense” is inserted into the discussion, what could possibly go wrong? Everyone supports “common sense” laws, right? Like those harmless, “common sense” gun laws instituted by the Weimar Republic?

“Common sense” was and still is a term used by lying tyrants to lull the people to sleep so they fail to see the danger looming on the horizon.

It did not take very long for something to go wrong.

In a country of 7 million, Castro’s “common sense” gun control led to the killing 141,000 Cubans.

Now, United States President Joe Biden is urging Congress to “finally do something” about gun control.

He said if Congress cannot ban “assault weapons,” the age range to buy those type of guns must be raised from 18 to 21. He declared that background checks need to be strengthened. He called for “Red Flag” laws so courts could seize firearms from people who are deemed “dangerous.”

Multiple members of the U.S. Congress have been calling for “common sense” gun laws for years.

Never mind the fact that in the U.S. deaths caused by firearms accounts for 1.3% of the number and ranks twelfth on the list behind heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic lower respiratory disease, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, influenza/pneumonia, nephritis, traffic accidents, poisoning and septicemia (a type of blood poisoning).

Forget all the times a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding American has prevented injury or death at the hands of criminals who ignore gun laws, no matter how numerous or strict they are or may become.

Never mind the Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Or that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

There are a couple of realities voters, the politicians they elect, and the plethora of out of control, unelected, unaccountable, overpaid bureaucrats need to remember:

1. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
2. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Stand with Rand

Some of Senator Rand Paul’s (R, KY) colleagues were left unimpressed by Wednesday’s filibuster.  The day following Paul’s action, Senators John McCain (R, AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R, SC) criticized him, saying Paul was doing a “disservice” to the debate about drones.

When was the last time either McCain or Graham raised concerns over the White House’s use of drones?

“I don’t think what happened yesterday was helpful to the American people…What we saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those who say the rules of the Senate are being abused,” McCain said.

Since when is proper use of the Senate filibuster abuse?  McCain seems more concerned with getting along with “progressives” in the Senate than preserving the United States Constitution.

Paul was attempting to get the Obama administration to confirm it will not kill non-combatant Americans within the United States.  Graham apparently viewed that as a farcical question.

“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Graham stated.

What question would Graham consider worthy of reply?  Do assurances from the DOJ that they will not selectively ignore constitutionally protected rights of American Citizens to judicial due process not qualify?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/mar/7/graham-mccain-blast-paul-filibuster/

Concerns over the administration’s drone program led lawmakers to question Attorney General Eric Holder about legal justification for targeting American Citizens.   Similar concerns prompted Paul to begin his filibuster, demanding answers from the White House.  Paul said he would relent only if the Obama administration stated publically that it will not target Americans on American soil.

The administration apparently believed it could kill Americans it suspected of having terrorist ties without putting them on trial.

Concerns over protection of due process for American Citizens are bipartisan.

“You can hear almost unanimous concern about transparency and wrestling with how to move forward here in a way that protects both our constitutional liberties and our security as a nation,” Senator Christopher A. Coons (D, DE) told Holder.

Under careful examination by Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX), Holder repeatedly stated U.S Citizens on American soil were not “appropriate” targets for executions without due judicial process.  Cruz said that was an insufficient answer.  “You keep saying ‘appropriate.’ My question isn’t about propriety. My question is about whether something is constitutional or not,” said Cruz.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination-cia-direc/

McCain and Graham aside, Rand Paul, Christopher Coons and Ted Cruz are on the right side of the debate.

Since McCain and Graham apparently believe it is most important for them to get along with “progressives”, no matter the cost to the Rights of American Citizens at home, their criticism of Paul is out of hand.

Let them face the repercussions in their next election.

Guns: Freedom or Tyranny?

Following the school massacre in Newtown, CN, Joe Biden, chosen by Barack Obama to lead the administration’s effort to stem the gun ‘epidemic’, met with “law enforcement leaders.”

Biden met with Attorney General Eric Holder, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Obama’s drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, Senior Obama advisers Bruce Reed, Valerie Jarrett, Cecilia Munoz and Kathy Ruemmler also attended.

Biden remarked:

“I’ve worked with some of you for a long, long time.  We’ve worked on everything from cop-killer bullets to types of weapons that should be off the street. That’s what I want to talk to you about today. I want to hear your views, because for anything to get done we’re going to need your advocacy.”

While openly hoping to impose an assault weapons ban, the White House is actively seeking “advocacy” from Holder, Napolitano, Sebelius and Jarrett.

Holder has yet to adequately explain the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, Napolitano has accused Veterans of foreign wars of being national security threats and has yet to secure American borders, Sebelius is actively assailing American liberty through obamacare and Jarrett has never explained her ties to real estate scandals involving convicted felon and Obama fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko or her involvement in recruiting self-identified communist Van Jones as green jobs czar, Saul Alinsky devotee Mark Lloyd as chief diversity officer within the FCC, and wealth redistribution advocate Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar.

Meanwhile Obama was pushing Congress to quickly pass gun control measures, saying:

“A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons.  A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.  I urge the new Congress to hold votes on these measures next year in a timely manner.”

On Sunday’s “Meet The Press,” National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre reiterated his statements made Friday at a Washington DC press conference, when he said armed security in every school is the answer to stopping shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

LaPierre said:

“If it’s crazy to call for putting police in and securing our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy.  I think the American people think it’s crazy not to do it.”

At Friday’s press conference LaPierre made the statement:

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The United States will descends into bickering between Americans and “progressives” over how to prevent mass murders committed in gun free zones by mentally deranged people acting on their own.  “progressives” seek to do this by depriving law abiding individuals of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  Americans seek to ensure safety by having armed, right minded, principled individuals capable of ending the violence present and acting before it spirals out of control.

This debate overlooks the point of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

When the Constitution was written, “Militia” meant ordinary citizens capable of banding together to fight threats to their liberty. It did not matter whether the treat was from an external source like an invading army, or internal, such as an over-reaching government.

The framers of the Constitution clearly expressed their views regarding a well-armed citizenry.

Thomas Jefferson:

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

“Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.”

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

George Washington:

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”

“It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”

James Madison:

 “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.”

“progressives” seek to totally ignore the second part of the Second Amendment “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed“.   This displays their willful ignorance of history.  Anyone who has studied history knows the first right tyrants abolish is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

That the likes of Holder, Napolitano, Sebelius, Jarrett et al, who no longer secretly seek to impose their version of tyranny upon the United States, are now openly insisting that the Second Amendment be revised to suit their fancy should trigger the sound of alarm bells in the mind of every freedom loving American Citizen.

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste…Ever

While speaking at a Dec. 16 prayer vigil for victims of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, Barack Obama, ever the divisive political creature with a burning transformative agenda, could not pass on the opportunity to politicize the event:

“In the coming weeks, I’ll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents and educators, in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this, because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine.

Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?

Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”

Forget about the shock, grief, anguish, pain and suffering of the survivors.  Never mind that the vigil was intended to honor the innocent victims, not promote Obama’s ardent agenda to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

Never let a crisis go to waste…ever.

And to think, there are still people who wonder why America is so divided.

Congratulations Barack…Saul Alinsky would be proud of you.

If Obama is truly devoted to preventing such tragedies, how about he cease and desist being the most divisive American political figure
of the 21^st century?  Anyone who is paying attention knows he is leading a group of like-minded politicians whose strategy is “divide and conquer.”

If Obama is honestly concerned with preventing the routine slaughter of children in schools, schools will no longer be gun free zones.  The criminally inclined, mentally deranged people who have perpetrated these shootings clearly have not respected these gun free zones, including America’s shopping malls and other public gathering places.

For “progressives” to use these tragedies as a thinly disguised attempt to alter or abolish Second Amendment Rights for free American Citizens is further evidence that they are attacking, not defending the Constitution of the United States of America.  Why is it not surprising that those who desire a “fundamental transformation” of America would be derelict in their duties while ignoring their oath of office?

Here is a clue for Obama and his high falutin, fancy pants, smooth talking, words parsing “progressive” Ivy League chums:

The Second Amendment was not written so 21^st century Americans could go deer hunting.

America’s Constitution secured the Right of the People to keep and bear arms as the last line of defense against tyrannical government.  Having just fought against and defeated King George’s military, America’s founders were keenly aware of the need for all Citizens to be prepared in defense of their Liberties.  It matters not whether tyrannical government is imposed by a foreign crown as it was in the 1700s, or from Washington DC, as is being done today.  Tyrannical government is tyrannical government.

As Patrick Henry said during debate in the Several State Conventions on the adoption of the U.S. Constitution:

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?  Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress?  If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Barack Obama and his fellow “progressives” are not interested in defending the God given, constitutionally protected Rights of American Citizens.  They are interested in ensuring that “progressives” gain a firm, final grasp on unstrained power.

America had better wise up.  Fast.

Because of groupthink and a poverty of imagination, the story of American Freedom and of American exceptionalism may end far too soon in a tragic, final chapter.

Libya and Egypt; Mumbling, Bumbling and Stumbling

The killing of Chris Stevens and three staffers in Benghazi, Libya was tragic.  Heartfelt condolences to their families and friends are perfectly in order.  However, compared to coverage by international news sources, the way coverage is being handled by the American news media is revealing.

Iran’s Gooya News uses the headline:

America’s ambassador to Libya killed in protest of anti-Islam film.

Notice how a film considered incendiary by Islamists is featured within the headline.

The first paragraph of Gooya’s story speaks specifically about how the attackers, referred to as protesters, were motivated by an anti-Islamist film made by American pastor Terry Jones.

Following mention of remarks made by Libya’s Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abvshaqvr and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the article launches into an aggressive verbal attack on Jones’ film, assailing it as an assault on the Koran and the Prophet of Muhammad.  Objections are raised to the film’s depiction of Muhammad as a child molester.  Ongoing objections concern themselves with Jewish funding of the film.

http://news.gooya.com/politics/archives/2012/09/146923.php

BBC Persia headlines their report with:

The killing of America’s ambassador and three of its diplomats in Libya is confirmed.

While the BBC headline manages to stay on point by reporting the killing of the American diplomats, the story follows the pattern of Gooya by blaming the attack on the Jones movie.  However, BBC largely stays focused on reporting the news event rather than assigning blame for its instigation.  It defers further comment about the movie until the end of the article, choosing rather to relay detailed statements of condemnation made by Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Libyan government.

When the BBC does mention the movie, it does so in the context of how the film is viewed in Iran.  They report that according to Iran’s government, the publishing in America of a film that insults the Prophet Muhammad is a despicable act.  “The Islamic Republic of Iran strongly condemns blasphemy and hurting the feelings of Muslims.”  Iran then warns America: “this dangerous trend of cultural hatred and insulting the Great Nation of Islam is blasphemy”.

BBC Persia then concludes by relaying how in the United States, preventing the publication of opinions is against the principle of free speech and protected by the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/world/2012/09/120912_l03_us_libya.shtml

Yahoo News uses its headline to focus on how Stevens was killed and his record of diplomatic service:

Chris Stevens, U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in rocket attack, served as envoy during revolution.

Yahoo commits multiple paragraphs to conveying circumstances of the attack on the Libyan embassy, Barrack Obama’s statement condemning the attack, and details about the diplomatic career of Chris Stevens.

Before featuring Stevens’ U.S. Embassy website bio, Yahoo describes how: “Mitt Romney condemned Tuesday’s attacks as “disgusting” and “outrageous,” but he also attacked the Obama administration for standing by a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that he claimed was an “apology” for American values”.

Romney later stated it was “disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks”.

Wednesday morning Romney did not back down from his earlier remarks: “It’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.  It’s never too early for the U.S. government to condemn attacks on Americans and defend our values. … When our grounds are being attacked, being breached, the first response of the United States must be outrage”.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chris-stevens-us-libya-ambassador-killed-142949456.html

Only when attempting to portray Romney as politicizing events by accusing him of “attacking” the Obama administration, does Yahoo even mention Tuesday’s apology, released by the Cairo Embassy apologizing to Muslims for hurting their feelings.

Yahoo never mentions the movie.  How convenient.  When the movie is not mentioned, there is no need for Yahoo to explain away the Cairo Embassy apology.  Since Yahoo publishers chose to omit specific details, there is no need to defend the Obama administration for apologizing (again) to the Islamist world for America.  Out of sight, out of mind, right Yahoo?

An American leader would have immediately condemned Islamists attacks on American Embassies, especially on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America.

Yahoo News, like other card carrying members of the “progressive” Party Pravda, continues to run interference for the Obama administration, and remains devoted to using their voice in the U.S. news media to ensure his re-election through selective censorship.

Surely Tim Russert is rolling in his grave.

In God America Must Trust

Once upon a time, in what now seems like a far-distant land, a young President inspired America with the words: “Ask not, what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”

Today, despite the fact that their country is rapidly approaching $16 trillion in debt, there are millions of Americans wondering when they are going to get “their fair share” of what their country “owes them”.  Thanks to continued distortion and misrepresentation of the facts by those in whom they have misplaced their trust, these Americans are clueless to the reality that the “hope and change” they were promised will never materialize, never come to fruition.

Not one single time in the history of human civilization has a nation taxed and spent its way into prosperity.  That today so many Americans continue to believe they are “entitled” to “their fair share of free stuff” proves that P.T. Barnum was right many times over.

Americans have watched a “progressive” big government take over the banking industry, use taxpayer funds to purchase auto companies, seize control of the healthcare system, waste hundreds and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on failed “green energy” “investments”  and usurp the student loan process.  While this was taking place, the nation plunged deeper into debt, had its credit rating downgraded, suffered continued job losses, experienced stubbornly high unemployment, stagnant economic growth, higher food prices, rising energy costs, the abandonment of border security, a reduction in national security and growing disrespect for America on the international stage.

How did America get from where it was in 1960 to where it is now?

America’s Founding Fathers have been discredited and disrespected, its Constitution has been assaulted and ignored, and most importantly; reverence and respect for God is no longer viewed as a national necessity.

America is the land of Liberty, E Pluribus Unum and In God We Trust.  If Americans are to continue to hold the truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, Americans must return to reliance upon their Creator.  America must restore being one nation, under God.

Americans need to overcome the wrongheaded notion that “progressive” big government will endow them with anything but a future of slavery to a tyrannical State.

America’s Founding Fathers fought a war for freedom from this form of slavery.  They risked everything that they had.  They risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.  And while doing so, they established the idea that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

That is not freedom from religion.  That is freedom of religion.  It states that America will never be a theocracy.

George Washington, historically remembered as the father of his country said: “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

We know the names and faces of the famous Founders.  But many anonymous Patriot souls died in that fight against tyranny so that future generations could enjoy the fruits of their struggle.

A new generation of Americans must now declare to themselves, their fellow Americans and to the world that they would rather die free than live as a slave to “progressive” big government.   That they will exercise their right to worship as they see fit, and defend the right of every other American to do likewise.

Another inspiring President once said: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.  We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.  If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

Are Americans Ready?

It should be quite obvious to clear minded people who are paying attention that the agenda of “progressives” is single Party “progressive” rule in perpetuity.  Economic viability, domestic security, national sovereignty, individual Liberties and adherence to Constitutional principles are all secondary to the “progressive” goal.

Americans are people who will fight to preserve, protect and defend the United States of America envisioned by its Founding Fathers.  Emerging from the Tea Party are Patriotic Americans ready to lead a return to American principles and values.

The political establishment ignores these new leaders at their own peril.

From 2000 to 2006, a Republican legislative majority and a Republican president abandoned traditional American values and practiced spending habits that were indistinguishable from those of “progressive” Democrats. They did not demonstrate the fiscal responsibility and discipline that had traditionally distinguished Conservative Republicans from “progressive” Democrats. As a result, the size and scope of government, “entitlement” programs, debt and deficits all grew by unacceptable amounts.  This opened the door for the “progressive” Democratic Party to seize power by running a political campaign based on lies about how they would practice fiscal responsibility and financial discipline.  After seizing unobstructed power, “progressive” Democrats, including the current White House occupier, set about adding $5 trillion to America’s national debt in less than four years.

This is not the path to economic growth and stability.  No nation can borrow and spend its way to prosperity.  After having been so betrayed by both political Parties, Americans are now awake to this stark reality.

This lack of anchorage to American values, this blindness to the true purpose of America’s mission has produced baleful results.

That time over.

The way for Americans to separate themselves from the tax and spend policies of “progressive” big government is a return to fiscal responsibility and financial discipline.  In order to succeed, Americans must be united in that endeavor.

A winning coalition will include both economically and socially Conservative Americans. Neither agenda can be successfully pursued without the other; they fit hand in glove.  This is because the government’s power is derived from the consent of the governed, whose rights are God given.

The Tea Party proves that across America, a huge natural constituency exists for the bread-and-butter American issues of lower taxes, reduced government, a strong national defense, secure borders and a return to the traditional American values of: E Pluribus Unum, Liberty and in God we trust.

E Pluribus Unum means from many, one. It does not mean unquestioning acquiescence to multiculturalism and diversity.  Liberty means opportunity for all, not equality of results.  In God we trust means reliance upon the Creator of all things.  It does not mean passive acceptance of secularism, atheism or submissive surrender to “progressive” statist mandates.

The time has come.  Whether they asked for it or not, this is the time for all Americans to stand up and defend their country.

There can be no substitute for Liberty. The Constitution was designed to defend that Liberty. It is imperative that the shredding of this document by big government “progressives” be stopped. It is inherent upon Patriotic Americans to stand up and remind “progressives” that government’s power is derived from the consent of the people.

Disillusioned middle of the road swing voters disappointed by the “progressive” government’s failure to successfully respond to the economic crisis and college graduates who voted for hope and change who are now dissatisfied by the prospect of not finding a job are ready for viable solutions to an economic catastrophe brought about by “progressive” big government spending.

Americans must set aside whatever differences they have and unite behind the goal they share: Economic prosperity.

Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, even those not yet registered must join in the fight to defend the Constitution, revive the private sector free market economy and protect the American way of life.

America, stand up for your God given rights! Let no mortal take them from you.

The question remains: Are Americans ready to put aside their egos and personal agendas in order to secure the Blessings of Liberty for themselves and their posterity?

The Age Old Power Struggle: Chapter 2012

A Muslim cleric introduced Egypt’s new President, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi by saying: Our Capital ‘shall be Jerusalem, Allah willing’.  For his part, Morsi pronounced: Abroad women are ‘free,’ but not here.

These types of proclamations do not bode well for Egyptian minorities, which includes members of the Coptic Church community, who make up about 10 per cent of Egypt’s population. Despite Morsi campaign spokesman Gehad el-Haddad’s assurances that Morsi would work to be “president for all Egyptians”, Coptics worry how Morsi’s election might result in a restriction of their personal freedoms.

Regardless of joyous proclamations by Mosi supporters, the newly elected president did not receive enough support to consider his election a mandate.  Ahmed Shafik, former prime minister under Hosni Mubarak, received 12.3 million. Morsi picked up 13.2 million votes, giving him about 51 per cent of the vote.  A vote as close as this portrays the presence of a divided electorate.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201262412445190400.html

New Democracy (ND) the conservative party edged out the leftist Syriza party, achieving victory in Greece’s parliamentary elections. The winning margin for ND was less than 3 points. In Greece, as in Egypt, the vote was so close it indicates the presence of a divided people.

http://world.time.com/2012/06/17/greeces-election-results-deja-vu-all-over-again/?iid=gs-main-mostpop1

In France, Socialists won the National Assembly.  Final results showed the Socialist Party won 280 seats.  Two closely allied parties gained 34 seats, giving the Socialist bloc 314 seats.  The leftist Green Party won 17 seats and the far-left Left Front collected 10.  The Socialist Party now enjoys a lock on French politics.

Newly elected President Hollande’s domestic mandate will allow him push back on budget cuts being demanded by Germany.  Greece and other indebted countries say budget cuts are deepening the Eurozone’s recession by suffocating growth.  Clearly, there is division within the European Union.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jun/24/eu-france-elections/

Meanwhile in the United States, largely ignoring the historical lessons of American economic success, obama continues to call for bottom up economics.  This not so newly minted campaign tact is but one element of his overall class warfare election strategy.

Desperate for cash to combat GOP candidate Mitt Romney’s growing money juggernaut, obama’s campaign is asking his supporters to tell wedding guests to donate to his campaign rather than give gifts to the newlyweds.  The campaign is also turning to overseas American ex-patriots, seeking cash.

There is a new strategy to inflate the economy on obama’s behalf by Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve Bank.  obama and other Democrats are coordinating attacks on Romney with the American media, which completely flies in the face of a free press dutifully reporting facts to the electorate so as to facilitate voters being equipped with the knowledge necessary to make informed political decisions.

Bill Maher, $1 million obama campaign donor and known airwaves extremist, continued to spew hollow, hateful, leftist fringe rhetoric by spouting: Conservatism is not an ideology, ‘It’s just about being a dick’.   Joy Behar, one of Maher’s many fellow “progressive” extremists who populate Hollywood, felt compelled to chime in with “Gay Conservatives only think with their penises”.

Whatever happened to the angst, dismay and regret over harsh partisan rhetoric, so in vogue among “progressives” in the aftermath of the Gabby Gifford shooting?

In light of the Tea Party led midterm election landslide in 2010 and the Tea Party fed Scott Walker victory in Wisconsin’s recall election, it is quite appropriate to observe that, like much of the world, the population of United States is divided.

The division in America is distinctly between those who wish to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” and those who wish to restore the country to its Constitutional roots.

The Constitution established a small government featuring division of powers, protection of individual liberties and fostering a free market economic system uninhibited by the shackles of an overbearing central government.  Since the early 20th Century “progressive” politicians have incrementally increased prohibitive regulatory controls while intruding upon individual liberties by imposing “progressive” taxation used to fuel the growth of big government ”entitlement” programs and bloated federal bureaucracies that far exceed the powers delineated to the federal government by the United States Constitution.

As they participate in Chapter 2012 of the age old power struggle between tyranny and freedom, the choice is clear for American voters.  To further enable unconstitutional usurpation of powers by disciples of Marx and Alinsky wishing to dismantle and eliminate the fundamental political, and socioeconomic structure of the United States, or to elect representatives who will insist upon restoring the Constitutional Republic envisioned by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and America’s founding patriots.

Introducing: Richard M. obama

Then Senator obama routinely criticized President George W. Bush for his use of executive privilege.  Not surprisingly now that obama is sitting in the Oval Office, his views on the topic have changed…entirely.

Ladies and gentlemen, introducing: Richard M. obama

As was the case with disgraced President Richard M. Nixon, who resigned over participation in the infamous Watergate cover up, the current White House occupant has determined there is enough to hide from the public that it’s time to play the executive privilege card.

What a refreshing switch from playing either the race card or the class warfare card.  However, under these newly created circumstances and given the track record of the current administration and its political allies, do not believe for a second that playing one of those cards might inevitably become necessary.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has been stonewalling for the past year, refusing to disclose what he and the Department of Justice know about the failed Fast and Furious gun running scandal.  Holder has ignored subpoenas while obstructing repeated attempts to obtain important information.  It has gotten so bad that Holder is seen as being in contempt of Congress.

What is Holder hiding that is so important that his boss and friend in the White House would risk his entire reputation, as did Nixon, by invoking executive privilege?

As is the case of obama’s personal records (his birth certificate being the most famous), all of which were sealed from public view via executive order on his first day in office, there is definitely information the Chief Executive of the United States needs kept hidden from the general public.  This conclusion is not a surprising one.  In fact, that is his track record.

If there was never any White House involvement in the failed Fast and Furious gun running operation, which led to the death of hundreds of Mexican civilians and the death of Federal Agent Brian Terry, how is executive privilege justified?

Did the White House know that hundreds of sophisticated automatic weapons were being allowed, with the blessings of the DOJ, to walk across the American/Mexican border in the hands of ruthless, mass murdering criminals?  Was this part of a master plan to intentionally inflate the number of American made weapons being found in the hands of drug cartel members at crime scenes, thereby justifying the imposition of gun control in America?  Not so coincidently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been making statements insinuating such an objective just prior to news about Fast and Furious coming to light.

The imposition of gun control so strict as to violate the Second Amendment has long been sought by card carrying members of the big government, central planning, control the people leftist fringe, including the fringe leftist currently sitting in the Oval Office.

Holder has a track record of supporting south and central American drug criminals.  He has a track record of selective prosecution of American laws based on race, personal and political bias.  Holder should be in prison for violating his oath of office.  So should his co-conspirators, no matter how far up the food chain they go.

Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty

The International Conference on Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty, sponsored by American Freedom Alliance, concluded Monday in Los Angeles CA.

The chief question posed at the Conference’s opening: Is Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty the West’s next ideological war?

John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN gave Sunday morning’s Keynote Speech. Ambassador Bolton spoke from first hand experience, sharing front line knowledge accumulated through years of engagement in international diplomacy. He not only gave definition to the term “the Global Governance Movement”, he also described its agenda, which is to subvert national sovereignty in favor of a supranational authority through the invention and initiation of international laws and norms.

After his speech, Ambassador Bolton welcomed Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institution, John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkley, Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Institute’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and Michael Shaw, guiding attorney for Freedom Advocates.org to the stage. The five elaborated intelligently on the consequences of increasing subservience by sovereign nations to the ideology of Global Governance. Both the political makeup and the ideological activism of the UN were indicted.

Following morning breakout sessions focused on:

• Non-governmental organizations as purveyors of Global Governance
• The Green Movement, Agenda 21, Global Warming alarmism and Global Governance
• Who will control the Internet and who will control the seas

The afternoon was kicked off by a Keynote Speech by President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus spoke directly of the prospects of Global Governance and its European variant, the European Union. Drawing upon his experience as a leader of a former Soviet bloc country, President Klaus warned against the threat of independent sovereign states surrendering control to an un-elected, unaccountable extra-national governing body in a distant capitol.

Larry Greenfield, National Executive Director of the Jewish Institution for National Security Affairs, invited Robert O’Brien, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox LLP, Donald Kochan, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Elan Journo, a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute into a discussion about the politicization of international law and its impact on national sovereignty. Global and international law were identified as both threats to and the means by which national sovereignty is undermined.

Subsequent to afternoon breakout sessions focusing on:

• The demonization/diminishment of the United States and Israel as a chief Global Governance strategy
• Law-fare, international humanitarian law and their role in undermining sovereignty
• The role of Islam in fostering and encouraging Global Governance

The Honorable John Howard, Australia’s 25^th Prime Minister gave the day’s concluding Keynote Speech. The former Prime Minister discussed the concept of the nation state and why it still matters to countries that enjoy governance by popularly elected representative governments.

Sunday’s last panel, featuring President Klaus, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, John Yoo and John Fonte discussed whether or not liberal democracies have the strength and will to defend their national sovereignty. The endurance of strong constitutions and distinct cultural identities were viewed as key elements in an ongoing uphill struggle by sovereign nation-states against the intrusions of Global Governance. Panelists considered these elements necessary to fending off the introduction and implementation of transnational ambitions by proponents of Global Governance.

The Conference reconvened Monday morning with a spirited discussion concerned with using the political process and judicial system to thwart and defeat Global Governance activism. A distinctly academic intellectual discussion about whether Constitutional Law was robust enough to prevent the political branches of government from violating the Constitution through treaties whose provisions conflict with constitutional guarantees was initiated by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh gave an extensive portrayal of why the introduction of Sharia Law into the American judicial system is not threatening U.S. Constitutional rule of law. His observations were challenged by Larry Greenfield, Steven Groves and by John Yoo. Professor Volokh’s defense of his position was based primarily on viewing individual situations and circumstances as singular, isolated potential constitutional violations easily rationalized away by equating Islam’s ambitions to those of other, more benign religious institutions found in America. This approach was resounding rejected by Stephen Coughlin, a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, who successfully portrayed the fallacy of ignoring the global dominance agenda openly preached and taught by proponents of Islamic global dominance under Sharia Law. Mr. Coughlin’s remarks received applause from Conference attendees.

After an address by Professor Mike Farris of Patrick Henry University on how Global Governance threatens the nuclear family through international laws and treaties, the Conference concluded with a reading of and discussion about the Conference Declaration.

The Declaration of Los Angeles: Sovereignty, Democracy and Individual Rights are Indivisible.

We, the undersigned, do hereby append our signatures to the statement below and declare:

THAT national sovereignty, constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights are indivisible.

THAT constitutional democratic representative government is the most successful political system ever devised by the human mind.

THAT democratic self-government has only existed—and can only exist—within the sovereign liberal democratic nation state in which the people rule themselves.

THAT the principles of liberty, national independence and democratic self-government as articulated in Britain’s establishment of parliamentary democracy, the founding of the American republic, the establishment of the state of Israel, the achievement of dominion status in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the traditional national sovereignty of European democracies, and the continuing growth of liberal democracy in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are superior to any forms of global governance.

THAT the assertion of constitutional government’s obsolescence and decline is utterly false.

THAT while international cooperation should be encouraged and international treaties respected, no supranational authority which claims jurisdiction over liberal democratic states without the consent of the governed should be accepted.

THAT non-governmental organizations which purport to represent an international constituency do not have the legal or political authority to speak for the citizens of liberal democratic nation states, only democratically elected representatives have such legitimate democratic authority.

THAT the constitutions of our respective nations remain the supreme and inalienable law of our lands and if ever a conflict arises between our respective constitutions and any form of supranational authority (such as interpretations of international law, rulings of the United Nations, judgements of international courts, etc.), our Constitutions and constitutional principles will always prevail.

THAT we call on leaders of democratic nation states to reject the demands of transnational advocates to subsume domestic law to international law and stand together with us in upholding the principles of national sovereignty while rejecting the claims and arguments of global governance advocates.