Has there ever been a time in American History where we have seen a sitting President use Fear Mongering, Lies and Hate Speech in 99.9% of their Talking Points?
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
The Second Amendment — it’s not just words on parchment. It’s not a frivolous suggestion from our Founding Fathers to be interpreted on a whim. It lies on the very heart of what our country was founded upon. Our Founding Fathers knew that without the Second Amendment, all of our other freedoms could be in jeopardy.
Our Freedoms are the very Essence of America
They are what make America unique
Mr. President, we are Americans and we will never surrender to your blatant over reach of power against US. We have fought on foreign shores to preserve our Freedoms and Way of Life and we will fight right here on our own lands to protect and defend those same Freedoms.
President Obama called Wednesday for a new and tougher assault-weapons ban and a 10-round limit on magazines, as part of a comprehensive plan to curb gun violence that includes 23 steps he would take without congressional action.
Already facing stiff opposition from gun-rights advocates and Republican lawmakers, the president called on Congress to pass several major changes to the country’s current gun laws — some of which are already being considered like the restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Obama called as well for legislation to bar the possession and importation of armor-piercing bullets and to require criminal background checks for nearly all gun sales.
Despite discussions earlier about addressing the pervasive violence in the entertainment and video game industries, the president’s plan does not appear to address those issues. The plan, though, does call for a range of measures to improve access to mental health services and improve safety at America’s schools.
The president’s intent to use executive action has stirred objections from lawmakers who have warned Obama not to overstep his bounds.
Unilaterally, Obama plans to make federal agencies share information with the federal background check system; nominate a new ATF director; propose new rules to let law enforcement run full background checks before returning a seized gun; order the Centers for Disease Control to research causes of gun violence; require law enforcement to trace guns from criminal investigations; and take other steps.
The most controversial elements of the president’s plan, though, continue to be the proposals he wants Congress to pass.
The call for universal background checks would extend to gun shows and private sales, with “limited” exemptions for “certain transfers” among family members and other situations. The administration plans to give private sellers guidance on how to run background checks as soon as possible.
Plus the president wants to commit $4 billion to hiring more police officers, and to pass new gun trafficking laws to explicitly prohibit straw purchasing.
The comprehensive plan comes in the wake of the Connecticut school massacre, in which 20 children and six adults were killed. Obama discussed his recommendations joined by children who wrote to the White House about the issue of gun violence following the tragedy.
Gun-rights groups, though, say the effort to impose more gun control measures is misguided, noting in particular that most killings in America are committed with handguns and not the assault weapons the administration intends to target. Some local officials have vowed to resist federal action.
The National Rifle Association also plans to launch a major ad campaign. The group’s first ad called Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for his daughters’ security detail. Obama has been critical of the NRA’s plan to install armed security in every school.
The White House plan does address school security, urging Congress to help schools complete emergency plans; proposing an initiative to help schools hire up to 1,000 resource officers and mental health professionals; and proposing new training for teachers to recognize mental health issues among young people. Obama also plans to beef up mental health coverage via executive action.
The past couple of years have been alright for famed gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson but 2012 has been exceptionally kind.
“Gross profit for the first quarter was $51.3 million, or 37.7% of net sales, compared with gross profit of $26.5 million, or 28.9% of net sales, for the comparable quarter last year [emphasis added],” the company said in its press release.
And it doesn’t end there.
“The company earned 27 cents vs. expectations of 18 cents,” Business Insider’sJoe Weisenthal writes. “Revenue was $136 million vs. estimates of just over $128.7 million.”
The company also expects earnings of 19 to 21 cents in the next quarter, which, as Weisenthal notes, is way above earlier estimates of 13 cents.
But let’s try to visualize this information:
“When the final bubble does pop (and here we make the wild assumption that no intelligent extraterrestrial life will be found to bail out the central banks in time), at least everyone will be locked and loaded,” Zero Hedge notes.
Here are some key takeaways from the company’s most recent investor presentation [via Zero Hedge]:
Record-level quarterly sales growth from continuing ops of $136.0M, +48.3% Y/Y
Record-level quarterly income from continuing ops of $18.9M, or $0.28 per diluted share
Raised Full Year Fiscal 2013 Financial Guidance
Exceeded high end of upwardly revised sales guidance
Backlog of $392.4M versus $148.8 one year ago
Simply put, and as the above chart clearly demonstrates, demand for the company’s products has grown exponentially over the past two years and it doesn’t look like it will slow down any time soon.
“Smith & Wesson rose $1.07, or 12 percent, to $10.07 on surging gun sales and a raised profit forecast,” the Associated Press reported Friday. “The gun company said it expects earnings for the quarter ending October to climb to as much as twice what analysts had expected.”
During the hearing March 8th of this year Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.
Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”
The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.
“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
Panetta’s assertion that he would seek “international permission” before ‘informing’ Congress about the actions of the US military provoked a firestorm of controversy, prompting the Pentagon to engage in damage control by claiming Panetta’s comments were misinterpreted.
“He was re-emphasizing the need for an international mandate. We are not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body,”a defense official told CNN.
However, this is not the first time that the authority of international bodies has been framed as being superior to the US Congress and the Constitution.
Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”
Panetta’s testimony that the US looks to obtain “international permission” before it acts, allied with Obama citing the UN as the supreme authority while trashing the power of Congress, prove that the United States has ceded control over its own affairs to unelected international bureaucrats, just as the countries of the European Union have done likewise.
Chairman Hillary Clinton at United Nations on Gun Control
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox attended a meeting at United Nations headquarters in July to send a simple, unequivocal message to the international bureaucrats who want to eliminate your Right to Keep and Bear Arms: An international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that in any way, shape or form affects the constitutional rights of American gun owners is completely unacceptable.
In his address to conference participants from around the world, LaPierre made it clear that NRA will accept no compromise on this critical issue.
“The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution,” he said. “Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth and self-destiny. We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community.”
In 2009, at the behest of the Obama administration, the United States joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Resolution. The resolution establishes an international conference to be held next year, at which leaders from countries around the world—many of which have deplorable human rights records—will draw up an international treaty designed to severely restrict or even outright ban your right to sell, purchase, carry or own a firearm.
In reversing President George W. Bush’s opposition to U.N. mandated global gun control, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared, “The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standard. …”
NRA has alerted American gun owners to be on guard against this ticking time bomb for years. NRA-ILA was the first group to be officially recognized by the U.N. as a “non-governmental organization” determined to protect the freedoms of American gun owners, hunters and shooters. The threat to those freedoms posed by an international Arms Trade Treaty has gained steam under the current administration.
President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the U.N. claim that the only purpose of the ATT is to fight terrorism and international crime syndicates. Americans should not be fooled.
In speaking out for the nation’s gun owners, LaPierre warned that, “Those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them. … but they’ve proven to be unworthy of that trust.”
Dissecting the U.N. blueprint, LaPierre concluded that:
• “We are told, ‘Trust us, an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms. ’But then we’re told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade;
• “We are told, ‘Trust us, an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.’ Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping and firearm tracking from production to eventual destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name;
• “We are told, ‘Trust us, an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms.’ But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.”
LaPierre demanded that proposals affecting civilian firearm ownership that are woven throughout the ATT must be completely removed from the scope of any international agreement, saying, “On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedoms.”
There can be no question that what is taking shape at the U.N. is an all-out attack on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners. U.N. bureaucrats have focused intensely on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers regarding firearms and ammunition. Nowhere are there provisions about respecting citizens’ rights of self-defense, privacy, property, due process or observing personal freedoms of any kind.
International gun-ban activists have demanded ATT provisions that would force America to license firearm owners, severely restrict all firearm purchases, destroy firearms deemed “unauthorized,” ban commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and join an international gun registry.
While a treaty can’t override the Second Amendment, it can become the law of the land either directly—equal to any law passed by Congress—or through implementing legislation. Even if a treaty isn’t ratified by a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate, it never dies, and can still affect your rights. The U.S. Senate could take a signed treaty off the shelf and vote to ratify it 10, 20 or 50 years from now—as we know from experience. Just two years ago, NRA fought a push to consider a 1997 Organization of American States (OAS) gun control treaty in the Senate. Although the U.S. never ratified that treaty, the Clinton administration used it as an excuse to restrict exports of gun parts and accessories to Canada.
In a 2010 speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Hillary Clinton’s Under Secretary for Arms Control told the audience: “We will work between now and the U.N. Conference in 2012 to negotiate a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty, and we’ll need your help in achieving it. We have made that a fundamental policy commitment.”
So you can bet that if President Obama wins a second term he’ll move full-speed ahead for Senate ratification and implementation of the ATT’s mandates.
Obama and Clinton have spent their entire careers demonizing American gun owners and doing everything in their power to make firearm ownership more expensive, more difficult and, in many cases, illegal. Now they want to unleash the U.N. gun-ban axis on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
It’s time for all Americans to sound the alarm on this treacherous assault on U.S. sovereignty and join the NRA in this all-out fight to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.
The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator and due to all humankind.
In all of this, as the full measure of the Obama administration’s sell-out of our nation unfolds, NRA members must stand united to prevent and reverse the damage the administration’s “change” is inflicting on American freedom and our sovereignty.
To read the full text of Wayne’s speech before the U.N. and get the latest news on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, go to: www.nraila.org/unArmsTradeTreaty.
We Will Hunt ‘Pink A**es’ Down, ‘Kill ’Em, Dig ‘Em Up & Kill ‘Em Again & Again & Again!’
“That’s our brother, brother General Taco!” the New Black Panther radio host announced.
General T.A.C.O. (Taking All Capitalists Out) of the New Black Panther Party had some less than encouraging words for white people this week. Mr. Taco, speaking on NBPP Radio on Sunday, decided to let white America know that the NBPP will “hunt” their “pink asses down.” Hunting white people down will serve to accomplish General Taco’s other stated goal of “destroying white supremacy and capitalism.”
Gen. Taco also justifies his killing of white people because of their “history” of pushing “crack, AIDS and unemployment“ on black men and women in order to ”exterminate” them.
But simply hunting and killing the white person does not satisfy Mr. Taco:
“Once [white people] die, we should dig ‘em up, and kill ‘em again, bury ‘em, dig ‘em up, and kill ‘em again, and again, and again!”
The must-hear audio on the Link below [content warning for language]
A federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled last week that a number of President Obama’s political appointees within the U.S. Department of Justice did in fact interfere with the prosecution of two New Black Panther party members who were videotaped holding a night stick and intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia voting station back in 2008.
Thus far, both Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department have denied the involvement of political leadership in the case, something that is now being called into question.
The conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch previously sued the DOJ in federal court regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pertaining to information surrounding the New Black Panthers case. As a result of the lawsuit, the group was able to obtain a number of withheld documents and are now suing the DOJ for attorney’s fees, the Washington Examiner reports. More importantly, as a result of their motion, a federal judge ruled against the DOJ.
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court JudgeReggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
“The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.”
…
“In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.”
“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”
Following a brief investigation into the 2008 New Black Panthers Case, the Department of Justice filed charges. However, the Panthers didn’t respond and a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the defendants.
Enter Obama.
Shortly after he became president, the DOJ quickly backpedaled and the charges against three of the New Black Panther party members were dropped and a fourth was let off with a restraining order.
Watch the video of the New Black Panther party members holding a billy club and intimidating voters outside Philadelphia polling station here:
What is it with these Democrats? Walking out on a Congressional Vote because of Politics Race?
If Eric Holder were White they would have stayed and Voted him in Contempt of Congress
What ever happened to their Oath of Office not to mention where is the ethics they were elected to uphold?
The Plain and Simple Fact is they walked out because Eric Holder is Black
These Elected Officials have violated their Oath of Office and need to be doing the job they were elected to do.
Just having a Congressional Black Caucus is Racist in and of itself. Could you imagine what would happen if a proposal was made to have a Congressional “White” Caucus?
We Will Hunt ‘Pink A**es’ Down, ‘Kill ’Em, Dig ‘Em Up & Kill ‘Em Again & Again & Again!’
“That’s our brother, brother General Taco!” the New Black Panther radio host announced.
General T.A.C.O. (Taking All Capitalists Out) of the New Black Panther Party had some less than encouraging words for white people this week. Mr. Taco, speaking on NBPP Radio on Sunday, decided to let white America know that the NBPP will “hunt” their “pink asses down.” Hunting white people down will serve to accomplish General Taco’s other stated goal of “destroying white supremacy and capitalism.”
Gen. Taco also justifies his killing of white people because of their “history” of pushing “crack, AIDS and unemployment“ on black men and women in order to ”exterminate” them.
But simply hunting and killing the white person does not satisfy Mr. Taco:
“Once [white people] die, we should dig ‘em up, and kill ‘em again, bury ‘em, dig ‘em up, and kill ‘em again, and again, and again!”
The must-hear audio on the Link below [content warning for language]
A federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled last week that a number of President Obama’s political appointees within the U.S. Department of Justice did in fact interfere with the prosecution of two New Black Panther party members who were videotaped holding a night stick and intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia voting station back in 2008.
Thus far, both Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department have denied the involvement of political leadership in the case, something that is now being called into question.
The conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch previously sued the DOJ in federal court regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pertaining to information surrounding the New Black Panthers case. As a result of the lawsuit, the group was able to obtain a number of withheld documents and are now suing the DOJ for attorney’s fees, the Washington Examiner reports. More importantly, as a result of their motion, a federal judge ruled against the DOJ.
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
“The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.”
…
“In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.”
“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”
Following a brief investigation into the 2008 New Black Panthers Case, the Department of Justice filed charges. However, the Panthers didn’t respond and a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the defendants.
Enter Obama.
Shortly after he became president, the DOJ quickly backpedaled and the charges against three of the New Black Panther party members were dropped and a fourth was let off with a restraining order.
Watch the video of the New Black Panther party members holding a billy club and intimidating voters outside Philadelphia polling station here:
President Obama’s decision to assert executive privilege over Operation Fast and Furious documents not only failed to delay contempt proceedings against Attorney General Eric Holder — it raised a whole new line of constitutional questions and challenges about the power of the presidency.
Republicans already are seeking more than 70,000 additional documents to answer their existing questions on Fast and Furious. The executive privilege claim opened up a new avenue of probing.
The immediate question was whether the documents contained information so damaging that the president was willing to risk the bad PR by moving to lock them down. GOP lawmakers also questioned whether Obama’s assertion was legitimate, later voting in committee that it was not appropriate in this case. And Republicans repeatedly suggested that the White House had tipped its hand, and acknowledged being involved in Fast and Furious discussions by asserting privilege over the documents in question.
“He’s either part of it or he’s not,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, a feisty Republican lawmaker from South Carolina, challenged during Wednesday’s committee meeting on Holder. “If (Obama’s) part of it, then we’ve had a series of witnesses that have misled this committee. And if he’s not part of it, then he’s got no business asserting executive privilege.”
House Speaker John Boehner‘s spokesman also said the move “implies” the White House was involved in the operation itself or the coverup.
Following up, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to Obama Wednesday asking for a “more precise description” of the executive privilege claim. He asked whether Obama was extending the claim to documents pertaining to “communications with you,” or to Justice Department communications separate from the White House.
The White House and Justice Department, though, downplayed the potential implications of the executive privilege claim.
Justice Department officials noted that the assertion does not have to pertain to communications involving the president or White House staff. Any “deliberative communications” among officials in the Executive Branch, they said, could be covered.
In other words, they argued that just because Obama is locking down the documents doesn’t mean he had anything to do with the Fast and Furious discussions.
Executive privilege has been invoked 24 times since the presidency of Ronald Reagan. This was Obama’s first time asserting it.
Republican lawmakers, who so far have been given 7,600 documents, are looking specifically for information from February 2011 and beyond that follow a Justice Department letter which erroneously claimed the department did not allow guns to “walk” across the Mexico border.
The department later retracted that claim.
After the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted Wednesday to hold Holder in contempt of Congress, committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., told Fox News there’s still time to avert a floor vote on the contempt resolution. Republicans could abandon the vote if they receive documents which they feel satisfy the subpoena.
Holder is not considered held in contempt unless and until the full House votes.
Both the White House and Justice Department slammed the committee vote Wednesday as political.
Holder, in Denmark, reportedly called the move “unwarranted, unnecessary and unprecedented.”
Shock Video: Obama Admits He Can’t Do What He Did Today
It‘s very rare that you see President Obama admit wrongdoing after he’s done something. Unfortunately, it’s much more common for him to say something is a bad idea and then do it. Listing the number of instances would take too long, but it‘s safe to say it’s a common trend.
And now there’s just one more example. In the following clip, taken from a 2011 Univision Town Hall, President Obama admits that it’s beyond his power to suspend deportations for anyone because (surprise, surprise) there are laws on the books that he’d be breaking by doing that. In other words, the President acknowledges that to do what he did today would be a rank violation of the separation of powers. Watch below:
Couldn’t have put it better ourselves, Mr. President
