Today, I’m in the proper mood (angry) to take on these imbeciles – Liberals don’t understand, or give a (omitted) for the term personal responsibility.
My father, born in 1918, grew up on a farm, and knew about gun safety; regularly employed the use of a bolt action .22 rifle in controlling vermin and even coyotes, at the age of seven. This being passed down by his father. “Society”, with their misguided sense of propriety, fails miserably to realize that we are still free from being spirited away or otherwise harmed by malcontents, because of our right to bear arms. This in spite of “O” and his damned NDAA.
They are in the same class as those bleeding hearts who fail to realize there are biblical edicts for swift use of capital punishment. Sometimes there are no “shades of grey”; only black and white. Period.
If the actions of Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, (F that “Zedung” stuff) Stalin, and other despots aren’t enough to make them see the dangers of Rogue Government, NOTHING will, until they become their willing victims. Of course, then it will just be too late for them. A summary of Pol Pot from http://www.history.com/topics/pol-pot:
Pol Pot (1925-1998) and his communist Khmer Rouge movement led Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. During that time, about 1.5 million Cambodians out of a total population of 7 to 8 million died of starvation, execution, disease or overwork. Some estimates place the death toll even higher. One detention center, S-21, was so notorious that only seven of the roughly 20,000 people imprisoned there are known to have survived. The Khmer Rouge, in their attempt to socially engineer a classless peasant society, took particular aim at intellectuals, city residents, ethnic Vietnamese, civil servants and religious leaders.
Posted on January 30, 2015
Imposing more and more control.
By Chris Eger, Guns.com
A New York lawmaker wants to prohibit minors under age 12 from being able to visit a gun show anywhere in the state in an effort to reduce gun violence.
The bill, introduced by state Assemblywoman Linda B. Rosenthal, a Democrat who represents the Hell’s Kitchen area of Manhattan, would bar entry to pre-teen youth to these shows with no provision allowed for those with a supervising adult.
“As the gun industry prepares a public campaign to broaden the appeal of guns, it is important that we establish reasonable age limits for admission to gun shows by children,” reads a memo Rosenthal wrote for her legislation.
“Within New York State and other areas of jurisdiction, we have myriad regulations that seek to protect minors from exposure to certain potentially dangerous situations and influences,” the memo continued. “For example, a minor is restricted from watching films or playing certain video games that portray deadly weaponry and gunplay. Currently, however, minors of any age may gain unfettered access to a gun show.”
Read more: Guns
After rechecking the source of a post I just trashed, I cannot in good faith (no pun intended) vouch for their authenticity. Other items at the site would indicate that they’re a (in very poor taste) satirical “news” source.
I left this appropriate comment at their “Pope” article, with other commenters, who apparently, were also duped:
Is this site for real, or MAD magazine on steroids? I saw this on their politics pg; Do you think this title is real?:
In Gesture of Goodwill to Saudi Arabia, Obama to Announce Executive Pardon of All Saudi 911 Hijackers
* * * * * *
I apologize for not being more alert before making a posting. My only “consolation” is that other legitimate sources such as Fox News have been their victims as well. “X”
In previous posts I have made mention the importance of having a proper command of English.
I can find no more critical reason for this than our Constitution’s insistence that a candidate intending to become President be a natural born citizen. Democrats, Congress, and even some so-called Republicans have seen fit to twist or otherwise pervert the Constitutional intent of the term natural born citizen. I am most grateful to both Freedom Outpost, and Publius-Huldah’s Blog a source they referenced in regard to this subject.
This is proof of the need for a Presidential candidate to have a Father who is a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth – PERIOD- First, an excerpt from Publius-Huldah’s Blog which contains the reasons for keeping the original intent of the language intact:
Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”.
Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.
So! In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.
So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?
What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?
Article II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution, requires the President to be a “natural born Citizen”.
The meaning of this term is not set forth in The Constitution or in The Federalist Papers; and I found no discussion of the meaning in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention or in Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the same.
What does this tell us? That they all knew what it meant. We don’t go around defining “pizza”, because every American over the age of four knows what a pizza is.
Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles1 already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.
And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work. I’ll prove it.
How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:
During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:
“… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]
Her post goes on to explain Vattel’s rules.
The Founders applied these rules to the Constitution:
Vattel on “natural born citizens”, “inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:
From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1 [READ this footnote!] We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens. Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:
§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.
§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.
Do you see? The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”. But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.
FROM FREEDOM OUTPOST:
Shouldn’t We Hold Senator Ted Cruz to the Same Standard as Barack Obama?
And, the potential Republican presidential candidates are off and running at the Iowa Freedom Summit. The Blaze reported that Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) wowed the crowd with his “go big and go bold” attitude. But, this isn’t about Gov. Walker. His message sounds good and what he has accomplished in Wisconsin has been bold – actions Republicans in Congress should notice and heed.
No, this is about part of the message Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) sent the attendees at the summit in Iowa. Cruz repeatedly called for “reigniting the miracle of America.” That is a great message. The miracle of America needs to be reignited if we are to continue our nation as the constitutional republic the founding fathers created.
Cruz indicated that he and his wife, Heidi, were there for the same reasons as everyone else – “we fear for our children. We fear for our grandchildren.”
It is exactly why many of us do what we do. We fear for our children and our grandchildren; we fear they will not grow up in a nation where individual God -given rights, freedom and liberty are protected but instead reviled and stripped away leaving misery in its place. We fear our children and grandchildren will suffer immensely at the hands of those indoctrinated by the government. And, we fear that some of our posterity will succumb and abandon the values we hold dear.
Sen. Cruz stated that voters should “support people who not only say the right things, but have a history of fighting for those issues.”
This is something that all Americans can agree. It’s not only important for candidates to “say the right thing”; it’s important for those candidates to back up those words with actions complimentary to their words. In other words, candidates need to back up their talk by “walking the walk.” Most Americans would agree this is something that has been lacking in Washington for quite some time.
Cruz went on to say:
“Iowa plays a unique and special role in the political process. The men and women gathered here today and across the state, you have a responsibility that you take very seriously to scrutinize any candidate for national office. To look them in the eyes and to hold them to account.”
So, Sen. Cruz is advocating for the American voters in Iowa to hold candidates accountable. If there is any doubt about what Cruz meant, he goes on to explain.
“Well you know what? Talk is cheap… And one of the most important roles of the men and women in this room, the men and women in Iowa will play, is to look each candidate in the eye and say, ‘Don’t talk. Show me.'”
“If you say you support liberty, show me where you stood up for it. If you say you support religious liberties, show me where you stood and fought for them. If you say you oppose Obamacare, show me where you stood and fought against it.”
So, Sen. Cruz is advocating for Americans to hold their candidates accountable. By Sen. Cruz’s own rules, “if you say you support the Constitution, show me where you stood and fought for it.”
A few commenters have indicated that questioning the eligibility of a candidate, such as Sen. Ted Cruz, to hold the office of President based on the “natural born citizen” requirement in a previous article is basically a “hit piece” against Sen. Ted. Cruz. Since when is standing on the Constitutional principles and asking potential candidates to be accountable dubbed “hitting” against a candidate? Is this not exactly what Sen. Cruz himself is stating for Americans to do – look them in the eye and hold them accountable?
No branch of government, legislative, executive or judicial, is supreme over the other. Each has their roles and are to participate in the “checks and balances” process in order that one branch does not gain more power and control over the other, nor does either branch usurp the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America. As we have seen, the Supreme Court has usurped its authority to hear cases or make “rulings” in order to implant “their” personal beliefs and opinions upon the people of this nation. And, the central government has usurped power from the states.
While many cite Supreme Court rulings “declaring” the definition of a natural born citizen, they have forgotten that the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 that clearly indicates the definition of “natural born citizen.” Since Ms. Publius Huldah has already researched and addressed how the First Congress of this nation viewed “natural born citizens,” it is imperative that all Americans learn it and understand how our government, all branches, have subverted the framers intent to serve the government’s and political party’s purpose, which is not necessarily in the best interest of our nation, and not just with the natural born citizen requirement for president.
So, the same requirement of natural born citizen has to be applied to Jindal, Rubio, and any candidate vying for the office of President. The reason Sen. Ted Cruz received so much attention regarding his potential candidacy for president was because of his and his father’s dedication to the original intent of the Constitution of the united States of America and their willingness to proclaim it loudly and publicly. And, the questions were asked of Americans, who claim to support the Constitution, if they are willing to forego their own principles to support a candidate because “they like the message,” “the Democrats did it,” “Obama is not eligible,” or any other host of qualifiers in order to play “tit for tat.” It seems that a few were and are.
Jindal and Rubio have demonstrated their willingness to “waffle” with the pervading breeze. Who could forget the “Gang of Eight” immigration “reform“? However, these two should be held accountable, as well, to the natural born citizen requirement and their willingness to forego it for their own personal gain despite their talk of constitutionality.
To be clear, the message sent by Sen. Ted Cruz, standing on our supreme law of the land, is a message that every American should embrace. And, everyone embracing that message and stating that message should let their actions reflect their words. It is not about “liking” or “disliking” anyone. It’s about upholding and supporting the Constitution, the principles of the founding of this nation, the laws of God and nature and refusing to participate in the act of hypocrisy. It’s about preserving our Constitution and not bending requirements to suit a purpose, no matter how good the message or how well someone is liked.
Remember, as Constitution-supporting a president is or may be, Congress is the legislative branch of government. As such, Congress can be complicit in lawlessness, as we have seen with Obama and past presidencies, or they can function constitutionally, which they have failed to do time and again going back over a hundred years. The same with the Supreme Court.
Would Sen. Ted Cruz be a good president of this nation? To be honest, he would. Sen. Cruz would certainly be better than what has been in the White House for decades. However, it does not change the requirement that a president be a natural born citizen. If some, who say they support the Constitution, are so willing to overlook it because of their infatuation with a candidate, what does that actually say? You can decide that on your own as we all have a different answer.
In the meantime, we should all take Sen. Cruz’s advice – look candidates in the eye and hold them to account.
Sen.Ted Cruz’s father, was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba. END OF STORY. “X”
This just made my day!
I’m proud to be a member of Gun Nut Nation; where ninety of every one hundred owns a gun. “X”
NUMBER ONE WITH A BULLET
The USA has, by far, the highest per capita gun ownership in the world. Progressives will tell you that this is what makes America the Murder Capitol of Planet Earth. But we’re not, and in this devastatingly effective Firewall, Bill Whittle shows why the center of Gun Nut Nation is in fact one of the safest places in the world.
Posted on January 24, 2015 by cptnemo2013
REMEMBER “BLUE THUNDER”?
Yes, that is an old movie – Drone technology has put a new twist on both surveillance, and privacy issues, NDAA has made us a de-facto police state, and the Muslim in the whitehouse has allowed Islamists to infiltrate government and the military, like a bad case of termites. Now to find out that for two years, the FBI, U.S. Marshalls, and other law enforcement agencies have had a radar system that can see through the walls of your abode… the noose is tightening.
New police radars can ‘see’ inside homes
The judges expressed alarm that agents had used the new technology without a search warrant, warning that “the government’s warrantless use of such a powerful tool to search inside homes poses grave Fourth Amendment questions.”
At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.
Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person’s house without first obtaining a search warrant.
The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.
Current and former federal officials say the information is critical for keeping officers safe if they need to storm buildings or rescue hostages. But privacy advocates and judges have nonetheless expressed concern about the circumstances in which law enforcement agencies may be using the radars — and the fact that they have so far done so without public scrutiny.