Not Ready for Prime News Coverage? Gosnell’s Drug and Death Center

Obama’s beloved policy, abortion on demand, is getting some (but amazingly little up to now) bad press in the wake of the trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, which a substantial percentage of Americans haven’t even yet heard of. If Dr. Gosnell’s lawyer is to be believed, Gosnell operated only a typical neighborhood clinic, and if you walk into an abortion clinic, abortion being the messy business that it is, you should expect to see blood on the walls, urine, etc. on the floor, fetal remains in the fridge, bodies of babies killed by “snipping” their spinal cords, and jars of severed fetal body parts in jars, not to mention heavily drugged women, many bleeding, some possibly dying. Gosnell’s alleged practice of using dirty instruments from one woman to the next, without cleaning, then, would seem to be a typical abortion-clinic matter. Gosnell claims that the prosecutors are trying to hold his clinic to a Mayo Clinic standard, when it is merely a neighborhood clinic. Of course, that’s because the prosecutors are, in his view, elitist and racist.

Here's one report by a Fox News affiliate (with added comments by the uploader of the video):

 

 

The charges and history of Gosnell’s gruesome but profitable butcher shop was surveyed in Fox News Channel's documentary “See No Evil,” hosted by Bret Baier, which details accounts of murders of viable babies by severing of their spinal cords, babies which exhibited the normal signs of being born alive, according to former Gosnell staffers. Some of those Gosnell employees pleaded guilty to murder and other charges. Based on Fox’s presentation and the Grand Jury report, it would appear that everything connected with the Gosnell establishment was tainted by murder, illegal abortions, illegal drug trafficking, filth, and generally, a horror show of blood.

If the Grand Jury report is to be believed, Gosnell is the worst mass killer or serial killer in American history. But he claims he is not guilty of anything illegal, just maybe a mistake here and there. It appears that in later times, Gosnell specialized in illegal late-term abortions (anesthesia optional at extra cost), which allegedly sometimes ended up in the murder of viable babies after their birth, and sometimes infection and death of the mother due to ill treatment in unsanitary conditions by unqualified staff members.

Not as bad as the crimes Gosnell is charged with, but, I believe, highly offensive and worthy of serious attention, are (1) the fact that Pennsylvania state authorities completely failed to investigate the clinic for decades, apparently due to political reasons, despite numerous complaints and lots of word-of-mouth evidence, patient deaths, etc., and (2) the mainstream media’s ridiculous lack of coverage, which, Fox reports, a poll found that people believe is mainly due to media bias. But of course, we don’t have media bias, right? It’s beyond bias, to the point of willful manipulation. What we have is a lapdog media that instead of “speaking truth to power,” instead distorts, neglects, and hides the truth on behalf of the powerful. Any way you look at it, it’s disgraceful. Of the major national news media outlets, it looks like only Fox News was willing to give the story anything like the coverage it warranted (see video below).

   

Like it or not, this episode is a serious test of America’s character, and highlights the political manipulation of law enforcement and media reporting. And it is a condemning indictment of public apathy and acquiescence to the unconscionable reality of the money-hungry, decency-be-damned death culture of the abortion industry. Gosnell’s shop is simply one of the most horrifying examples.

The American Royals’ Lavish Lifestyle

As Mel Brooks says in one of his movies, “It’s good to be the king!”

His Royal Majesty Barack Obama for all his “concern” for the poor and demonization of the rich believes himself entitled to every privilege of royalty. Even though he himself is rich, it is pointed out that even he couldn’t afford the luxuries he enjoys. But with the help of the American taxpayers and the printing press, he can. Michele Bachmann (interviewed at CPAC) summarizes his extravagance:

I’m not sure every statement is 100 per cent mathematically accurate, but it illustrates quite correctly the level of personal service the Obamas feel they should, and routinely do, receive, including frequent and very expensive vacations.

Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden has enjoyed some similar luxuries, his hotel tabs for one night each in London and Paris in February, for himself and a very substantial entourage, totaling over a million dollars.

As reported by the Daily Mail U.K., (citing prices reported by The Weekly Standard)

Paris may be known as the City of Light, but that title certainly doesn’t mean that visitors are light on spending as Vice President Joe Biden’s one day trip cost taxpayers more than half a million dollars.

When Mr Biden and his hefty entourage stayed in Paris for an evening in early February and it cost $585,000.50 for that single night.

The Vice President likely rented out more than 100 rooms in the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand, though they must not have gotten a group discount rate.…

For some reason, the pound must be at a better level than the euro as his hotel bill for one night at the Hyatt Regency in London was only $459,388.65, more than $100,000 less than his night in Paris.

The article reports that the VP and his group used 136 rooms in London and a similar number in Paris. (See photos at the Mail website). Five-star accommodations, of course.

Seems he narrowly beat the sequester, or might have needed to cut this expense by 10 per cent!

[Biden story via Liberty Crier]

 Photo: President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden look toward the guests in the First Lady's box at the State of the Union address in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., Feb. 12, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza). (No. 14 in gallery).

Related articles

• Pitching in
• Cost Of One Night In Paris ? $907,000 If You Are Joe Biden

It’s Too Late; Now We’re Past the Point of No Return, Mark Steyn Says. Problem Is, He May Be Right.

The ongoing saga of ridiculous panic responses to “gun-shaped” things in kindergartens and elementary schools is very ably targeted by Mark Steyn, a commentator of high caliber, on the Rush Limbaugh Show:

I saw this YouTube item on the Daley Gator blog, where it was posted on March 11.

Some further analysis of what the episode of the pop-tart bitten into a gun-like shape signifies can be found here. Jon Rappoport has some interesting insights on how this is more important than it may appear. The article is well worth reading.

People must wake up, or we soon could become a society gone and forgotten.  

You try to be optimistic …

Related articles

• Pretend Finger and Pop-Tart Gun Bill... And Do Not Forget Those Scary Army Man Cupcakes!
• MARK STEYN: ACHIEVE YE THIS GOAL: 'I'm also issuing a new goal for America," declared Pres...

Rand Paul and His GOP Critics: Who Are the Real “Wacko Birds”?

Senator Rand Paul (official portrait)

Rand Paul’s heroic filibuster against the nomination of  John Brennan as CIA Director, and the objections voiced by Senators McCain and Graham have done much to illustrate the problems of the Republican Party. 

The New York Times reported,

But [Senator Rand Paul] was assailed by two of his party’s most prominent national security hawks, Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. They took to the floor on Thursday to defend President Obama’s aggressive use of drones against Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to suggest that Mr. Paul and his backers had engaged in scaremongering.

“We’ve done, I think, a disservice to a lot of Americans by making them think that somehow they’re in danger from their government,” Mr. McCain said. “They’re not. But we are in danger from a dedicated, longstanding, easily replaceable-leadership enemy that is hellbent on our destruction.”

Mr. Paul won particular support from two other Tea Party-backed Republicans, Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah. The three spelled one another during the filibuster on Wednesday afternoon and evening, drawing in part from a huge positive response on Twitter to their efforts.

 The establishment (RINO) wing of the party will always be content to remain in the minority and offer only token opposition (if any at all) to the Marxist/Fascist administration now in Washington. Only upon receiving significant pressure from conservative colleagues and constituents are they likely to behave in anything close to a conservative manner.

Usually, this passivity seems to be because the establishment Republicans in Congress currently, and for some decades, have been of the mindset that what the GOP must do the win elections and serve the public good is to strive for common ground with Democrats, demonstrate bipartisanship, and avoid rocking the boat. So this is not so much an issue of character or intentions as it is of inertia.

Election results have shown that “moderate” Republicans do not usually win national elections (e.g., Dole, McCain, Romney), the exceptions being the Bush family. G. H. W. Bush rode the coattails of Reagan, and G. W. Bush beat inferior candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. Although he barely squeezed out a victory over Al Gore (Gore has since been shown to be an example of real political weirdness), his victory over the radical Kerry was more decisive. But when actual conservatives and libertarians come along and talk about reducing the size and scope of government, it sounds like a foreign language to the entrenched establishment of both parties.

While GOP accommodation of Obamaism is somewhat understandable, if not acceptable, sometimes it’s downright offensive. Case in point: Senators McCain and Graham’s harsh criticism of Rand Paul’s filibuster, with McCain even calling Paul, and Senators Cruz “Wacko Birds.” Not funny, Senator. Apparently, neither McCain nor Graham would have the courage to actually criticize the Obama Administration in any such dramatic way. Paul’s filibuster forced the Attorney General Eric Holder to declare that the president indeed does not have the authority to order drone strikes on Americans in America, who are not at the time engaged in battle against America. This is what it took to get such an admission in answer to a very simple and appropriate question.

While establishment GOP members of Congress seem ready to be swayed by Obama’s wining and dining them, it is offensive that McCain and Graham would criticize Rand as they did while just having partaken of Obama’s “charm offensive.” The real question, as I see it, is whether the RINOs can comprehend the threat to civil liberties posed by the issue of drone strikes on Americans in this country. It runs absolutely counter to the Constitutional due process protections (as does the claimed ability to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial or the right of habeas corpus).  

It’s not difficult to see that Rand Paul connected with many people, even of differing political views. He addressed an issue of the basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and stood against an arrogant, stubborn, and lawless administration that otherwise would have never said that Obama didn’t have the right to put on his kill list anyone he pleased and act on it at any time, and anywhere. For those not familiar with civics or the Constitution, these things violate the most basic protections citizens are supposed to have, and they smack of tyranny, which is very much a part of what the Obama Administration is all about.

An interesting read is the transcript of Senator Paul’s conversation with Rush Limbaugh, when he called in to Limbaugh’s show on March 7.  Besides the concern over drone strikes in the U.S., Paul also expressed concern over the administration’s general attitude of suspicion of American citizens.

PAUL: Well, the Bureau of Justice has come forward with some criterion for people you need to report on if you know these people. These are people with missing fingers, stains on their clothes, people who like to pay in cash, people who have weatherized ammunition, and more than seven days of food. These are people who are potential terrorists. And if that's the list, I know a lot of people on that list. I'm a little concerned that they ought to get a trial before they get a drone strike ordered.

          RUSH: I'm on that list! ….

And, concerning Senators McCain and Graham’s response:

PAUL:  You know, I think we've struck a nerve, and there is a little bit of a difference within the Republican caucus and a growing sort of division on some of these issues.  Their side believes that the battlefield is everywhere.  And this is what John Brennan believes here.  He says there's no geographic limitation to the battlefield.  And that means that if the battlefield is America also, then the people, you know, like Senator McCain and Graham, they believe that the laws of war apply.  The problem is that the laws of war don't involve due process.  And I understand when you're in war, you don't get due process.  So in the battlefield you don't ask your opponent, you know, for Miranda rights, you don't present them with warrants.  You shoot your opponent.

I strongly recommend reading the entire transcript, where he elaborates on the reasoning behind his actions. Overall, Senator Paul keeps a courteous and civil tone, states that his filibuster is not about individuals but issues, and gives a reasoned and convincing explanation for what he did.

I am happy to see it demonstrated thus that it’s possible to criticize the policies of the Obama Administration and even to see some results. Unless there is effective pressure on them, we will continue to see an unabated effort to marginalize civil liberties and to threaten Americans who disagree.

The delaying of the Administration’s answer to Senator Paul’s question suggests that they are not far from being OK with murdering American citizens on American soil, without trial, whom they deem to be somehow affiliated with terrorists. As noted previously, they would act as policeman, judge, jury and executioner, operating in secret. Chilling, and worth attention.

Further Reading:

“A Word or Three on John McCain and Lindsey Graham,” Ooobie on Everything, 03/09/2013. An excellent article on one of the very best blogs out there.

Gary North, “Dumb and Dumber: McCain and Graham Attack Rand Paul’s Filibuster,” 03/08/2013.

“McCain Calls Rand, Cruz, Amash, etc. ‘Wacko Birds,’ The republican Mother, 03/08/2013.

Related articles

• Tweeters stand with Rand, mock McCain
• RINO Senators McCain, Graham Charge At Paul
• McCain: Are You a "Wacko Bird" Like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Ted Cruz?
• Rand Paul: 'I Treat Sen. McCain With Respect. I Don't Think I Always Get The Same In Return'
• IT'S WAR: John McCain And Lindsey Graham Are Tearing Into Rand Paul Right Now On The Senate Floor

Lawlessness in High Places

Dreamstime.com

President Obama has many times shown his disdain for the United States Constitution. One example is his defiance of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held that his “recess” appointments of National Labor Relations Board members were unconstitutional. These appointees have participated in many decisions since their appointments including several since the court decision. Obama has now officially nominated them for these positions, but has them still in place making decisions. The court decision has been ignored by the president

If the Administration followed the rule of law, these appointees would have been relieved of their duties until a final decision comes from the Supreme Court, or, if the Supreme Court chose not to handle this case, the Appeals Court ruling would be regarded as final. Or so I think as a non-lawyer. So far, the Administration has not appealed the decision.

This kind of blatant disregard of law is only too common in the Obama Administration. Many of the violations of the rule of law and the principle of checks and balances have been chronicled, ranging from “czars” who wield cabinet-level-type authority but have had no Senate confirmation, to crony capitalist deals that have resulted in business failures following multi-million-dollar government payouts (with executives getting large bonuses).

Now we’re told that the Executive Branch has given itself the “authority” to kill American citizens who are not engaged in warfare against the U.S. at the time, but are believed by high-level bureaucrats to be associated with al-Qaida or some affiliated group. They’ve already killed three American citizens without so much as offering them an opportunity to surrender and without an attempt to capture them. They have interpreted the Constitution to mean little to nothing and therefore, they’re free to act as not only policeman, but judge, jury, and executioner. Due process? Forget it. This, of course, is in line with the government’s recently asserted position of being authorized to detain American citizens indefinitely.

As Andrew Napolitano describes it,

President Obama willingly admits he dispatched CIA agents to kill an American and his teenage son and the son's American friend while they were in a desert in Yemen in 2011. He says he did so because the adult had encouraged folks to wage war on the United States and the children were just “collateral damage.” He says further that he'll do this again when he is convinced that killing Americans will keep America safe. He says he knows the adult encouraged evil, and his encouragement caused the deaths of innocents. The adult was never charged with a crime or indicted by a grand jury; he was just targeted for death by the president himself and executed by a CIA drone.

[Emphasis added]

The president and his advisors are fond of invoking some supposedly higher principle to justify their lawlessness, like “keeping people safe” to justify drone killings of citizens, trying to deny Second Amendment rights, rogue regulators, and TSA groping and nude scanners; “intellectual property protection” to go after people who have done nothing wrong just on the basis of someone’s complaint, and subjecting people to criminal charges for what should be a civil matter. And so on.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, in part, states the following:

…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence be to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…     [Emphasis added]

Article. III., Section 3 of the Constitution states as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have the Power to declare the Punishment of Treaon, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Corruption of blood is defined as follows:

(Law) taint or impurity of blood, in consequence of an act of attainder of treason or felony, by which a person is disabled from inheriting any estate or from transmitting it to others.

As Napolitano points out, there is no thought given to due process in drone killings. Now we are going to have drones patrolling our own country. How long until armed drones start taking out people the Administration finds objectionable, due to some perceived future threat? Of course, there might be “collateral damage,” but c’est la vie. What a tool to go after people who didn’t pay their taxes, or who spoke out against the abuses of government in some way that was politically uncomfortable. As far-fetched as it seems (and I wish it truly were), these things are not all that far from where we are now.

Beyond the question of a formal declaration of war, the constitutional rights abuse inherent in this and other Obama policies should be thoroughly investigated by Congress, a body whose authority Obama habitually usurps. So far, little has been done to try to stop this trend.

The possibility of establishing a secret court to authorize these killings is “unthinkable” according to Napolitano, and to do so would do nothing to make these things constitutional.

This is how dictatorships get started.

Pat Buchanan has written,

As killing a U.S. citizen is a graver deed than waterboarding a terrorist plotter to get information to save lives, Obama, who bewailed Bush’s detention, rendition and interrogation policies, appears guilty of manifest hypocrisy.

But with 3,000 to 4,500 now killed by drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen over 10 years, and an estimated 200 children and other civilians among the “collateral damage,” it is past time for a debate on where we are going in this “war on terror.”

Beyond the killing of Americans, which is manifestly unconstitutional, the overall question of drone killing needs to be examined.

Bill Wilson at Americans for Limited Government’s NetRightDaily website writes,

Where this ends is anyone’s guess.

For example, it is hard to see where geography would come into play under the type of precedent that is being created. Would the authorization to use military force against U.S. citizens also apply to U.S. soil?

The answer is, if this Administration, or any administration, merely took a broader view of what Congress has authorized it to do, geography would be no limitation whatsoever to the exercise of war powers here.

While the memo may not have been intended to address “what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances,” it did not need to. It would essentially be the same argument.

The very serious concerns about spy drones and surveillance drones on American soil pale in comparison to the possible domestic use of armed drones to kill Americans. This Administration believes it can justify practically anything, so don’t be too shocked if this is the next step. What should shock us is that so little is apparently being done to stop it or even strongly question it. Judge Napolitano, Senator Rand Paul, and a few others are very concerned, but the Administration will likely just label them as “libertarian extremists” and go further on their merry way in this new incarnation of Stalinism.

Related articles

• Beware: A President who justifies secret drone killings of Americans can justify anything
• State Bastions Against a Lawless President
• KING: The Constitution always trumps politics

Heroic Educators Quash Potential Kindergarten Crime Sprees

Taking their cue from the left’s sudden worry over guns since the Newtown shootings, educators in several schools have done their part to prevent kindergarten pretend-gun pretend-violence. Taking decisive and stern disciplinary action, these educators are bravely attempting to prevent future gun violence by driving home the idea that guns are bad, bad, bad, and not to be played with or mentioned, even by pretending, even if the weapon is a Hello Kitty bubble gun, a clear plastic toy gun, or a pointing finger.

These impressionable kiddies may have been saved from a future life of violent crime by these heroic teachers and administrators. Their unenlightened parents have protested these actions, but the administrators have stood firm in defending their handling of thought-crime evidenced by these little ones. Since Newtown, we’re all supposed to be in a hysterical frenzy over guns, especially “assault weapons” and, apparently, harmless toys and a pointed index finger. These things are so evil that they require suspension or expulsion of the offending children, and certainly no apology to the parents.

* * *

I guess the foregoing is roughly how these school personnel view their actions, but in reality these incidents are forms of child abuse. The children have been, in some cases, suspended, expelled, threatened with jail or barred from school premises.

The Newtown shootings were indeed horrific and tragic, but where does panic and hysteria end and rationality and common sense take over again? How many more little children will have to suffer for doing harmless things that children commonly do, when school officials over-react and cause real damage to these children and their families with their ill-advised decisions?

Several recent, similar incidents have been reported, and in each case, the school officials singled out the “offending” children for embarrassment, disrespect, and “bad” school records. Parents have received no apologies, only dumb “explanations” attempting to justify these over-reactions. As part of the attempt to demonize and criminalize “guns,” these so-called educators have hurt children and made themselves look mean and foolish.

They have provided yet another strong reason to encourage home schooling. To cite a few widely-reported cases:

January 18, 2013

5-year-old kindergartner with pink bubble gun suspended from school

By Rick Dandes,  The Daily Item

MOUNT CARMEL [Pennsylvania]— A 5-year-old kindergartner who told classmates she was going to shoot them, and then herself, with her pink bubble gun, was grilled for three hours by Mount Carmel school officials without her mother’s knowledge, then suspended, a family attorney said.

The girl was initially kicked out for 10 days in what the school categorized as a “terroristic threat,” according to the kindergartner’s mother and confirmed by the family attorney. That suspension was reduced to two days and labeled as a “threat to harm others.”

This “threat” was made not in a class room, but while waiting in line for a school bus. The girl did not have the toy with her, but some sharp-eared school official overheard her and couldn’t resist making an issue of this harmless playing.

Another incident, reported by an ABC News affiliate, (via Yahoo) (See video at the site.)

By COLLEEN CURRY

Jan. 3, 2013

A 6-year-old boy who was suspended from his elementary school for making a gun gesture with his hand and saying "pow" is fighting his suspension through a lawyer.
The Montgomery County [Maryland] School District suspended first grader Rodney Lynch for pointing his finger at a classmate, which they said constituted a threat of gun violence, according to Robin Ficker, the attorney defending Lynch.
"His record says suspended for 'threatening to shoot a student' and that's a lie," Ficker told ABC News today. "He wasn't threatening a student, he's never been around a gun, he doesn't know what a gun is, he doesn't know what killing anyone is, he had no intent to harm anyone."
Lynch, who was suspended for one school day, told ABC News affiliate WJLA that he was playing when he made the gesture, and that his friend said "pow."

According to CBS Boston,

HYANNIS [Massachusetts] (CBS) – A mother says her 5-year-old boy was threatened with suspension after he made a gun out of Legos during an after school program.

 Sheila Cruz received a written warning recently about her son from the after school staff at the Hyannis West Elementary School because he had been using toys inappropriately.

His parents could hardly believe that the boy’s playing was considered a serious problem by school administrators. Most people who have heard about this probably couldn’t believe it either.

A somewhat more severe incident was one involving a six-year-old girl in Sumter, South Carolina who was expelled from her elementary school for bringing a clear plastic toy gun for show-and-tell. As reported by WLTX, Columbia, South Carolina. (See video of their TV report at the site.)

“You have to show some kind of judgment,” Hank McKinney says. “I know there is a lot going on with guns and schools and that is tragic but a six year old bringing a toy to school doesn't know better.” ….

“I'm sorry anything can be a weapon,” Hank says.

“A pencil is more of a weapon than the toy gun she brought to school.” ….

Naomi is not allowed to be on school property, even when her parents are picking up her siblings, so they have to park off school property.

(Via Prison Planet, which listed these and other incidents, including some seemingly very minor things that resulted in police searches and school lockdowns.)

Superintendent Dr. Randolph Bynum subsequently vacated the decision to expel Naomi, and she has been allowed to return to class, As WLTX reports, “[T]he story’s received statewide and even national attention. According to the district, school administrators and teacher had received threats over the decision.”

In all these cases, the school officials defended their actions, and while some of the disciplinary actions were reduced, it was clear that they felt their actions were justified and that they would not hesitate to respond similarly to future situations. It will probably take some successful lawsuits by parents to curtail this ridiculous trend, and eventually some of the panic over guns will give way to reasonable approaches to the prevention of school violence.

The Second Amendment Is Under Attack

sodahead.com

“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.” – Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”-- George Mason, Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788 [Quoted by The Patriot Post]

* * * *

 President Obama, accompanied by cute children who were no doubt sincere in wanting something done about “guns” since they were horrified by the Newtown shootings, presented his proposals for new gun restrictions. How can anyone’s heart not go out to those helpless little ones after a deranged lunatic opened fire on their classmates and teachers? The Obama Administration, never wanting to let a good crisis go to waste, created a crisis out of the Newtown shootings in order to have an excuse for further restrictions on guns.

And all the gun restrictions Obama wants to impose would accomplish exactly nothing toward fixing the problem he claims to be addressing. But they would be a start toward disarming the law-abiding citizens. And they would create many more problems while solving none. What would be some possible unintended consequences of further gun restrictions?

1. A thriving gun market today will still thrive for “permitted” guns and ammo, and a black market will thrive for “forbidden” guns and ammo.

2. Gun owners’ slogan about “cold dead hands” may be tested.

3. Gun enthusiasts and gun owners in general will sternly resist new restrictions.

4. Thinking people rightly resent the knee-jerk response to the Newtown shootings and the left’s attempt at emotional manipulation for more gun laws. This is like unscrupulous undertakers exploiting families’ grief to get them to buy more expensive coffins and funerals. Obama is trying to exploit grief over shootings get Americans to give up essential liberty.

5. If government orders are issued for more gun restrictions, there will be more talk and action concerning militias, nullification, secession, possible armed resistance, etc.

6. As the initial shock subsides, most people will not be in favor of more gun control, and it will be a political liability to press for it. The Tea Party will find a strong issue to go after liberals on.

7. More people will, rightly, resent the imperial presidency of Barack Obama, his extreme partisanship, and his drive to destroy his opposition.

8. House members may file articles of impeachment against the president for overstepping his authority.

But our imperial president, having been re-elected and facing no more elections (unless he somehow gets the 22^nd Amendment repealed) waxes ever more bold and radical. Obviously he knows what the Second Amendment is for and he doesn’t like it. The NRA is precisely correct saying he is attacking the Second Amendment. Mark Levin discussed his view on the imperial presidency of Obama with Megyn Kelly:

As usual, Levin is on target. What Obama is doing is not reassuring, but frightening.

A National Rifle Association ad called the president out for sending his daughters to a private school with armed guards, yet expressing doubt about the value of armed security in all schools, rightly calling the president an “elitist hypocrite.” The White House response was that using the president’s children for a “political” purpose was “cowardly and repugnant.” What the NRA did was not wrong. The president, of course, doesn’t mind using children as props in his press conference, for a political purpose, where he arrogantly waited to sign a score of executive orders, to show his power. Congress should act to stop him on this and many other executive orders. The president never engages in debate or negotiations, only in impugning the motives of his critics and trying to demonize and silence them. “My way or the highway” has been his approach in just about everything.

For all Piers Morgan’s claims about how banning guns in England has resulted in lower gun crime, the fact is that gun crime increased after the ban went into effect in 1996, and gun crime remains a serious problem.

Criminals who can’t get their hands on guns are using knives, to the point that authorities want to ban kitchen knives as too dangerous. In Switzerland, where almost all citizens are armed, gun crime is quite rare. In these and other cases, more guns in the hands of citizens results in less crime. Burglars and other intruders have something to think about if the residents of the home they want to enter might be armed for protection.

In America, the cities with the strictest gun laws have the most gun crime (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) Criminals know that residents are unlikely to have guns to protect themselves and are thus emboldened.

The New York newspaper that published the names of gun owners in a certain county did the county a grave disservice. People who were not listed would be well advised to obtain guns to protect themselves from criminals who want to take advantage of the information that was published.

If anyone wants to own a gun, perhaps they should buy now before severe restrictions can go into effect. Rush Limbaugh correctly said, “People are reacting quite rationally here to what they're hearing and seeing in the media when they're going out and joining the NRA and buying guns. They know what they're up against. They've heard Democrats all their lives. They know what they really want. Their problem is the existence of guns.”

But the question larger than the fact that gun restrictions won’t help is the issue of the Second Amendment.

The Founding Fathers generally believed that all citizens had a duty to be armed, and that this would be a safeguard against tyranny. That, of course, is still true, and we are getting closer to tyranny (already in it to too great an extent). This is a blatant attack on the Second Amendment. Keep in mind that Obama and his ilk have no use for the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment. However, it is the Second Amendment that helps guarantee all the Bill of Rights.

Obama has shown himself in numerous ways to be an enemy of the Constitution he swore to uphold, and therefore, no friend of the American people. His propaganda event of today clearly demonstrates his deep cynicism and his disrespect for all Americans who believe the Second Amendment means what it says.

Dr. Walter Williams, economist and author, discusses the meaning of the Second Amendment with Ginni Thomas of The Daily Caller.

  

Regarding guns and many other issues, it is truly We the People against the government.

The Patriot Post editor Mark Alexander wrote,

…. I hereby make this public declaration: 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."….

Dean Garrison at Liberty Crier writes,

…. For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams
I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. ….    [Emphasis his]

Garrison goes on to argue that citizens have a responsibility to defend their liberty against the government’s attacks. Hence the article title, “If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?” His answer is “Yes.” I hope and expect that it won’t come to that, but tyranny must be resisted. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Americas have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Congress not only should not pass any new gun restrictions, but should also act to nullify Obama’s executive orders concerning gun regulations.

More than most people realize, this issue is a defining one for America. Will we retain our freedom or hand it over to the statists? We may know the answer soon.

Further reading:

IBD Editorials, "Gun-Control Zealots Target Law-Abiding Citizens," 01/09/2013.
 IBD Editorials, Bill Wilson, "Left's Desire To Weaken Constitution Endangers American Freedom," 01/09/2013

Related articles

• NRA membership up 250K in last month
• Nra Plans Fight of the Century...