Monday, 6 January 2014

Re: Guns: What will you do?

good article. I don't often say thanks... but thanks, Travis.


On Monday, January 6, 2014 3:02:43 PM UTC-6, Travis wrote:






 

----- Original Message -----

From: Bob

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:51 PM

Subject: What will you do?

 

I wish I could write like this. In one hundred years, I could not come up with a better statement about how we should all feel about the constitution and the subject of gun control. If the constitution is violated here, it will be over for all our freedoms. This is a place where "We the People" need to draw a line and it starts with one person at a time.

 

This is a rather long read.  I dare you to read a few paragraphs and not read the rest. People are getting very serious about this problem.

 

Bob

 

Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."


If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don't think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the "democracy" word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It's not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn't matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a "democracy" for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an "immoral majority" developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let's look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of whatFranklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I' would like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

"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".

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

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. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because "We the People" will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our "representatives" try to push gun bans. I don't care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson's quote. He talks about a "last resort." I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority cannot take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their "elected servants" say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don't want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the "subversive" here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack Husan have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I cannot tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that "We the People" will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

 



 

--
Bob R. O'Dell



__._,_.___
 


           

__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: LOVE THIS!!


 
 




.
 
OUR OPPONENT MAY LACK THE ELEGANT RUSSIAN POETIC PHRASING, BUT HE NAILS OUR  MAN.
 
I have never read anything about Obama since he has been in the office that says it better than this.  This should be on bumper stickers and note pads.
Exactly what I was thinking while he was on National TV yesterday saying that "The Republicans had shut down the government."
 
Vladimir Putin said -- off the record:
"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon.
The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, poops on the board and then struts around like it won the game."
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 



This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.





r: Debt-Ridden Western Nations May Resort to 'Financial Repression'



 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/imf-paper-debt-ridden-western-nations-may-resort-financial

 

IMF Paper: Debt-Ridden Western Nations May Resort to 'Financial Repression'

January 3, 2014 - 3:15 PM


By Barbara Hollingsworth

Cyprians protesting bank bailout outside their parliament in March, 2013. (AP photo)

(CNSNews.com) –  The highest debt-to-GDP levels in 200 years could force advanced Western nations to adopt "financial repression" measures typically reserved for economically unstable debtor nations, including mass write-offs and a tax on savings, warns a working paper published last week by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

According to "Financial and Sovereign Debt Crises: Some Lessons Learned and Those Forgotten," a working paper written by two Harvard economists who used to work at the IMF, "there are essentially five ways to reduce large debt-to-GDP ratios:

1. Economic growth;

2. Fiscal adjustment- austerity;

3 .Explicit default or restructuring;

4. Inflation surprise; and

5. A steady dose of financial repression accompanied by a steady dose of inflation."

"The first on the list is relatively rare and the rest are difficult and unpopular," writes co-authors Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, IMF's former chief economist.

Total public debt in the U.S. reached 98.9 percent of GDP in the third quarter of 2013, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The Congressional Budget Office's alternative scenario projects the debt to reach 190 percent of GDP by 2038.

Although financial repression "is a form of taxation that, like any form of taxation, leads to distortions," Reinhart and Rogoff note that  "a mix of financial repression and inflation can be a particularly potent way of reducing domestic-currency debt."

They define "financial repression" as "directed lending to government by captive domestic audiences (such as pension funds), explicit or implicit caps on interest rates, regulation of cross-border capital movements, and generally a tighter connection between government and banks."

Other forms of "financial repression" that can be used to reduce domestic debt include higher inflation, a tax on savings, and "stuff[ing] debt into local pension funds and insurance companies, forcing them through regulation to accept far lower rates of return than they might otherwise demand."

Last April, the Cyprian parliament approved a deal that forced depositors to bear the brunt of a $23 billion bailout by the Euopean Union and the IMF. Large depositors in the Bank of Cyprus lost access to 90 percent of their funds, and a final deal negotiated in July forcibly converted 47.5 percent of  savings over 100,000 euros into bank shares.

Americans who think such a thing could never happen here should think again.

A "collective amnesia" prevails in Western nations, the authors warn, and "lessons from the historical track record….seem to have [been] collectively forgotten." There is little historical evidence that economically advanced countries that have racked up unsustainable levels of debt can escape the fate suffered by their less developed counterparts, the authors point out.

"The claim is that advanced countries do not need to resort to the standard toolkit of emerging markets, including debt restructuring, and conversions, higher inflation, capital controls and other forms of financial repression," Reinhart and Rogoff state.

"As we document, this claim is at odds with the historical track record of most advanced economies, where debt restructuring, financial repression, and a tolerance for higher inflation, or a combination of these were an integral part of the resolution of significant past debt overhangs."

They add that there is also scant evidence that the U.S. and its European allies can rely solely on economic growth and austerity measures to pull themselves out of their current debt crises.

"Of course, if policymakers are fortunate, economic growth will provide a soft exit, reducing or eliminating the need for painful restructuring, repression, or inflation," Reinhart and Rogoff conclude. "But the evidence on debt overhangs is not heartening."

 

__._,_.___
Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Oh, those damn German drivers!




BareNakedIslam posted: "http://youtu.be/fybch3DX8c8"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

Oh, those damn German drivers!

by BareNakedIslam
BareNakedIslam | January 6, 2014 at 2:50 am | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-10CE

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/01/06/oh-those-damn-german-drivers/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Guns: What will you do?

A long read, but thoughtful, and well written.
 
Worth everyone taking a moment to peruse.
 
Thanks for sharing Travis!
 
Keith


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:






 

----- Original Message -----

From: Bob

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:51 PM

Subject: What will you do?

 

I wish I could write like this. In one hundred years, I could not come up with a better statement about how we should all feel about the constitution and the subject of gun control. If the constitution is violated here, it will be over for all our freedoms. This is a place where "We the People" need to draw a line and it starts with one person at a time.

 

This is a rather long read.  I dare you to read a few paragraphs and not read the rest. People are getting very serious about this problem.

 

Bob

 

Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."


If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don't think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the "democracy" word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It's not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn't matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a "democracy" for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an "immoral majority" developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let's look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of whatFranklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I' would like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

"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".

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

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. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because "We the People" will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our "representatives" try to push gun bans. I don't care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson's quote. He talks about a "last resort." I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority cannot take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their "elected servants" say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don't want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the "subversive" here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack Husan have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I cannot tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that "We the People" will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

 



 

--
Bob R. O'Dell



__._,_.___
 


           

__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] DUCK DYNASTY star Phil Robertson weighs in on the “Mooselums!”




BareNakedIslam posted: " The controversy surrounding Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson has focused mainly on his comments about homosexuality and bestiality, but in the GQ interview that started it all, Robertson also equated Muslims with Nazis. Mediaite  In the middle of his spe"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

DUCK DYNASTY star Phil Robertson weighs in on the "Mooselums!"

by BareNakedIslam

The controversy surrounding Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson has focused mainly on his comments about homosexuality and bestiality, but in the GQ interview that started it all, Robertson also equated Muslims with Nazis. Mediaite  In the middle of his speech before the Hillsboro Church of Christ in El Dorado, AR, Robertson asked "What will do the Muslims (pronounced "Moose-limbs") in?" Brandishing his […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | January 6, 2014 at 3:51 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-10Do

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/01/06/duck-dynasty-star-phil-robertson-weighs-in-on-the-mooselums/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] OUTSTANDING! Utah Gun manufacturer turns down $15 million arms deal with Pakistan out of fear they would be used against American troops




BareNakedIslam posted: " How do you say no to $15 million dollars when you are a small growing business? According to the president of Desert Tech the answer was simple, "You say no."FunkerTactical  The reason behind his answer is something we probably don't hear enough of thes"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

OUTSTANDING! Utah Gun manufacturer turns down $15 million arms deal with Pakistan out of fear they would be used against American troops

by BareNakedIslam

How do you say no to $15 million dollars when you are a small growing business? According to the president of Desert Tech the answer was simple, "You say no." FunkerTactical  The reason behind his answer is something we probably don't hear enough of these days. Nicholas Young, posted this to the Desert Tech Facebook page yesterday and […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | January 6, 2014 at 3:20 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-10Db

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/01/06/outstanding-utah-gun-manufacturer-turns-down-15-million-arms-deal-with-pakistan-out-of-fear-they-would-be-used-against-american-troops/



>

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Why Pres. Lucifer didn’t sign up on Obamacare website




Dr. Eowyn posted: " Over the Christmas holiday, you might have heard that the POS finally signed up for a new health insurance in the nick of time -- on the last day when Americans could do so on the Obamacare website, HealthCare.gov. But what you probably don't know "
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Why Pres. Lucifer didn't sign up on Obamacare website

by Dr. Eowyn

Phantom Obama

Over the Christmas holiday, you might have heard that the POS finally signed up for a new health insurance in the nick of time -- on the last day when Americans could do so on the Obamacare website, HealthCare.gov.

But what you probably don't know is that Obama himself didn't do that. Instead, he had his White House staff minion do it.

Why?

Because HealthCare.gov could not verify the identity of the man who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama.

As explained by Wikipedia, "Healthcare.gov is a healthcare exchange website created by and operated under the United States federal government as per the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare), to serve the residents of the 36 U.S. states that opted not to create their own state exchanges." The healthcare.gov site "functions as a clearing house to allow Americans to compare prices on health insurance plans in their states, to begin enrollment in a chosen plan, and to simultaneously find out if they qualify for government healthcare subsidies. Visitors sign up and create their own specific user account first, listing some personal information, before receiving detailed information about what is available in their area."

The personal information required by healthcare.gov consists of a Social Security Number, employer and income verification, and the policy numbers of any current health-insurance plans -- information that would be included in a government database for any U.S. citizen prior to applying for health insurance.

In the case of Obama, however, Jerome Corsi writes for WND, Dec. 24, 2013, that:

The White House appears to have dropped a bombshell when it explained to the press why White House staff in Washington enrolled President Obama in Obamacare instead of Obama himself.

Officials said it was because HealthCare.gov could not verify Obama's identity.

Here is what Ed Henry, Fox News White House correspondent, reported on air:

"Somebody who's not waiting in line to enroll is the president of the United States. We learned today from the White House. Initially, they said he signed up for what they called a bronze plan, paying about four hundred dollars a month in premiums. But, then they came back to us and said – 'Well, wait. He didn't actually enroll. They said his staff did it and that's because of his unique circumstance obviously, as commander-in-chief, that his personal information is not in various government databases, so Healthcare.gov could not actually verify his identity, oddly enough. So, he had to do it in person this weekend, so he was signing up for the D.C. exchange, but his staff did it."

A CBS report in Washington, likewise, explained White House staff had to go to an "in-person" Obamacare site to sign up Obama for coverage.

The Fox News report, noted by the Gateway Pundit, set off a round of speculation on the Internet.

What information was so sensitive for Obama that it had to be excluded from government databases?

Clearly, the information was not his [Connecticut] Social Security Number or his birth records, because the White House has claimed to have made public both. [...] On April 27, 2011, the White House released a form the White House claimed was Obama's long-form birth certificate, making public Obama's date and place of birth.

The White House also releases annually on a timely basis the income tax returns for Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, with the Social Security Numbers missing. Yet for the purpose of filing the IRS return, there appears to be no exception allowing the president or the vice president to omit their Social Security Numbers.

While the policy numbers of existing health-insurance plans covering members of the household would be protected for all citizens under various state and federal privacy statutes, the information does not appear to reach the threshold where national-security concerns would require keeping the information secret for the commander in chief under a national-security classification.

See also:

~Eowyn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Fellowship of the Minds.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/01/06/why-pres-lucifer-didnt-sign-up-on-obamacare-website/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.