Daily Archives: January 17, 2013
Obama’s Executive Disarmament Confirms Tea Party Can Not Go Away
By: LloydMarcus.com”>Lloyd Marcus
Obama brings kids to the White House as props for photo-op and emotional appeal to unveil his illegal gun control plans. Obama despicably using kids to undermine the Second Amendment via executive order is a perfect example of why the Tea Party can not go away.
Due to extensive media coverage of Obama’s Disarmament Show, low info voters will cry, hearing stories of how guns make kids fearful and give Obama carte blanche to do whatever he deems necessary regardless of the Constitution. Predicting from their pattern of spineless behavior, Republicans will probably simply go along with Obama’s illegal dictates. So, who will stand and be the voice of our Founding Fathers and We The People? Answer: The Tea Party.
Despite the Tea Party being falsely branded as a bunch of racist extremists by Obama’s supportive media, we are the lone voice and last hope for America as intended by our Founding Fathers. If we quit, America becomes paradise lost.
As a child, my cousins said I was stubborn. If I became annoyed or they refused to play my way, I would pick up my toys and go home. Unfortunately, some on our side have reacted the same way since the reelection of Obama. Frustrated and angry, they have taken their toys and gone home to play golf, work in their garden or take up basket weaving.
Paul, in the Bible said, “When I was a child, I spake and acted like a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” (I Corinthians 13:11)
Brother and sister patriots, America can not afford the luxury of us behaving like frustrated, angry and stubborn children. If we do not continue fighting, Obama and company will usurp every freedom we have been granted to us by God, our Founding Fathers and fought for by our military.
I have been reading Proverbs lately which speaks a lot about “diligence.” Victory and prosperity are the fruits of diligence. We must stay diligent in our efforts to stop Obama, no matter how hopeless or fruitless our opposition may appear.
No, the Tea Party is NOT done. We must stand even more closely united, stand up for our own and boldly speak truth to power.
Quite frankly patriots, there “ain’t” no body else but us. Go with God!
Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee
Al Jazeera Still Promoting “Gun Violence” and Terrorism
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
A major Islamist terrorist threat has emerged in Africa, and Al Jazeera is right in the middle of it, as usual. President Obama is largely AWOL, so the left-wing, socialist president of France has taken the lead and is committing military forces to stopping the threat.
Playing a familiar role, Al Jazeera has been airing sympathetic coverage about the Muslim terrorists and running “exclusive” interviews with terrorist leaders from Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), whose symbol is an AK-47 rifle and a black flag rising from the globe.
President Obama on Wednesday held a news conference about “gun violence” in the U.S. but has been slow to do anything about the violence and terrorism that threatens Africa.
The latest development is that the Obama Administration will support counterterror operations by the French forces in the West African country. But no U.S. troops are being committed. The U.S. can’t or won’t do more because of massive U.S. defense cuts engineered by Obama.
In a statement, Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the main Islamist group, AQIM, and its offshoots “have been conducting regular kidnappings for years—financing much of its operations through ransoms, earning millions.” He said, “The network has planted deep roots in Europe. In recent years, cells have been broken up by authorities in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. In Mali, its brethren are imposing the strictest interpretation of Islamic law—banning music and chopping off limbs.”
AQIM has intensified their terrorist attacks against a weak Mali government and just seized about 40 foreign hostages, including several Americans, at a gas field in Algeria. The Algerian government has mounted a raid to free them.
But Al Jazeera has run an article on their “gentle” side and how they are meeting the needs of the population. The Al Jazeera story, headlined, “Mali: The ‘gentle’ face of al-Qaeda,” was picked up by The Huffington Post, the most-read online news site in the world.
In the channel’s “exclusive report from inside northern Mali,” Al Jazeera English reporter May Ying Welsh said the terrorists “are playing the role of humanitarians” by providing food to local people.
While the word “gentle” is in quotes, as if it comes from some objective observer, the story is sympathetic to the terrorists and critical of the “foreign intervention” that is needed to stop them.
One of the photos is captioned, “The Mujahideen distribute charity in hospitals and slums.”
Another is captioned, “Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb calls for preserving the territorial integrity of Mali.”
Andrew Bostom, author of Sharia versus Freedom—The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism, notes Al-Jazeera’s “continued grotesque supportive propaganda regarding Al-Qaeda” by citing that “puff piece” for the Mali terrorists. It is part of a pattern by this “terror TV” channel that goes back to the days of Osama bin Laden and his “exclusive” interviews with the channel’s correspondents, one of whom, Tayseer Alouni, turned out to be an al Qaeda operative.
Rather than being gentle humanitarians, Bostom calls the al Qaeda members “butchers and thugs,” a more accurate description.
In the Mali case, once again, we find the channel has obtained an “exclusive” interview with a Jihadist terrorist leader. This video, incidentally, was provided by Al Jazeera English, supposedly the more moderate of the channels being funded by the pro-Jihadist regime in Qatar. Another video which aired on the Arabic version of Al Jazeera included “exclusive” interviews of some of the Western hostages held by the terrorist group.
In the U.S, as noted by the “Huff Watch” website, The Huffington Post picked up the story about the “gentle” side of al Qaeda. The Huff Watch website has called The Huffington Post “America’s Al Jazeera.”
The media watchdog asks, “What kind of sick maniac would actually suggest that Al Qaeda has a ‘gentle face’? Answer: (1) The senior editors at HuffPost, who sourced the story from (2) Al Qaeda’s favorite ‘news’ service, Al Jazeera.”
Huff Watch says The Huffington Post also hired a former producer for Al Jazeera “to whip up hatred against Israel, and act as a shill for Iran and Hamas.”
While this may sound harsh, Dovid Efune, the editor of the Algemeiner Newspaper and director of the Gershon Jacobson Foundation, says that he had his own “surprising” experience with the site during an appearance on Huffington Post Live (HuffPost Live), their new online streaming TV station that features the former Al Jazeera producer Ahmed Shihab-Eldin as a host.
Efune’s article, “People like Ahmed Shihab-Eldin are Destroying Huffington Post Live,” says Shihab-Eldin argued that Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism which has threatened the destruction of Israel, was actually being threatened by Israel, and “let’s try and put ourselves in their [Iranian] shoes.” Efune commented, “How the Huffington Post gets away with placing someone who vocally campaigns for this morally corrupt position in a role of senior responsibility, is simply beyond me.”
But there’s more. Shihab-Eldin is also an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Columbia Journalism School. Equally shocking, Al Jazeera English received Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism highest honor, the Columbia Journalism Award, in 2011. “Al Jazeera English has performed a great service in bringing the English speaking world in-depth coverage of the turmoil in the Middle East,” said Dean Nicholas Lemann.
The “gentle” terrorists creating that turmoil must be laughing all the way to the bank while thanking Allah for Al Jazeera.
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].
Obamaphone Lady to Alex Jones: Obama Lied
By: Arlen Williams
Personally, I’ll get to Obama’s Fabianist assault on freedom through gun control (and what we Americans are mandated by our founders to actually do, via militias) in a bit. There are so many nasty things going on… let us “shine up,” when there is cause to celebrate a victory!
Alex Jones has found the Obamaphone Lady and the Obamaphone Lady has found out about Barack Obama — and the treacherously top-down controlled two-party system, to boot! In fact, she can educate us on what she’s found of the tw0-sidedness of that debauched coin. (She had already found Jesus and vice versa as she says, which calls for eternal partying.)
Listen to Obamaphone Lady and learn and love, America and below I’ll enter a few more comments stemming from this conversation between Michelle Dowery, her husband Harvey Phillips, and the always loose if not canonic Alex Jones.
Video, “Obama Phone Lady: Obama Lied“
There are times I wish Alex would have piped down and let Michelle say what was on the tip of her tongue. Further criticism of Mr. Jones has occurred in Gulag Bound (tagged, below our article) but for this, he deserves a medal. Again, I don’t ascribe to every opinion of his, nor Michelle’s, nor yours, but his work, in my humble opining including his lambasting of global-collectivist, pied piper propagandist Piers Morgan, is overall very helpful, often cutting edge, is it not?
We featured Ms. Dowery’s Obamaphone riff along with an incisive interview of Aldon Morris, “Black scholar: African Americans worse off under Obama,” back in September — now seemingly a half-life ago, politically — and I continue to suggest Morris’ examination of what Michelle herself now confirms. She gets to tell some of her story throughout the interview and only at the 32 minute mark, gets squarely to the Obamaphone.
Two more notes:
- love Michelle’s “Happy Meals” analogy — it is a parable in itself — it comes fairly early on
- my favorite Alex Jones quote now appears, “This stuff is so crazy, I say it and feel like a liar.”
And again I face the dilemma of whether to spend an hour excerpting and commenting or allow you to spend 38 minutes, 22 seconds to witness, less distracted, yourself, and with an interest in your liberty, mine, and my dear Obamaphoneholder’s, I choose the latter.
Huh, I haven’t even said I truly agree with Jones about the kleptocracy of the central banking system being at the core (if not the utter core) of the soft war waged against America’s sovereign People.
HT: CJ in TX, @tellthetruth1
The Patriot Post: The Assault Weapons Ban: Fact v Fiction
Sensible Gun Control Policy?
The Assault Weapons Ban: Fact v Fiction
By Mark Alexander
January 17, 2013
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” –John Adams (1770)
(Publisher’s Note: If you are not a gun owner, you may be among millions of Americans who feel threatened by the unlawful possession and use of firearms. If so, you may also approve of the latest effort to enact “sensible gun control policy.” I invite you to objectively consider this commentary, which is based on facts, including the latest information from the FBI and other aggregators of criminal data. It is not based on political agendas seeking to take advantage of the genuine emotional response all Americans feel when innocent men, women and children are murdered.)
In December, there was a horrible attack in an elementary school, committed by a mentally ill(1) young man. He illegally obtained a rifle and a number of pistols, and used them to kill six adults and 20 children.
As a parent, I was deeply affected by this loss of life, especially the faces of the children killed in that school. I am always moved by the death of innocents, particularly children.
In the wake of that tragedy, some politicians did what they do best — build a political platform(2) on the caskets of children in order to seize and sequester the emotional response of millions of Americans to advance a political agenda. In this case, they concealed that agenda in emotive wrapping paper, and sealed it with a lot of rhetorical demagoguery, hoping that enough people would remain too immersed in their emotional state to discern the real political agenda.
In a press conference Wednesday(3), Barack Obama made a broad emotional appeal “for the children”: “Protecting our children from harm shouldn’t be divisive. … I asked Joe [Biden] to lead an effort along with members of my cabinet to come up with some concrete steps we can take right now to keep our children safe. … This is our first task as a society — keeping our children safe. If there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life we can save, we have an obligation to try it. … I think about how, when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now.”
In other words, to counter the fact that his gun control agenda will, in reality, do nothing to “protect the children,” he has now lowered expectations to maybe “one life we can save,” and he insists Congress “must act now” before reason overtakes emotion.
Obama went on to say, “If Americans of every background stand up and say ‘enough, we’ve suffered too much pain and care too much about our children to allow this to continue,’ then change will come.”
Well, who could disagree with keeping children safe? But is that really the reason Obama is calling for the most restrictive gun control in the history of our Republic?
(Note: Regarding the use of children as “political pawns,” White House spokesman Jay Carney criticized the NRA for referencing the protection of children in a Web ad. Carney protested, “Children should not be used as pawns in a political fight.” This briefing was an hour after Obama surrounded himself with children as pawns in a political fight.)
I don’t doubt that Obama, like most parents, wants to keep his children safe. In fact he surrounds his children with dozens of guns to keep them safe everywhere they go. But there is also no doubt that his agenda to restrict the ownership of guns has nothing, in fact, to do with the safety of other children — or anyone of any age.
There are a few proposals under consideration by Congress, in conjunction with Obama’s ban on defensive weapons, that should be enacted. For example, I support a background check for all gun purchases, not just those from gun dealers. And we should have a more comprehensive approach to identifying and treating those with severe mental health problems — though not likely under ObamaCare.
(I note that these measures would do little or nothing to stop unlawful gun purchases for unlawful purposes, other than make it more difficult for unqualified purchasers to acquire a weapon.)
But the centerpiece of Obama’s gun control agenda is a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” I note “so-called” because this legislation is more accurately described as a “defensive weapons” ban since such arms are purchased, first and foremost, for defense and not assault. Some liberal states and municipalities, in fact, are mounting their own assaults on these weapons.
So, why all the political focus on “assault weapons”?
Because these weapons have been used in many murders, and crimes involving them have increased dramatically in the last 20 years, when gun control advocates coined the term “assault weapon,” right?
Wrong. According to the FBI’s most recent Uniform Crime Report(4), a summary of all serious crimes committed each year, in 1992 violent crime incidence was 752 per 100,000 people and 9.3 murders per 100,000.
In 2011, the violent crime rate had dropped to 386 per 100,000 and the murder rate to 4.7 per 100,000 — nearly a 50 percent decline in both. This precipitous drop occurred at a time when the number of firearms increased dramatically — including the sale of more than six million “assault weapons.”
So, why all the political focus on “assault weapons”?
The 2011 FBI data shows that there were 323 murders committed with rifles of any kind. However, guns defined as “assault weapons” by the federal government were used in less than 0.5% (one-half of one percent) of all murders with guns in 2011.
By comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives. Notably, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that drunk drivers are responsible for nearly 10,000 deaths each year in the U.S. — far more than the number of deaths involving guns of any kind in 2011. (Should there be federal background checks every time someone orders a beer or glass of Chardonnay?)
Additionally, according to the demographic and geographic profile of most violent crimes, the vast majority of perpetrators who murder with guns are associated with gangs and/or drug cartels(5), which thrive on urban welfare plantations(6). (The violent culture spawned on those plantations is, of course, the direct result of social and cultural degradation institutionalized by socialist Democrat(7) welfare state policies.
Obama and Biden mentioned “gun violence” six times in their Wednesday remarks, emphasizing that somehow “guns” are the problem, and not the culture producing sociopathic gang-bangers who use guns and other weapons to kill.
In fact, there were more than 500 murders in Obama’s hometown of Chicago last year — a city with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Most of those murders were tied to gangs and drugs(8).
So, why all the political focus on “assault weapons”?
Well, isn’t the Second Amendment(9) about protecting the right of “hunters and sportsmen” to own guns? As Obama said, “I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen.”
You know, of course, that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunters and sportsmen, regardless of whether Obama repeatedly frames it that way.
This most significant of all constitutional prohibitions on government clearly and concisely states, “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.”
In the parlance of our Founders, “militia” meant the whole body of the people, as noted by Richard Lee in 1787: “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves … and include … all men capable of bearing arms.”
And, “being necessary to the security of a free State” meant that the right of the people to bear arms was, and remains, the ultimate barrier to government tyranny.
In the words of our Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” (Federalist No. 46)
So, why all the political focus on “assault weapons”?
Maybe there’s a clue in the assessment of Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s first “Assault Weapons Ban.”
When Feinstein’s first AWB passed in 1994 under the previous Democrat president, Bill Clinton, the Washington Post candidly opined: “No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
When the Feinstein ban expired in 2004, a Department of Justice study(10) noted, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”
Now Feinstein is leading Obama’s legislative charge for “a stepping stone to broader gun control” with the effort to renew the ban(11) on defensive weapons.
So, when Obama claims his intention is not “a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty,” should you believe him?
Really, do you believe him?
There are now more than 60 million armed Patriots(12) across our nation. Those who own the defensive weapons targeted by Obama and his NeoCom cadres(13) do so not first and foremost for “hunting and sport shooting,” though these weapons can certainly be used for those purposes. We acquire defensive weapons like the much-maligned AR-15, ultimately, to defend ourselves, our Constitution and the Rule of Law(14) it enshrines.
Obama is devoting all his political focus on “assault weapons” in order to undermine the Second Amendment empowerment of today’s “Patriot Militia,” much as the British attempted to do in 1775 when they marched on Lexington and Concord to seize militia weapons. As you recall, that intrusion led to the “shot heard ’round the world,” the first shots of the Revolutionary War, which gave rise to our great nation.
Obama’s effort to launch his “assault weapons ban” is, as the Washington Post surmised in 1994, “a stepping stone to broader gun control.” Disarm the people and you can undermine the vigor of their readiness to defend our Constitution. It is those armed Patriots who stand between the whole body of the American people and Obama’s stated goal of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America(15).”
So, what constitutes “sensible gun control policy” when by every objective account, more guns result in less crime?
If Obama, et al., really want to reduce our “national epidemic of violence,” they should focus on reforming the government policies that created the socialist urban plantations where most violence occurs.
The proposed “assault weapons ban” and other efforts to restrict, register and ultimately confiscate lawfully acquired guns used for lawful purposes is both an affront to our individual human right of self defense and our corporate responsibility to defend our Constitution. (Ask New Orleans registered gun owners about the consequences of gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens in the chaos after Hurricane Katrina.)
It is for that reason I have pledged(16): In keeping with the oath I have taken in the service of my country, I will “support and defend” Liberty as “endowed by our Creator” and enshrined in our Constitution, “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Accordingly, I will NOT comply with any defensive weapons ban instituted by executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates the innate human right to defend self and Liberty, as empowered by “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”
If you don’t yet understand the consequences of statist gun control agendas, let me offer you 100 million additional reasons to reject socialist political agendas, particularly gun control mandates — reasons that are buried, mostly in mass graves, around the world. During the 20th century, tyrannical socialist governments in Germany, Russia, China, Korea and other nations murdered more than 100 million of their own people. But first, before committing their systematic slaughter, these regimes disarmed their citizenry.
If you are not a gun owner, that’s OK. But I suggest you thank every gun owner you know, because in states with few gun restrictions, violent offenders can’t tell which homes have armed occupants and which don’t. And incarcerated offenders report that the number-one factor in choosing a victim is the ability of the victim to defend themselves.
Deciding whether to be a gun owner(17) is a personal decision, but, gun owner or not, you most assuredly should affirm your support for our Second Amendment(18).
(Footnote: Regarding the media comparisons between the U.S. and nations like Great Britain, which has already confiscated weapons, clearly, there are few murders with guns in those nations. However, the incidence of violent crime in the UK(19) is almost twice the per capita rate of the U.S., and it affects a much broader demographic swath of citizens. And speaking of British disarmament, I’m reminded of this observation from a man whose name is synonymous with pacifism. In his autobiography, Mohandas Gandhi protested, “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”)
Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis
Publisher, The Patriot Post