Welcome to the web of Justin E. DeVault, Jr.

Home Interests Favorites My Beliefs Religious My Thoughts Photo Gallery More Photos Videos Political Think About Think About 2 Others Reunion Photos Guest Book











Tsarnaev Mom: “I Don’t Care If My Son Is Killed – Allahu Akbar”

To read my latest posts, please scroll past the cartoon of Comrade Eric Holder

2011 Political Archives


"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." ~ George Washington 

"Brethren, we came to this country to practice our religious liberties, and if we don't get involved, we're going to lose them." ~ John Peter Muhlenberg, 1777

The Simple Difference between Socialism and Free Enterprise  

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.  

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A....  

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.  

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. 

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.  

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is  great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the  reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.  

Could not be any simpler than that. (Please  pass this on) Remember, there is a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

Is Socialism’s True Father—Satan?  

The Fascist Threat

It's Not Their Fault   The Wild and Free Pigs of Okefenokee Swamp   The Tea Party Faces The fear

What if the Constitution No Longer Applied


Feinstein Looks To Push Ban On Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines & Pistol Grips

If you recall, I wrote that within hours of Barack Obama’s re-election he was already giving the “go ahead” to pick up talks again with the United Nations concerning the Small Arms Treaty. Many were unaware, however, that a major push to ban assault weapons was being prepared just days before the election by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Leaks began being made public concerning the liberal Senator’s plans to reintroduce legislation banning guns that should be allowed under the Second Amendment.

For instance, Mac Slavo over at SHTFPlan.com cited the Shooting Wire:

I don’t have the minutes of the meeting (yet), but sources tell me California Senator and longtime gun-hater Dianne Feinstein’s legal staff held meetings on Friday with FTB/ATF legal staff to discuss a new “Assault Weapons Ban” Madame Feinstein would be looking to push through Congress if President Obama wins reelection.

This same “pretty good intelligence” says the items that would lead to a ban would ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession”.

I don’t know about you, but if these things come to pass and I’m “in possession” I’m certainly not selling.

In fact, the lack of interest in the idea surprised the California liberal’s legal staffers. Apparently, they believe no logical person could possible disagree with them.

I began receiving the first reports of increases in gun buying by people concerned about tomorrow’s election. Dealers in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Indiana all tell me there hasn’t been a huge number of buyers expressing those concerns, but the numbers were noticeable.

Among that group -and the majority of “regular” purchasers- the core driving most of the purchasing seem to be in their mid-to-late 30s. Again, home and personal defense are the most frequently cited reasons for buying.

Then there was David Codrea at the Examiner who also received a tip from a source inside the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF):

I just heard that Sen. Feinstein’s attorney is meeting right now with folks from FTB and ATF legal (Eric Epstein [legal], Todd Martin [Legal] and Earl Griffith [FTB] and others) to discuss a new SAW ban, that she would want to start pushing through as soon as (if) Obama gets reelected.

– – No pistol grip allowed
– – No HC Mags
– – No grandfathering
– – No sale permissible if in possession

That is all I know right now

Now the really serious measure here, not that banning perfectly good guns isn’t serious, but the previous assault weapons ban that was issued under President Bill Clinton and expired in 2004 allowed for “grandfathering” of guns and magazines produced before the ban went into effect. This new legislation could seek to ban them altogether, resulting in the federal government telling citizens they have to turn in their guns and high capacity magazines.

Some say it would mean those of us who own AR or AK style weapons would have to modify the weapon immediately or be considered criminals.

Feinstein has spearheaded numerous bills that violate the clearly violate the Constitution. Yeah, I know the Supreme Court ruled them Constitutional, but all I have to say is one word, Obamacare. It’s clearly just as unConstitutional as an assault weapons ban, but they will try to push it through as though it isn’t. She has made it known that she is no friend of guns or gun owners.

Back in March of 2004 she was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle saying:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.

In addition her own website makes for eye opening reading. Let me recommend you take a look here.

Senator Feinstein is an unAmerican as they come. She supported the USA Patriot Act, NDAA, and numerous other pieces of legislation that were clearly marked to remove the rights that are supposed to be protected by the document she swore and oath before God to uphold and defend. There is no doubt that Barack Obama would be more than willing to sign the weapons ban into law, as he indicated by saying on the campaign trail this year, “Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to say, once again, in legislation, weapons of war do not belong on our streets…

Richard Keller writes concerning the danger now that Obama is in for a second term:

With Obama, who supports the ban, in the White House for another term and the Democrats fully in control of the Senate, Feinstein will most likely be able to introduce the legislation. If any trouble is encountered in the Republican-held House of Representatives, then gun control advocates should fear not, as Obama would most likely issue an executive order to get around it as he’s done in the past when he doesn’t get his way. After all, “we can’t wait,” the dictator needs to erode our rights now.

As has been reported, so-called assault weapons are used in a very minute percentage of crime, being used in only about one percent of gun crimes and 0.20 percent of all violent crime, and the ban in no way affected violent crime while it was law.

A related issue also came up almost immediately after Obama’s reelection. Not even 24 hours after winning, the administration issued support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, which would implement a de facto global gun registry. According to PR Newswire, the administration joined with “China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and more than 150 other governments, in supporting renewed debate” on the treaty.

With such a mad rush to eliminate a huge number of weapons from the American populace, it is no wonder that gun manufacturers’ stock is skyrocketing and Americans are buying guns more than ever. The real question is, more than what you type on the keyboard behind your computer or even boast of with friends, how will you respond should the government knock on your door and demand you turn over your guns? Will you be a Charlton Heston and declare, “from my cold dead hands” or will you relinquish a God given right, protected under the very Constitution that these politicians undermined for their own gain? Friends, fellow Americans, it is time that we think long and hard about this issue and let our voices be heard in the offices of our elected representatives.

And for you people in California, could you please stop putting people like Dianne Feinstein in office?

For a full list of weapons in mind listed by the Democrats during the 110th Congress, look at H.R. 1022 presented by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). In addition, be on the lookout for parts of gun control to be passed with legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with guns, such as Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) high capacity magazine ban that he put into the failed cybersecurity bill.

Uploaded 11/24/2012

In July 1993, a deranged gunman entered the office building at 101 California St. in San Francisco and moved floor to floor, shooting whomever he saw. He killed eight before taking his own life.

Nearly two decades later, a similarly armed gunman entered a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., shooting 70 people, of whom 12 have died. This was the largest attack of its kind in American history.

Along with the sadness and grief, Americans across the country are asking themselves: Why has so little been done to stop this seemingly endless cycle of violence? Are we helpless in the face of these horrible tragedies, doomed to witness these scenes of carnage again and again?

The answer is as frustrating as the question. Over and over, commonsense measures to protect the American public have been stymied by a powerful gun lobby that has a stranglehold on many in Congress.

The 101 California Street shooting helped galvanize Congress to pass the 1994 crime bill, which included a federal assault weapons ban that I was proud to have authored.

But just a decade later, proponents of the ban were unsuccessful in extending it. That was deeply frustrating.

Contrary to gun-lobby propaganda, the assault weapons ban worked. The 101 California Street attack involved two TEC-9 semiautomatic handguns. The Aurora shooting involved an AR-15-style semiautomatic assault rifle with a 100-round ammunition drum. The manufacture and sale of these weapons, along with the 100-round drum, would have been prohibited under the assault weapons ban.

Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?

These weapons are not for hunting deer - they're for hunting people.

Would these massacres have been prevented if the powerful weapons used were still banned? Maybe not. But it's hard to imagine a gunman using a handgun with a maximum of 10 rounds causing the wholesale slaughter that resulted from a 100-round, semiautomatic assault rifle.

We should be outraged by how easy it is for the perpetrators of these horrific crimes to purchase powerful weapons. As a nation, it's time we engage in a sane conversation about the proliferation of guns in our society.

Let me be clear: If an individual wants to purchase a weapon for hunting or self-defense, I support that right.

But a semiautomatic assault rifle with a 100-round ammo drum - or a handgun with a 30-round magazine like the one used to shoot former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona - has but one purpose: to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.

I challenge anyone who claims that prohibiting the purchase of military style assault weapons infringes on American freedoms. No sane person would argue that an individual should be free to own a nuclear weapon - we set limits and we abide by them. And we need to set limits on assault rifles.

Machine guns have been banned in this country for decades. Even as it found an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court made the following observation: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever" and noted "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' " That opinion wasn't written by some wild-eyed liberal - it was written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

I reject the assertion that these massacres are simply a fact of life, that there is nothing we can do about them.

For too long, Washington has bowed to the wishes of the gun lobby, even though numerous surveys show that substantial majorities of gun owners, among many other Americans, support a renewed assault weapons ban. California has banned the sale of assault weapons. President George W. Bush supported the assault weapons ban. Even Mitt Romney signed an assault weapons ban into law as governor of Massachusetts.

To break the stranglehold of the gun lobby, people from across the political spectrum must stand up and say, "No more." No more will we allow these weapons of war to create carnage in our movie theaters, office buildings, schools and playgrounds.

We must not allow another tragedy to occur before we get serious about fixing our nation's gun laws. The assault weapons ban meant fewer Americans were killed. That's a result that Republicans and Democrats alike should embrace.

Assault weapons ban - by the numbers

The federal ban, in effect from 1994 to 2004, worked, as these statistics show.

2/3 the amount by which use of the weapons in crimes dropped during the first nine years of the ban.

7 percent, the decrease in total gun murders in the country during the ban.

450 the number of violent crimes committed involving assault weapons since the law's 2004 expiration.

750 the number of individuals shot using these weapons (of whom 350 were killed).

Sources: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Department of Justice; Brady Campaign

Dianne Feinstein is the senior senator from California.


Uploaded 8/27/2012

Obama's Second Term Transformation Plans

By Steve McCann

The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860. This statement is not hyperbole. If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "transforming America" in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.

The most significant accomplishment of Obama's first term is to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potential dictatorial presidency.

During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelming controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshipping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.

The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they and not Congress would subsequently write.

For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something and more than 200 times when they "may" take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.

The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act which confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation's financial, banking and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress. This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled Barack Obama and his radical associates.

Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others.

None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress. The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.

It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress.

Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago style political tactics.

The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists.

The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them. However, once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics, would not only threaten government shutdowns but would deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints.

Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders, e.g. the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history. In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election.

Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? No one. Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people.

Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated. The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress either Republican or Democrat in his second term but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.

The governmental structure of the United States was set up by the founders in the hope that over the years only those people of high moral character and integrity would assume the reins of power. However, knowing that was not always possible, they dispersed power over three distinct and independent branches as a check on each other.

What they could not imagine is the surrender and abdication of its constitutional duty by the preeminent governmental branch, the Congress, to a chief executive devoid of any character or integrity coupled with a judiciary essentially powerless to enforce the law when the chief executive ignores them

Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party and Mitt Romney must come to grips with this moment in time and their historical role in denying Barack Obama and his minions their ultimate goal. All resources must be directed at that end-game and not merely controlling Congress and the various committee chairmanships.


Uploaded 7/15/2012

Top 12 Reasons to Vote for a Democrat


When your family or friends cannot explain why they voted for a Democrat, give them this list.

1. I voted for a Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

2. I voted for a Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3. I voted for a Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

4. I voted for a Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers, rapists, thugs, and thieves.

5. I voted for a Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will disappear in ten years because of Global Warming if I don’t start driving a Prius or a Chevy Volt.

6. I voted for a Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7. I voted for a Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

8. I voted for a Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9. I voted for a Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution regularly to suit some fringe folks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

10. I voted for a Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill for our own because it might upset some useless endangered beetle, gopher, or fish.

11. I voted for a Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised “HOPE AND CHANGE.”

12. I voted for a Democrat because my head is so firmly buried in the sand that it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

Uploaded 7/12/2012

The Invincible Lie

Thomas Sowell

Jul 12, 2012

Anyone who wants to study the tricks of propaganda rhetoric has a rich source of examples in the statements of President Barack Obama. On Monday, July 9th, for example, he said that Republicans "believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth."

Let us begin with the word "spend." Is the government "spending" money on people whenever it does not tax them as much as it can? Such convoluted reasoning would never pass muster if the mainstream media were not so determined to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil when it comes to Barack Obama.

Ironically, actual spending by the Obama administration for the benefit of its political allies, such as the teachers' unions, is not called spending but "investment." You can say anything if you have your own private language.

But let's go back to the notion of "spending" money on "the wealthiest Americans." The people he is talking about are not the wealthiest Americans. Income is not wealth -- and the whole tax controversy is about income taxes. Wealth is what you have accumulated, and wealth is not taxed, except when you die and the government collects an inheritance tax from your heirs.

People over 65 years of age have far more wealth than people in their thirties and forties -- but lower incomes. If Obama wants to talk about raising income taxes, let him talk about it, but claiming that he wants to tax "the wealthiest Americans" is a lie and an emotional distraction for propaganda purposes.

The really big lie -- and one that no amount of hard evidence or logic seems to make a dent in -- is that those who oppose raising taxes on higher incomes simply want people with higher incomes to have more money, in hopes that some of their prosperity will "trickle down" to the rest of the people.

Some years ago, a challenge was issued in this column to name any economist, outside of an insane asylum, who had ever said any such thing. Not one example has yet been received, whether among economists or anyone else. Someone is always claiming that somebody else said it, but no one has ever been able to name and quote that somebody else.

Once we have put aside the lies and the convoluted use of words, what are we left with? Not much.

Obama is claiming that the government can get more tax revenue by raising the tax rate on people with higher incomes. It sounds plausible, and that may be enough for some people, but the hard facts make it a very iffy proposition.

This issue has been fought out in the United States in several administrations -- both Democratic and Republican. It has also been fought out in other countries.

What is the real argument of those who want to prevent taxes from rising above a certain percentage, even for people with high incomes? It has nothing to do with making them more prosperous so that their prosperity will "trickle down."

A Democratic president -- John F. Kennedy -- stated the issue plainly. Under the existing tax rates, he explained, investors' "efforts to avoid tax liabilities" made them put their money in tax shelters, because existing tax laws made "certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings" for the country.

Ironically, the Obama campaign's attacks on Mitt Romney for putting his money in the Cayman Islands substantiate the point that President Kennedy and others have made, that higher tax rates can drive money into tax shelters, whether tax-exempt municipal bonds or investments in other countries.

In other words, raising tax rates does not automatically raise tax revenues for the government. Higher tax rates have often led to lower tax revenues for states, the federal government and other countries. Conversely, lower tax rates have often led to higher tax revenues. It all depends on the circumstances.

But none of this matters to Barack Obama. If class warfare rhetoric about taxes leads to more votes for him, that is his bottom line, whether the government gets a dime more revenue or not. So long as his lies go unchallenged, a second term will be the end result for him and a lasting calamity for the country.


Uploaded 7/11/2012

Is America Under Barry Becoming A Totalitarian State?

July 11, 2012

Gabor Zolna


A Totalarian state is one in which the leader, in this case Barry, has total control of the Government and the people. In practice, the term is used to describe a political situation where a small group of people (i.e. AG Eric Holder, Secretary Hilary Clinton, Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Secretary Leon Panetta) or an organization has total authority over a nation.

As a point worth mentioning, in Hitler’s Germany, there were many characteristics of a Totalitarian state. The Government ran and censored the media. All forms of communication were liable to interference from above and could and were heavily censored. This removes freedom of speech, therefore enabling the government to influence popular opinion via propaganda and false news messages.

Why would a president who might have less than 121 days left in office, should he lose the election, sign his most recent “Executive Order” that allows the Government under the president’s control to take over all forms of communications should he deem that there is a need to do so in a time of crisis? Let’s not forget Barry’s previous Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s most famous comment: ” you never want a serious crises go to waste”.

The next question that one might need to ask themselves is: what defines and/or determines a crisis, and how easy would it be for Barry to create a crisis that he feels is sufficient in nature to have him and his Administration take over all forms of communication? Take your pick. Would an uprising between blacks and whites be sufficient for him to demand the takeover of all forms of communications? Or would an uprising as we had on Wall Street with the 99er’s protesting in the streets and parks against the 1% be sufficient for Obama to declare Martial Law and take over all forms of communications? The truth is that under Barry and his chosen key members of his Administration, the majority of all major enterprises are now virtually controlled completely by our government.

Under Barry’s leadership (or dictatorship, depending on how one want’s to view his actions), our government controls, as of the Supreme Court’s most recent ruling, one-sixth of the American economy by taking over healthcare alone. The government controls our military under the leadership of Leon Panetta, who in his prior life was appointed by Bill Clinton as White House Chief of Staff. They also control the automotive industry, thank’s to Barry’s takeover of GM and Chrysler. The coal and oil industries, thanks to the EPA’s strict regulations and Barry’s “will”, are also all controlled by the government.

The major news media is and has always been in support of Barry and his policies, except for Fox News, and unfortunately, it appears that they too are beginning to buckle under the heel of Obama and his Administration. If one does some research, they will quickly learn that there is absolutely no difference between a totalitarian state and a Muslim-run state; they are identical in that the opinion of the people does not matter. What does matter is the opinion and will of the leadership.

What I find fascinating is that not one single member of Congress has questioned openly Barry’s eligibility in holding office. If one were to do so, he/she could demand that Obama release and produce original documents to prove that he is eligible to be president. Barry’s Occidental College and Harvard University applications would be all that would be needed to end this farce since they would prove without a doubt that he attended those institutions as a foreign exchange student, something the the new Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagen was and is fully aware of. Right, Supreme Court Justice Kagen?

The members of Congress are all in denial of the inevitable, as they remain silent for fear of losing their elitist positions. However, what they all need to ask themselves is: does a Muslim-run or Totalitarian country have any group of individuals similar to those in Congress? That answer, of course, is no. In other words, by their inactions, in all probability they themselves will be instrumental in eliminating their own cherished positions and allowing the America that we once loved and knew to no longer exist.

Once again, why would Barry sign an “Executive Order” to enable the government to control all forms of communications with the presidential election less than 121 days away if he had no intentions of remaining in power? (Not necessarily as president but more in line as a dictator, which in reality is what he has been all along by disregarding not only the Constitution but by totally disregarding the will of the American people.)

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is obvious; he has no intention of giving up the power that he and his handlers have been able to take control of, and I fear that the end of America as we all once knew it will soon be gone forever.

Uploaded 5/8/2012

Obama administration, including his czars and his closest Progressive supporters, are planning a manufactured insurgency against America. Using the media to garner both sympathy and support for his unfinished goals

The planned re-election of Obama, revolutionary style


The Contact

It was not the proverbial 3:00 a.m. phone call, but close enough. And it was not made to the White House, but to my house, which is not white, nor is it in DC. It was about 2:30 a.m. on 25 April 2012, and the call itself was somewhat unexpected. I had anticipated the telephone call from my DHS insider much earlier the previous day, but our schedules didn’t synch up. I was traveling on an investigative assignment, while my source was in meetings all day. I had just fallen asleep, and was slumbering no more than 20 minutes when the phone rang.

In most households, a ringing phone at that time of night causes concern for everyone who hears it. In my household, it seems to surprise only my surly, 140 pound light-sleeping German Shepherd. He let out an objective grunt as I stepped over him to take the call in another room. It was “Rosebud,” the code name given my insider source.

About Rosebud

Just a little bit here about my source and his “super-secret code name.” I’ve known this government insider since 1979, when he first became a municipal patrol officer. He took a job in a bigger city and had a very successful run as a cop. Before retirement and after the events of 9/11, he was tapped by the feds, where he worked in various capacities under the umbrella of DHS. He worked his way up, and suddenly found himself in what he terms the inner sanctum of the “TEC” building. TEC, he explains, is an acronym for what he calls “The Estrogen Challenged,” which houses the upper echelon of the Department of Homeland Security. I’ll leave it at that.

As far as his code name, it originates from an incident that occurred at the end of the disco era. It is something that we both privately laugh about, but rarely ever talk about. His “code name” is known to him, me, and at the time, a young woman who has since vanished amid the glitter of disco balls and constant replays of the Bee Gees in a dark nightclub some 32 years ago, and has no “cloak and dagger” origins.

But he is real, his position serious, and his knowledge vast. Unfortunately, that’s what makes the whole situation frightening and deadly serious.

The information

It began on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 with a 45-minute interview on TruNews with Rick Wiles when I first disclosed the information I received the previous week from my source. The information I relayed “went viral,” as they say, across the internet.

To support the statements I made during that interview, I am showing my handwritten notes taken contemporaneously during our conversation. My notes consist of two pages and are, at various points, admittedly difficult to decipher. I ask that points not be deducted for my penmanship given the time of the morning which they were taken.

According to my source, there is talk among the highest levels of the uppermost echelon of the Department of Homeland Security, which he describes as effectively under the control of Barack Hussein Obama. During this call, he said that the DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that “a civil war” is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it,” stated my source.

“The DHS takes their marching orders from the Obama administration, from Obama himself, but mostly from his un-appointed czars. And Jarrett, especially Valerie Jarrett. Don’t think for a minute that the administration is doing anything to stabilize events in the U.S. They are revolutionaries, and revolutionaries thrive on chaos,” he added.

My source stated that he has not seen things this bad since he began working within DHS. “It’s like they [DHS agency heads] don’t care about what the American people see or feel about what the DHS agencies are doing. They figure that if the average American will put up with being “sexually groped and nuked” just to fly, they’ll accept almost anything. “That’s why their actions are becoming more overt. “It’s in your face and the brass actually chuckle about it” said my source.

New Information

Astounded by the information my source provided “going viral,” I spoke to him again early Sunday morning. This was a scheduled telephone call (as noted on page 2 of my notes) based on a high level meeting of DHS personnel that was scheduled for and took place in Chantilly, Virginia, on Saturday, 5 May 2012. He hoped to provide me with more information to supplement that which he already given. Although he was not personally present, his source was. While he would not say who was at the meeting on Saturday or give its precise location, he said that the many of the names would be recognizable. He spoke to his source late Saturday night.

I contacted him on his cellular phone early Sunday morning to get the promised update.

“Geez, nice job on getting the word out about what’s really going on at DHS and in this administration,” were the first words out of his mouth, followed by “thanks a lot.” I asked him why he would be thanking me. “I just wanna’ tell you that I’m going to have to hire someone to start my car, and I’m surely not going for any rides in small planes in the immediate future,” he said with a bit of nervous laughter. “I hope no one finds out who I am or it’s going to be more than my pension I’ll have to worry about.”

“I can tell you word is getting out that people are starting to wake up, which is causing a lot of ‘pissed off brass.’ I can’t tell if they are more desperate or upset about the exposure, but the tone is starting to become a lot more tense. I hope that we’re having something to do with that,” he added.

With that, he provided me with additional information to supplement that which he already given me on 25 April. For clarity purposes, I have combined the information together from both contacts. The following information includes the updated information provided to me Sunday morning.

Obama the revolutionary

Metaphorically speaking, there’s a revolution going on in the U.S., propped up by three legs. Economic chaos, chaos through racial division, and chaos through class division, all joined by one core element: Barack Hussein Obama and his stable of unelected czars. Obama is using the lessons learned in 1968 as the template for 2012, and many of those who were active in the late 1960s are now calling the shots for 2012.

“The Obama administration and many of the un-elected ‘czars,’ either directly or indirectly, are engaged in covert activities with the occupy movement, various labor protests, and other subversive activities inside the U.S.,” stated my source. Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,” stated this source. He added that they are using some lower level DHS agents to make the payments under the context of tracking subversives, but they are the unwitting subversives. “It’s like Fast & Furious” but in the social realm,” he added.

“Obama is using some high profile people as pawns to foment the revolution. I heard several times through very credible sources that [Louis] Farrakhan is on the CIA payroll. Other have been named as well, but I’m not prepared to identify them yet. Farrakhan is to coordinate the Blacks and the Muslims to prepare for riots this summer, using any means necessary.”

“Mentioned at the meeting Saturday were methods to use pawns to simulate the rioting in the Arab Spring countries, but to the benefit of this administration. A controlled chaos thing,” stated my source. They envision rioting starting in the urban areas first, such as New York and other major cities, followed by a disruption of business and commerce. This will allow the DHS to mobilize their various teams into the streets of America without objection of the people,” stated my source.

“They want to restrict travel, if not through high energy prices, then by checkpoints and curfews mandated by rioting and unrest. They understand we are the most well-armed nation in the world, yet they are aware of our vulnerabilities and intend to fully exploit them,” he added. The whole purpose is to keep Obama in office for another term, no matter how unpopular he is, as he is not finished changing our country from a Constitutional Republic. This is the run-up to the 2012 elections, or perhaps causing enough chaos to delay them - indefinitely.”

One statement that rattled me more than anything was that a great number of those already in power, whether in appointed or elected positions, actually want to see Obama stay in power, according to this source. “This is what we’ve been working toward and we’re closer now than we’ve ever been. If we lose now, we might not have another chance.”

This chilling common goal also explains the lack of interest in the Constitutional legitimacy of Obama. It is common knowledge that Obama is not an American, and neither is his agenda. Of course, criticism of his bona-fides feeds into the cries of racism, despite the massive fraud perpetrated on the American people. Party lines are meaningless when the common objective is the revolutionary overtaking of America.

Obama, the professor of Keynesian economics

“The Obama administration is working closely with Bernanke, Geithner and others not to save our economy, but to outright destroy it. He is not the first or only one to try this, but the most effective and most vetted for that purpose. Do you actually think that the fact that Timothy Geithner’s father worked with Obama’s mother in Indonesia was coincidental,” stated my source rhetorically. “What we’re seeing now is the fourth quarter of a game that started long ago, which also currently involves the Clintons. Obama would not be where he is if it were not for the Clintons, and to a lesser extent, Bush, but that’s for other reasons. Don’t be fooled, the Clintons never left or lost power,” he added.

“There are file drawers full of papers, heavily guarded papers at the ‘TEC building’ so I can only imagine what’s in them, about international financial dealings going back decades. I do know, or at least I was told, that they involve organizations that are the so-called conspiracy fringe groups, such as the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral Commission, and people including George Soros, Henry Kissinger, and current leaders of big industry. Some are fossils. They’ve been around a long time. Others are up-and-coming. They’ve got one thing in common, though, and that is to put in place a global system of governance, including a common currency. Economics is a huge part of this revolution, and they want to replace the dollar, to see it collapse. They expect, that is, they are working toward this very goal, and when this happens, it will cause chaos like never seen before in the history of this country.”

“Why do you think Jon Corzine is not only walking around, but heavily involved in Obama fundraising? They know it’s just a matter of time that Europe will implode economically, and when it does, start counting the days before we see massive hyperinflation and the ultimate collapse of the U.S. dollar,” stated this insider. “What will it look like in the streets of America when the general population realizes that there is no money? That’s right, chaos.”

Obama & the planned racial divide

According to this insider, the Trayvon Martin case is just the tip of the iceberg. “You certainly don’t have to be a genius to understand how Obama and his team played the public on this issue, and it’s far from over. But that’s not the sole element of what we’ll see this summer.”

“Remember the shots fired at the White House not too long ago?” asked my source. There was an element of outrage that was squandered, according to ‘team Obama.’ In fact, Obama and some of his closest advisors, especially [Valerie] Jarrett were incredibly angered that the outrage was seemingly tempered. It should have been an opportunity to use our force against the Tea Parties, the gun clingers, the Constitutionalists, and everyone who has complained about Obama. DHS should have stepped in right then, and used that event to start the clampdown,” this source stated about White House comments.

This source stated that from that point on, the DHS must become more responsive and aggressive.

Watch for a false flag event against Obama or his family, something that will outrage ‘black America.’ It will be carefully choreographed, but executed in a manner that will evoke the ugliest of reactions and create racial chaos in this country that will make the Watts riots, 1968 and the Rodney King riots pale in comparison. That’s the third leg in this.”

The planned end-game

Does Obama look worried about the upcoming elections? Look at his lavish vacations, his limited work schedule, and those with whom he is working. This is a very dangerous man who has, as his closest advisors, people who have orchestrated the revolutions of the 1960s. They know the “trigger points” in America.

The Obama administration, including his czars and along with his closets Progressive supporters, are planning a manufactured insurgency against America. He is using the media to his advantage to garner both sympathy and support for his unfinished goals. He is desperately seeking a way to remain in office, even if it means the surreal prospect of an indefinite postponement of elections - if it can be pulled off. So far, he’s got the support of the majority of the DHS “brass” behind him, according to my source.

“They’re power hungry, and they want to remain in charge,” stated this source.

The “surreal” aspect of suspended elections won’t look so surreal when you see any or all of the “trigger points” take place in the not-so-distant future.

“The end-game plan for America is its destruction as a Constitutional Republic, with the assistance of the agencies under the umbrella of the DHS.”

My sourced stated one more thing that seemed to tie things together. He urged me to recall the quote by Henry Kissinger who was speaking at a Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, on 21 May 1992:

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.

That threat need not be from beyond. All it might take is a world of starving, broke and desperate people.

Note: My source promised more information at a later time. Stay tuned.

Uploaded 4/12/2012

President should be changed to American "dictator."

Who said he hasn't done anything?

An impressive list of accomplishments!

· First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner

· First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

· First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States

· First President to violate the War Powers Act. .

· First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

· First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.

· First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

· First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.

· First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

· First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat. .

· First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

· First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

· First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

· First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

· First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

· First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.

· First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

· First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

· First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

· First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

· First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office. .

· First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.

· First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.

· First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

· First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.

· First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends; paid for by the taxpayer.

· First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

· First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

· First President to repeat the Holy Qur’an tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

· First President to take a 17 day vacation.

So how is this hope and change working out for you?

Uploaded 1/26/2012

Divergent Paths—The Vision of Our Founders vs. the Plan of Marx

Mixture of philosophy, social history, economics, and "social justice" propaganda: Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism, and Marxist Economics.

- Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Thursday, January 26, 2012

Marx believed that the bourgeoisie exploited the proletariat by keeping them in chains. He urged, “Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.” Classical socialists believed that socialism was an imperfect stage before communism, where the means of production were owned by the state and workers were paid hourly for their work.

Margaret Thatcher had once said, “The problem with socialism is that, at some point, you run out of other people’s money.” She was referring to the deliberate attempt by a centralized socialist government to confiscate by various means and redistribute wealth they viewed as unfairly earned at the expense of the masses.

Communism abolished classes and the workers were paid for their needs not for the work they performed—“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This brings to mind the motto Romanian workers adopted under communism in order to survive: “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.”

There is no such thing as “equal” or “shared” (”communis” means “shared” in Latin) in communism. There is equal misery, equal suffering, equal mistreatment, and equal poverty. We shared constant shortages of food, rationing of necessities, water, energy, and heat.

Marx said, the proletariat does all the work. It is only fitting that they share the wealth. What wealth? The one that the Communist Party elites confiscated by force from its citizens after they were thrown in jail for being “bourgeois?”

Karl Marx, “the original hippie,” was negligent with his own family and “detested manual labor, preferring to dream up ideas about mooching from others and spreading their wealth around.” A report written in1852 by a Prussian police agent described a man who rarely washed, combed, or changed his linens, idle for days on end, an intellectual Bohemian. (Michael Savage, Trickle Up Poverty)

“There is not one clean and solid piece of furniture to be found in the whole apartment: everything is broken, tattered and torn…in one word everything is topsy turvy… When you enter Marx’s room, smoke and tobacco fumes make your eyes water so badly, that you think for a moment that you are groping about in a cave… Everything is dirty and covered with dust. It is positively dangerous to sit down. One chair has three legs. On another chair, which happens to be whole, the children are playing at cooking.” (Michael Savage, Trickle Up Poverty, 64, quoting Eugene Kamenka, The Portable Karl Marx, 41-42)

Marx cherished his philosophical ideas more than his responsibilities to his family because he relied on wealthy patrons such as Friedrich Engels, communist sponsors, and inheritances to care for his family. He died a pauper. (Michael Savage, Trickle Up Poverty, 65)

The failed socialist experiment at Jamestown, Virginia, taught us that, when people worked the land together, some were lazy and did much less work, while others, who worked harder, resented the slackers. The whole commune nearly starved to death. The following year, land was divided again to each family, and the settlement thrived and had extra food to trade for other needs.

Marxism does not work because greed and jealousy exist

Marxism does not work because greed and jealousy exist. Not everyone is so altruistic that he/she is willing to work extremely hard for the good of everyone.

Capitalism does work because of self-interest. One individual’s hard work to achieve self-interest enables Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” (the price system) to push everyone else to greater economic achievement. Waiting on the dole and the spreading of wealth is the death of initiative, respect, dignity, honor in a good-day’s work, and the desire to improve one’s standing in society.

Self-interest also breeds charity. Communist elites were never charitable except to themselves. People living under communism were not charitable to strangers. They performed volunteer activities involuntarily under the forced directions of communist rulers.

The population in communism hoarded food, enabled black markets to thrive, and engaged in bartering stolen goods or raw materials from work in order to survive. They tended to steal even public items that were fastened or nailed down if they could be sold for recycling.

There was no private property in communism because it created unfair competition. However, if a citizen was part of the ruling regime elites, he/she could own as much private property as they wished or as fast as they could steal it from the hapless proletariat and from the common means of production.

In the socialist and communist “utopia” I experienced, the proletariat was given free health care, education, and transportation. In reality, we had to pay for transportation and anything else at subsidized prices. Health care so dismal and constant shortages due to rationing created a huge black market. Medical care was pathetically inadequate and life had no value. People were killed by malpractice with no accountability since everybody worked for the ruling communist regime for meager wages and the omnipotent government could not be sued. Doctors, nurses, teachers, and engineers were told where to live, where to practice their trade, and how much they could earn.

Modern socialists in Europe advocate and run bankrupt welfare states with a nanny mentality of cradle-to-grave entitlements. Exceptionalism is punished, “global citizens” are shaped by socialist schools, and “groupthink” is rewarded. Most inventions of the modern world were the result of individual creativity and exceptional talent of one individual not of groups “brainstorming.”

Communist China did not start to make economic progress until the centralized bureaucracy lessened its stronghold on the population and allowed individual creativity and entrepreneurship to thrive. People were forced to do everything in society against their will.

Norman Matoon Thomas (Nov. 20,1884—December 19, 1968), a leading American socialist and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, explained best the status of socialism in the U.S.:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” He continued, “I no longer need to run as a Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” It appears that they have reached that goal.

Why would French or Greek citizens work hard if the government cannot fire them? Those who lack a work ethic and are lazy should be fired. Why would welfare Americans find work when they are encouraged to stay home and receive undeserved checks from the taxes of hard-working Americans? Socialism is forced on America by an ever-increasing federal bureaucracy.

Marxism, named after Karl Marx (1818-1883), is a mixture of philosophy, social history, economics, and “social justice” propaganda: Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism, and Marxist Economics.

For Marx, philosopher Georg Hegel’s dialectic—the contradiction between subject and object - was a “reflection of the actual contradiction between workers and employers under capitalism.” Modern man is alienated from his true nature because he has no tie to the product of his labor for which he earns a wage, Marx said.

Based on the history of class struggle, Marx believes that competition for resources divides society into “mutually antagonistic classes.” Poor workers “could be inflamed to believe that the capitalist system would always be disadvantageous to them.”

Das Kapital (Capital) promoted the idea that the “bourgeoisie” made profits by exploiting the “proletariat.” Workers were “exploited” when the value of goods produced exceeded the wages paid, thus creating “surplus value.”

Agitating class envy, Marx claimed that bourgeois competition forced them to exploit workers more. When they refused to exploit more, the capitalist would be forced into bankruptcy or bought out by someone who would continue the exploitation. Low wages would persist, the proletariat would rebel and would replace capitalism with socialism/communism. Marx imagined a “complete mechanization of production, so that any man could do any job.”

Marx acknowledges, “Capitalism is the most powerful mode of production available.” Yet abolition of private property is the crux of the theory of communism.

Marx and Engels introduced the “dictatorship of the proletariat” which was used by Lenin and Stalin to defend their totalitarian rule.

Marx believed that abolishing private ownership of the means of production by force and dictates, the proletariat would crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie. Lenin envisioned a dictatorship by a minority party, not by a democratically chosen majority.

Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto ,“exploitation and class warfare will destroy the national barriers between members of the proletariat, and the proletariat has a duty to overthrow the ruling classes in each nation.”

When the proletariat ruled, the following would happen:

No private property

Progressive tax

No right of inheritance

One centralized bank

Centralized credit

Centralized communication

Centralized transportation

Means of production owned by state

Equitable distribution of population density across the country

Free education (in the communist society I experienced, free education was rationed)

Combine education with production and agriculture

Industrial armies

Agricultural armies

Equal wages

As I sat in my high school class during Scientific Socialism lessons, with eyes glazed over by sheer boredom, I wondered how anyone could make such a deceptive ideology into a science. I could never say it, lest I went to a Gulag.

Stepping outside into our real world, there was no egalitarian society in communism, there were chronic shortages of food while the communist elite ate well and stuffed themselves.

We certainly had two distinct classes: the workers and the communist apparatchiks/the “intellectual proletarians”/the “cultivated proletarian artists.” Some had a fifth grade education, like the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, a cobbler, and his equally uneducated wife who presented papers at international forums, stolen from seasoned Ph.D.s who did not dare cross the “Mother of the Country” or challenge her faux credentials.

The common denominator of the communist rulers was that they were agitators and street organizers who had learned “how to be good commies” at brief seminars. For their servitude and help in oppressing the masses, helpful idiots and underlings received extra food, better housing, and comfortable professional jobs in spite of their lack of qualifications.

“Workers of the world” did not unite to overthrow capitalism as Marx wished, on the contrary, in 1989, the workers united and threw out communism in Eastern Europe as a failed ideology, economic, and societal system.

Our founding fathers believed in and respected private property as the cornerstone of our Constitutional republic. Belief in God and family were the keystones.

A majority of Americans today subscribe to the ideas that:

Character is the single most important attribute in a leader

Respect and honor are laudable traits

Entrepreneurs are our economic lifeblood and deserve what they make

The rich and entrepreneurs help enrich us all

American ingenuity promotes wealth

American generosity saves many nations in times of peril/need

Families are the building blocks of society

Guns prevent evil from taking over

Stoked class envy and hatred is un-American

Hyphenated labels are divisive and destructive

Illegal and unchecked immigration are dangerous to this country

Multilingualism is a divider

Global warming scare is junk science

Liberalism is a failed ideology

Military strength deters aggression (”Si vis pacem, para bellum.” If you want peace, prepare for war, said the Romans.

National security is the first responsibility of the federal government

“Political correctness is the liberal version of fascism”

Quotas should not exist

Tax rates should be flat and everybody should pay taxes

Unions have outlived their usefulness

“Vigilance is the price of freedom”

“Welfare robs people of their dignity and is the poison of capitalism”

We are responsible for our own destiny, not government or society

Government is not the solution, out-of-control government is the problem

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shall not covet’ and ‘Thou shall not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable percepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” (John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787)

I have seen this misconception, even among patriots, on the Internet so often, and this is so critical to our ability to understand who & what we are, as a nation, that I had to say something and make sure everybody here on the 9.12 Project Network understood this fact so we're all on the same page. If you already know this, please share this information wide and far.

The United States of America is NOT a Democracy; The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, One Nation Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All!"

The Constitution of the United States of America, ARTICLE IV Section. 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

The Founding Fathers knew that Democracy is a horrible system of government, totally inadequate for a nation as large as America, as well as conducive to a tyranny of the majority, so they gave us a Constitutional Republic with balanced sharing of powers and checks & balances keeping the progression of tyranny in check, for the most part, for many years

As Benjamin Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel, who wanted to know the result of the months of deliberation, asked: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Benjamin Franklin responded: "A republic if you can keep it."

Benjamin Rush said, in the year 1789: "A simple democracy ... is one of the greatest of evils" and James Madison said, in 1787, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths," and John Adams is reported to have stated "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide," in the year 1814.

By the 1830's, what we now call "progressives" had already begun transforming our language. Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828 Facsimile Edition) is the last one to have fully Biblical/Christian education definition of all words. Nothing since, other than later printings of this edition of this dictionary, has been published, that I am aware of, that didn't contain some form of word distortion/pollution by those we now call "progressives."

Those "progressives" from the early 20th century all knew full well that we are a Constitutional Republic, IMHO, and like BHO, they felt that the Constitution of the United States of America was an impediment to their agenda, and one of the myriad things that was done to combat the Principles of Liberty Enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, was to promote the falsehood that we are a democracy, rather than a Republic. As Glenn Beck highlighted in his speech at CPAC 2010, in 1938, the COMMUNIST PARTY was publicly exhorting people to vote for "progressive" candidates in pamphlets. This makes it far easier to frame the argument in terms more agreeable to tyranny and oppression, empowering the media & the government-run schools to more easily mislead and misinform.

But even earlier than that, a significant, negative structural change in the system of checks and balances set up by our founding fathers passed by Congress May 13, 1912, then ratified on April 8, 1913. It's name?
It modified Article I, section 3, of the Constitution of the United States of America, usurping the U.S. Senatorial Election process from the state legislatures, which process was a bulwark against the Federal Government's expansion of power, and turned the election of Senators over to the masses, removing yet another check and balance against unlimited growth and power of the Federal Government.

Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment, Senators were chosen by state legislatures, which allowed much greater local control over the election process, thereby keeping the Senators linked to the best interest of the states. Sadly, with the 17th Amendment, Senators were given the incentive to increase their own power by bribing the uneducated of the electorate with their neighbors' tax dollars. This unwise change modified our Constitutional Republic to make it more like a Democracy, weakened the protections of the peoples' liberties in the process, and removed the Senate's check/balance against the Spending power of the House of Representatives.

Which brings up the point that technically, according to James Madison (Federalist No. 51, Wednesday, 06 February, 1788), we are a COMPOUND Constitutional Republic:

In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

By the latter half of the 20th century, most public education resources had adopted the falsehood that America is a Democracy as if it were reality, and today, the very mention of the fact that we're a Constitutional Republic is met with scorn by those who know better, but don't want to admit it, as well as the well-intentioned, but misinformed, who have been misled by our public education system, and are resistant to new ideas.

I just wanted to clear up this misconception, because whoever controls the language, controls society. It's time we took back our country, including our culture! When we use the distorted definitions and false terminology of the American Left (so-called "progressives"), we are fighting the battle with one hand tied behind our backs. Awake and Arise, fellow Patriots! Wake up, America, and realize that liberty is being smothered in the back room! Let us continue to rally to her defense, even on issues that are seemingly small, such as the definitions of the words we use to discuss principles and issues. If it makes the difference in just a few dozen cases, it's worth it, but I would guess that if universally understood, this truth could potentially make the difference in a few hundred thousand, and indirectly, a few million cases, if not more!

Here is a great video clip* that does an excellent job explaining the differences between forms of government, including Democracy and the Republic:

The Chapter on the 12th Principle of Freedom in the Constitution, from The Five Thousand Year Leap: 30 Year Anniversary Edition with Glenn Beck Foreword, has the following to say on the subject:

During the early 1900s an ideological war erupted, and the word “democracy” became one of the casualties. Today, the average American uses the term “democracy” to describe America’s traditional Constitutional republic. But technically speaking, it is not. The Founders had hoped that their descendants would maintain a clear distinction between a democracy and a republic.

The creation of the current confusion developed as a result of a new movement in the United States. Approximately 100 people met in New York in 1905 and organized what they called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS). Chapters were established on more than sixty college and university campuses coast-to-coast. In time the co-directors of the movement became Harry W. Laidler and Norman Thomas. Laidler explained that the ISS was set up to “throw light on the world-wide movement of industrial democracy known as socialism.”

What was this new movement attempting to accomplish? Socialism is defined as “government ownership or control of all the means of production (farms, factories, mines, and natural resources) and all the means of distribution (transportation, communications, and the instruments of commerce).” Obviously, this is not a “democracy” in the classical sense. And it is the very antithesis of a free-market economy in a republic.

...by 1921 the violence associated with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had given the term “socialism” a strongly repugnant meaning to many people. The ISS therefore decided to change its name to “The League for Industrial Democracy.” The word “democracy” was supposed to carry the message that through the nationalization (government expropriation) of all the means of production and distribution, the nation’s fabulous resources would become the property of “all the people” — hence a democracy. Then America could enjoy “production for use, not for profit.” This meant that the word “democracy” was deceptive. Various devices were used to alert the public to the true meaning of the word. For example, the U.S. Army’s Training Manual No. 2000-25, published in 1928, contained a whole section explaining the difference between a democracy and a republic in their original, historical sense.

Our Founding Fathers studied Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, among others.

The Five Thousand Year Leap: 30 Year Anniversary Edition with Glenn...
describes why a Republic was chosen over a Democracy :

There are many reasons why the Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy. Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislative or decision-making processes of government. This has never worked because the people become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democratic mass participation in the government of their city states and each time it ended in tyranny.

In Federalist No. 10 (Thursday, November 22, 1787), James Madison contrasted democracy and the republic, pointing out that an expanding nation such as The United States of America couldn't confine itself to the limitations inherent in a democracy. The point is also touched upon in Federalist No. 14:

"...in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region." -The Federalist No. 14, Friday November 30, 1787

Uploaded 1/17/2012

Since the media won’t ask these questions about Barack Obama we who want to save America must

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

We know the media will not help save America. They hate America as much as Obama does and always have. When Obama came on the scene they sprung to life behind the leader they always yearned for but could never find.

To save America we have to keep asking questions and keep demanding answers. We have to talk to friends, co-workers and family asking these questions about Obama the media won’t ask.

Why did Watergate forced Nixon out but Fast and Furious has not touched Obama or Holder?

Why did Eric Holder participate in a cover-up of the circumstances of the Oklahoma City bombing? What does Obama know about Oklahoma City?

Why does the media accept Obama’s “safety concerns” to kill the Keystone pipeline when EVERY lower 48 state has a pipeline running through it?

Why did Obama give Brazil money for off shore drilling while continuing to prohibit Americans from drilling for oil in America?

How can Obama possibly be eligible to be president when the fact that his father was not a citizen is not even in question?

How can Obama be in a lawsuit WITH Mexico AGAINST Arizona over the ”rights” of illegal aliens?

Did Obama withhold relief aid to the flood stricken Midwest because it is populated by Whites who won’t vote for him anyway?

How can the media remain silent about Obama’s “recess appointments” when the Senate never was in recess?

Ask what compelling argument for reelect Barack Hussein Obama can make? What has he done that America needs more of?

Demanding a long form birth certificate and mocking Obama over “57 states” and “Marine Corpse” gives our enemies an opportunity to change the subject- stay away from them those traps.

We have to pound away at these real questions. Write your local liberal rag until they final publish your letters. Attend every public forum and ask at least two of these questions. If you can, print out these questions and hand them to strangers at public places.

We KNOW who won’t ask these questions. It’s up to us to save our country for our children and grandchildren by being the ones who will ask them.

Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

To read more use these links:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr. AND http://obamaballotchallenge.com/minor-v-happersett-proof-obama-is-unlawful-president




Uploaded 1/11/2012

You could Have a Pin Drop

At a time when our President and other politicians tend to apologize for our country's prior actions, here's a refresher on how some of our former patriots handled negative comments about our country.

These are good and deserve repeating...

JFK'S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 1960's when DeGaulle decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaulle said he wanted all US Military out of France as soon as possible.

Rusk responded, "Does that include those who are buried here?"

DeGaulle Did not respond.

You could have heard a pin drop.

When in England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by George Bush.

He answered by saying, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

You could have heard a pin drop.

There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying, "Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he Intend to do, bomb them?"

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: "Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; How many does France have?"

You could have heard a pin drop.

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, "Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?"

Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, "Maybe it's because the Brit's, Canadians, Aussie's and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German."

You could have heard a pin drop.


Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.

"You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically.

Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.

"Then you should know enough to have your passport ready."

The American said, "The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."

"Impossible. Americans always have to show their passports on arrival in France!"

The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to."

You could have heard a pin drop.

Uploaded 1/10/2011


"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 ensure 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's good."- George Washington.


Move ahead to today. We have not George Washington as president, but Barack Obama, by far the most anti-Second Amendment president in American history. Obama has been quoted as saying "I don't believe people should be able to own guns." Obama said in a questionnaire that he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of ALL handguns, and as a junior senator from Illinois Obama endorsed a state ban on the sale and possession of ALL handguns. Obama OPPOSED a bill designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions. Obama has proposed that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes, while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park, effectively putting virtually ALL GUN DEALERS OUT OF BUSINESS. Obama has proposed to make it a felony for a gun owner if their firearm was STOLEN from their residence and it causes harm to another person. Obama wanted a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons. Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, is a veteran gun-grabber.

WE NEED GOVERNMENT CONTROL, NOT GUN CONTROL! Tyrants have always loathed an armed people. GUN CONTROL KILLS. In the 20th century alone, there is undeniable evidence of the evils of gun control. Let history be proof:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control under one of the bloodiest despots in modern history, Joseph Stalin. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1928, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Christians, gypsies, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda, under brutal dictator Idi Amin, established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives at the hands of their own governments because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century.


"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead." (Chancelor's Speech, 1935 by Adolf Hilter)

"The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject peoples to possess arms. So let's not have any talk about native militas." (Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-44, Farrar, Strauss and Young, 1953)

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA, ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns DOESN'T SERVE THE STATE." - HEINRICH HIMMLER

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." -Mao Zedong

"If I could have banned them all - Mr. And Mrs. America turn in your guns - I would have!" (Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5, 1995 by CFR California U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein)

"When we got organized as a country, they wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly. When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." - Ex-President Bill Clinton

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." --V.I. Lenin.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." Bill Clinton

"Gun registration is not enough. Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control

Any discussion of The Right to Bear Arms should begin with an understanding of this: Rights do not come from government. Only privileges come from government. Privileges that are granted by government can also be taken away by government. Rights do not come from the Constitution either. The Constitution only protects Rights the people had long before the Constitution was written. All Rights come from God and are inalienable, which means that they cannot be taken away. The only legitimate way a person can lose God-given Rights is by ALLOWING a government or individual to take them from you. Governments or individuals who violate your God-given Rights must believe themselves superior to God or they must believe that God does not exist, and therefore have NO GOD-GIVEN AUTHORITY OVER YOU! Several of the Founding Fathers suggested the following slogan for our Great Seal, "Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to GOD".

 Name one communist country, or one despotic dictatorship, where gun ownership among the civilian population is a cherished right? Of course you can't. That type of tyranny only flourishes in an environment where the population is weak, and unable to stand up for itself. In the 1930's, after Hitler came to power, the NAZI government made the ownership of guns among private civilians illegal. They then proceeded to confiscate all the guns so that the German people would be weak, and unable to stand up against the tyrannical activities of their own government.

The Nazi disarmament campaign began as soon as Hitler assumed power in 1933. It started with the creation of large volumes of written rules and regulations. Yet it was not until March 1938, the same month that Hitler annexed Austria, that the Nazis created their own Weapons Law. On November 9, 1938, the Nazis launched the Kristallnacht, and unarmed Jews all over Germany were attacked by government-sponsored mobs. In conjunction with Kristallnacht, the government used the administrative authority of the 1938 Weapons Law to require immediate Jewish surrender of all firearms and edged weapons, and to mandate a sentence of death or 20 years in a concentration camp for any violation. Do you think if the Jews in Nazi Germany were well armed, and offered feirce resistance, that the holocaust would have happened on a scale that it did? Of course not. They offered very little resistance, and were not armed. Also during Hitlers reign, the Germans invaded country after country in Europe. However, one country they would not invade was Switzerland. Why? Switzerland was the only country left in Europe that still allowed it's people to freely keep and bear arms. The NAZI's, being afraid of widespread armed resistance, left them alone.

The latest mass shootings (Put the name of whatever school, church, courthouse, and so on here) highlight the fact that the police were powerless and unable to prevent or stop these attacks. What the mainstream (Put the name of whatever politician or media outlet here) refuses to point out is that if the victims had guns to protect themselves, not only would have the assailants been more afraid to start shooting, but they would have been stopped far more quickly. Emergency 911 service is available almost everywhere in the U.S., and it was worthless against those armed attackers. And how often do the gun prohibitionists use whatever recent spate of murderous attacks on schools, businesses, community centers and churches as reasons for "gun control"? Each of these cases highlights just the opposite.


The unarmed victims of criminal attack and their families cannot get compensation from the city governments that failed to protect them in these terrible cases. At the same time, the prevailing laws and anti-gun culture made sure those victims were unarmed. Police help was too little, too late. Those murderous events do not prove the need for "gun control". They PROVE the need for an armed population. They also demonstrate the utter inability of the police to protect individuals from violent crime. Police typically investigate crimes after the fact -- they don't prevent very many crimes. And the laws in nearly every state say that the police don't even owe a duty to protect individual citizens. Citizens are on their own -- and the sooner they know it, the better.

Since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender firearms to their own government, the results are now in: homicides, assaults, and armed robberies are surging! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. While the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns, and are less afraid to use them! When I was in Australia a couple of years ago, I asked a friend if everyone turned in their guns. He said that about one-third did, but two-thirds hid their guns, because they know that some day they may have to defend themselves against their own government.

Over the last several years law-abiding citizens have been stripped of their right to own some or all types of firearms in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and New Zealand among others. New regional and international agreements have been made by governments of various countries in which civilian possession and sales of other types of firearms are to be restricted, registered, or completely prohibited. And now, with the eager help of president Obama, and under the watchful eye of the United Nations, America is moving rapidly in the same direction. Tyrannical people and systems, when they become too powerful, only understand one thing, MAXIMUM FORCE, AND RESISTANCE! All of these UN inspired restrictive gun laws that are currently being passed in the United States are designed to weaken the population, and make them unable to stand up against the tyrannical forces behind one-world government that want to control them.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams

From Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," - "laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." - James Madison.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed." - Patrick Henry

"The Constitution of the United States asserts that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the safeguard of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1833


There are gun owners, enthusiasts, and second amendment activists in every state. This is a list of the best, and worst states as far as gun laws are concerned. "Worst States" refers to states with legislatures that have refused to allow their constituents to legally protect themselves and their families and have denied the citizens of those states their constitutional rights. "Best States" refers to states that have respect for the Constitution, and the peoples right to protect and defend themselves against criminals, including the ones in their own government, if necessary.


#1: CALIFORNIA. No list of anti-Second Amendment places would be complete without this cancer on the body of liberty. Not only does it have some of the most oppressive gun laws in America, it is also the place where almost all worthless causes and trends originate, and then spread across the country like a virus. Hypocrite California Senator Dianne Feinstein is a strong proponent of gun control, yet is known to have carried concealed handguns herself with a normally nearly impossible to obtain California carry permit. Few people, other than politicians and celebrities, are able to obtain California CCW permits. At one time, she was the only person in San Francisco to possess a concealed carry permit. The California legislature's strategy is to put so many restrictions on the requirements of the guns sold themselves, that it is too restrictive for manufacturers to sell in that state. The intent is to eliminate all private ownership of firearms in California. So California gets the # 1 spot on this list.

#2: MASSACHUSETTS. Not only is Massachusetts the home of some of the most nauseating pieces of sleaze ever to be allowed to exist in American politics, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry just to name a few, but it also has some of the most extreme anti-Second Amendment laws imaginable. In 1998 Massachusetts passed a new set of laws that make it virtually impossible to legally own and carry a firearm. During the years since passage, there has been an 84 percent drop in licensed gun ownership from 1,500,000 to around 240,000. During the same period, there has been a 67 percent increase in firearm related homicides, 236 percent increase in assault related hospital discharges, 331 percent increase in firearm related Emergency Room visits and 590 percent increase in gun related outpatient observations. These statistics were provided by the Massachusetts Department of Health. Added to that is the lack of oversight and accountability, overcharges in licensing fees, licensing delays and violations, and a complete lack of credibility and trust between gun owners and their government. Massachusetts is the only state where lawmakers have actually banned the use of silhouette targets for defensive training. Also, a Massachusetts fourth-grader was suspended from school for possessing a fired blank cartridge case from a Memorial Day ceremony, and everyone who handled the cartridge case and who didn't have a Massachusetts firearm license could have been charged with a two-year state felony. Enough said and clearly deserving of # 2 on this list.

#3: NEW YORK. Home of some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country where reports of people legally transporting firearms by airlines are being arrested as they change planes in New York as their baggage is brought into the airport. The authorities know this is illegal and have belligerently continued this horrendous practice. New York state doesn't give new residents any grace period at all before requiring a license to possess any handgun. The recent case of the man who opened fire in an immigration office in New York, killing 13, simply magnifies the fact that all of the worst gun crimes are committed in states like New York that have virtually given the green light to criminals, who know that they have their guns, and the law abiding citizens do not. New York mayor Bloomberg seals the deal for # 3 for New York with his "war on out of state gun dealers".

#4: ILLINOIS. The state that gave us Obama is home of one of the most perpetually corrupt and bloated governments imaginable. They are also obsessed with tracking and restricting law-abiding gun owners. For example, it would be difficult to find a more outspoken opponent of the Second Amendment than Chicago mayor Richard Daley. Handguns are already banned in Chicago (tell that to the many gangbangers who use them), and all other guns are supposed to be registered at City Hall, but that isn't enough to satisfy Daley's lust for power. On more than one occasion, Daley has stated his desire to see all guns banned. His taxpayer-financed hallucinations include an unsuccessful attempt to create a 100-mile "gun free" zone around Chicago. Where does Daley think he has the right to impose his Stalinist vision on other towns, not to mention residents of Wisconsin and Indiana? Never one to refrain from butting in where he has no business or jurisdiction, the mayor also failed in a lawsuit against suburban gun shops. Daley has Mussolini's bluster with 60 fewer IQ points than Il Duce, and things aren't much better outside of Chicago. All Illinois gun owners are required to obtain a Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID) from the state, and the card must be presented to purchase even a single round of ammo. All gun purchases are supposed to be registered with the state, and concealed carry by private citizens is prohibited. They also don't honor other states' carry permits.

#5: NEW JERSEY. New Jersey is an ugly place that nobody wants to visit. On top of this to get a gun you need to:
1. Fill out a 4 page application.
2. Be finger printed for an FID card.
3. Have two references that are contacted by local police.
4. Sign a paper giving the police the right to look into your medical history.
5. Wait months, upon months for the permit to be processed.
Not only that, but you can never obtain a carry permit. If you plan to go to the range and shoot, you better just go to the range and come back. If you decide to go and grab some food after the range and get stopped by an officer, you can be charged with carrying a weapon.

#6: HAWAII. Unlike New Jersey, Hawaii is beautiful and there is actually a reason to want to visit it. Unfortunately it also has some of the most unreasonable anti Second Amendment laws in the U.S. Before one can purchases any firearm, one must produce a permit. But only specific citizens have access to this permit. Citizens and visitors bear with luggage ransacking activities at the airports before and after alighting from the airbuses. Hawaii takes registration of handguns to the extreme, requiring registration of "firearms of any description, whether usable or unusable, serviceable or unserviceable, modern or antique." So if you own a wall-hanger that's so old it isn't legally a firearm under federal law and is in such bad shape it can't be fired at all, you'd better head on down to the police station and do your paperwork anyway.

#7: MARYLAND. To purchase a Handgun there's a 7 day waiting period, MINIMUM. Can be 30 to 45 days, depending on the 'mood' of the Maryland authorities. Paperwork does not come back "Approved" or "Disapproved". If you are allowed to purchase the 'restricted' firearm, the registration paperwork comes back "Not Disapproved". Handguns are REGISTERED as are some rifles and shotguns that the legislature and MSP have deemed to have 'evil' qualities. NO Conceal Carry Permit unless you can prove 'apprehended danger' or are a former cop that left whatever department under 'honorable' circumstances.

There are actually many other states that come close to these in their UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun laws, including CONNETICUT, DELAWARE, PENNSYLVANIA and RHODE ISLAND. These are the worst of the worst to live in or move to if you are concerned about retaining your God-Given rights to defend yourself and your family. If you are a gun owner and live in one of the states mentioned above, our prayers are with you. Keep fighting for your rights. Be sure to be armed with intelligent information and facts to state your case. Be an activist. You can change things in your state. If you can't move, fight.


States that have the least restrictive gun laws have lower violent crime rates than those that have the most restrictive gun laws. That's a provable fact. In the face of this logic, the left continues to rabidly cry foul over our right to keep and bear arms.

#1: VERMONT. Believe it or not. Vermont has a far left reputation, but on the right to bear arms they are #1. Until Alaska, Wyoming and Arizona recently followed the same route, Vermont was the only state in nation where no permit is required to carry a concealed handgun, and has a preemption clause that forbids any town or city from enacting laws restricting concealed carry. No Permit to purchase a handgun. No Registration of handguns. No Licensing of owners of handguns. No Permit needed to carry handguns, open or concealed. No State waiting period. No FBI *NICS check for firearm transactions. For many years Vermont has proven to have the lowest crime rate in the nation. You'd think this would tell the other states something about Free Carry. The state of Vermont has been ranked the second-safest state in the nation in a report released by CQ Press. New Hampshire was ranked as the safest state, which brings us to:

#2: NEW HAMPSHIRE. New Hampshire does not require a license for purchasing handguns. New Hampshire does not require a license for open carry. No State waiting period. No Registration of handguns. No Licensing of owners of handguns. Concealed Carry does require a shall-issue permit. The NH permit for concealed carry is issued by the local police department at a cost of $10 for residents, and by the NH State Police at a cost of $20 for non-residents, and is good for at least four years. If you pass the instant background check when purchasing, you will get the conceal carry permit. Turn around time is generally 1 - 2 weeks, with 14 days being the maximum time allowed by law.


#3: ALASKA. Alaska has had permitless carry, both open and concealed, since 2004. No restrictions on vehicle carry. Can be loaded, unloaded, on your person, stuffed under the seat, in plain view with a case of ammo and loaded mags on the front seat. Full-auto and all Class III friendly. No restrictions on possession or aquisition other than federal. No confiscation during disasters backed up with civil and criminal penalties. Castle Doctrine applies wherever you legally happen to be. Alaska Statutes only prohibit misconduct. Carry is restricted from bars, courthouses, school grounds and DV shelters.

#4: KENTUCKY. Kentucky is one of the best. Anybody over 18 can carry any gun just about anywhere openly. Carry ANY weapon concealed with a shall-issue permit, unconcealed without one. Basically, the only gun laws they have are "no carry by felons", "no giving guns to kids under 18, unless they are supervised", and "no concealed carry without a 'shall issue' permit". No NICS check with a CCW permit, no notifying the police you have a gun, and you can carry in alcohol serving restaurants. Kentucky laws for justified shooting are also among the easiest in the nation: shoot to prevent burglary or arson, even if you aren't in danger. People who sue you for justified shootings have to pay for your lawyer, court cost and lost time from work.

#5: UTAH. Utah does not require a license for purchasing handguns. No license required for open carry. No State waiting period. No Registration of handguns. No Licensing of owners of handguns. Utah is a "shall issue" state for concealed carry. A permit test must be passed and a license acquired to carry a concealed handgun. Utah is a "Stand Your Ground" state, in which there is no duty to retreat if you reasonably believe that a perpetrator on your property is going to commit a forcible felony (rape, burglary, murder, grand theft, ect).

#6: IDAHO. Idaho does not require a license for purchasing handguns. No license required for open carry. No State waiting period. No Registration of handguns. No Licensing of owners of handguns. Idaho is a "shall issue" state for concealed carry. The local sheriff shall issue a concealed weapons permit to a qualified applicant within ninety days. A permit is valid for five years. Idaho recognizes valid concealed carry permits from any state. A concealed weapons permit is not required for carry of long guns concealed or not. The firearm being openly carried must be clearly visible. A firearm can also be transported in a vehicle, as long as it is in plain view, or is disassembled or unloaded. Idaho has state preemption of firearms laws, so local units of government can not regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of firearms. The state constitution states that "No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony." A concealed weapon may not be carried at a school, courthouse, in a prison, at the Idaho State Capitol mall, or in certain other governmentally designated locations.

#7: WEST VIRGINIA. West Virginia does not require a license for purchasing handguns. No license required for open carry. No State waiting period. No Registration of handguns. No Licensing of owners of handguns. West Virginia is a "shall issue" state for concealed carry. A permit test must be passed and a license acquired to carry a concealed handgun. There still remain grandfathered restrictions on open carry in some localities, such as Charleston and Dunbar. There is a proposed senate bill which would amend the law to remove those restrictions. West Virginia enacted the castle doctrine on April 10, 2008. The Castle Doctrine gives a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place(his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

The "Shall-Issue" law is where activists for gun owners civil rights have won the most important series of victories in the last 20 years. It started in Florida where they went from a system where it was optional for the authorities to give out such permits, and they were only good in the county where they were issued, to a license that authorized the holder to carry statewide. Moreover, the law was written so that the permit could not be denied to any law-abiding citizen. Shall-issue means that the appointed issuing authority can't turn you down because they don't like the way you look, or the way you vote, or the idea of ordinary people carrying guns.It has been wonderfully successful. It has been proven that violent crime goes down after Shall-Issue laws are passed. Currently, we have 35 shall-issue states. They are: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

"Stand-your-Ground" states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that; the shooter has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States with a Stand-your-ground Law: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington State.

With Obama now as president, the worst gun laws from the worst states have a friend in Washington. That alone is reason enough for every gun owner to fight locally and nationally for gun rights, and stock up in preparation just in case.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson, US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President of the United States.

Uploaded 1/2/2012

Obama Announces he can imprison anyone he chooses…IF he chooses to do so

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

- Sher Zieve Monday, January 2, 2012

Today’s column will be short and to the point. It has finally arrived, folks. I’d hoped I was wrong about it but, tragically and chillingly I was not. Obama has just announced—in his own words—that he can detain (imprison) anyone he wants with the new unconstitutional NDAA bill passed by Congress and signed by the now self-proclaimed Dictator-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama. Note: As usual, the Marxist-media doesn’t care and is, instead, jubilant that Dear Leader Obama has finally done away with that pesky Constitution.

In a statement published 31 December on his White House site, Mr. Obama states: “Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” He goes on in the statement: “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.” Note: Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) advised in the below YouTube video that the White House and Barack Obama DEMANDED the removal of any and all protections for US citizens and legal residents. So, the collaborative Congress gave him the dictatorial powers he has wanted since he usurped the Office of POTUS.

The now formal Dictator of the USA Obama also disingenuously stated: “Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground [yes, it does] and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then.”

“Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” Note: But, it does.

“My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF.” Note: No, it did not. In fact, per Democrat Senator Carl Levin, just the opposite occurred—as Obama demanded protections for US citizens and legal residents be removed before he would sign the bill! Obama continues with: “Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Translation: “I may choose to be a beneficent dictator, if I wish to do so.”

“Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values [they are not ’traditions and values’ they are US law] as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” Note: This is another abject ObamaLie. The new revised NDAA bill, which Obama demanded, effectively renders the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights—and the US Constitution, itself—null and void.

We have now reached the end of the road as a free country. As never before, only two choices now remain We-the-People: “If we refuse to rise up and fight, we’ll be forced to lie down and die.”

“And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable”—Isaiah 3:5

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540:Proof Obama Will Sign NDAA 1031 Citizen Indefinite Detention Law in a Few Days and that the removal of protection for US citizens and legal residents was DEMANDED by the White House:

Uploaded 1/2/2012

The coming war inside America

Controlled economic collapse, move toward globalism

- Doug Hagmann Monday, January 2, 2012

As the attention of most Americans was captivated by the shiny object in Times Square this weekend like infants fixated on car keys dangled in front of them, Barack Hussein Obama signed into law H.R. 1540, better known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Regardless of any concurrent executive signing statements that are mere window dressing and not legally binding, Obama and every member of congress who crafted and voted for this act has essentially declared war on American citizens on U.S. soil.

To quote Rush Limbaugh, “words mean things.” As a career investigator, I can assure you that words contained in local, state and federal laws most certainly mean things, and provide the legal authority for conduct sanctioned by national or state authorities without regard to any promised judicial or prosecutorial discretion that could be likened to the signing statement. The NDAA now codifies the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act, which “candidate” Obama publicly opposed. What changed?

Greasing the slope

Any person of reasonable sensibilities should be raising a multitude of questions upon considering the current and historical conduct of the executive and legislative branches of our government. It was the attack on 9/11 that ostensibly paved the way for the Bush administration to craft the USA PATRIOT Act, which was signed into law by congress on October 26, 2001. That legislation broadened law enforcement powers well beyond the rights granted to Americans by the U.S. Constitution. While many of the provisions contained in the PATRIOT Act were scheduled to end on December 31, 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill containing numerous changes in July 2005, and the House of Representatives submitted a bill that kept most of the original bill intact. The largely unchanged bill passed congressional vote on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by George W. Bush.

Although the PATRIOT Act has gone through various subsequent incarnations, congress crafted and Obama signed a four-year extension last May, extending certain key provisions that particularly focused on businesses in the U.S. It is important to note that the manner and methods in which the U.S. government interprets and carries out the provisions of the PATRIOT Act are classified and kept secret from the American public, an issue rarely addressed by politicians or pundits. Why the secrecy?

Continuity of agenda

One must also question the obvious continuity of agenda from the Bush administration to the Obama administration, and from the congress seated in 2001 through today. Despite pro-Constitutional campaign rhetoric from both Republicans and Democrats, and the rapid acquiescence of some TEA party candidates who now occupy seats of power, it is obvious that the rights of Americans granted by the very Constitution elected officials swore to uphold are under attack. Why the change?

As one looks at the larger picture, pieces of the puzzle seems to become more recognizable.

The move toward globalism

Once thought to be the fanciful designs of the conspiracy minded, there appears to be an acceleration toward one world governance, or the infamous “New World Order.” It is an agenda that has been in place for decades, yet the politically myopic and the agent facilitators deliberately avoid any discussion of its existence. Exposure of this agenda has been hobbled by the merger of major news organizations into a half-dozen corporations who control what is reported. Even many who present themselves as purveyors of the truth decline to discuss the globalist agenda, or are held hostage by big money contracts with editorial stipulations and controls.

While the attacks of 9/11 paved the way for passage of the PATRIOT Act, what could explain the draconian legislation contained in the NDAA of 2012? Looking through the prism of current events, those with intellectual honesty can readily see events unfolding that would create conditions to necessitate its implementation.

Controlled economic collapse

Who could have predicted the economic crisis of 2008, just two months before the U.S. presidential election? Nearly everyone who was aware of the agenda of the global elite. The economic crisis of 2008, an incident which the banking elite used the specter of martial law to fund their global operations, landed a financial sucker punch on every American with the approval of congress. Using such phrases as “too big to fail,” banking giants, facilitated by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury and members of congress knowingly and deliberately defrauded the American public out of trillions of dollars, much of which remains unaccounted for despite dubious internal financial audit reports.

While the corporate media remain lapdogs for the banking and global elite and report recovery on the horizon, the real story has yet to be told by our media and elected officials. There is a controlled demolition of not only our national economy, but the entire world economy. Look at the financial death throes of the European Union, which cannot survive, despite the best fiction from cable news economists hired to hide the truth from the masses. The consequential social upheaval will not be contained to Europe, nor will the economic apocalypse. Due to the Ponzi scheme created by the globalist bankers and government leaders from the Goldman-Sachs bloodline, Americans will find themselves in financial turmoil unseen in modern history.

Perhaps it is for those who cannot seem to take their eyes of the shiny objects, or those who camp out at big box stores for bargains on the latest and greatest electronic gadgets that the NDAA was crafted.

Note: For detailed discussion on the signing of the NDAA, tune in to the new Hagmann & Hagmann Report, broadcast live in audio and video format weeknights from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. ET on the Liberty Broadcasting Network. The new show debuts today. For more information, click here.

Uploaded 1/2/2012

Voter ID Terrifies Democrats

This column by ACRU Senior Fellow Robert Knight was published January 2, 2012 in The Washington Times.

The most consequential election in our lifetime is still 10 months away, but it's clear from the Obama administration's order halting South Carolina's new photo ID law that the Democrats already have brought a gun to a knife fight.

How else to describe this naked assault on the right of a state to create minimal requirements to curb voter fraud?

On Dec. 23, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez sent a letter ordering South Carolina to stop enforcing its photo ID law. Mr. Perez, who heads the Civil Rights Division that booted charges against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters in Philadelphia in 2008, said South Carolina's law would disenfranchise thousands of minority voters.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson rejected Mr. Perez's math and explained on Fox News why the law is necessary. The state Department of Motor Vehicles audited a state Election Commission report that said 239,333 people were registered to vote but had no photo ID. The DMV found that 37,000 were deceased, more than 90,000 had moved to other states, and others had names not matched to IDs. That left only 27,000 people registered without a photo ID but who could vote by signing an affidavit as to their identity.

Mr. Wilson told me by phone Thursday that he would file a challenge to the order in federal district court in January. Asked whether he felt South Carolina was being singled out, he declined to speculate on motives. However, citing the National Labor Relations Board's order to invalidate the voter-approved union card check amendment, the NLRB's order to stop a new Boeing Co. plant, and the Justice Department's suit to halt the state's immigration law, he said, "There certainly is a pattern of the federal government overreaching into South Carolina."

Leading Democrats loudly equate recently enacted photo ID legislation as updated versions of Jim Crow laws that once robbed people of their constitutional right to vote simply because of their race. But photo ID laws and other voter integrity measures cover everyone. Like other states, South Carolina provides photo IDs if a person cannot afford one.

The U.S. Constitution empowers the states to enact voting procedures with minimal input from the national government, such as setting the voting age and election days for federal offices. The 15th and 19th amendments ensure that no one is denied the right to vote based on race or sex.

In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which authorizes the U.S. attorney general or a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to review changes to voting procedures or redistricting in nine states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia), some counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some townships in Michigan and New Hampshire.

Congress did so to counter clearly established patterns of voter intimidation of blacks. Now, the Justice Department, which, under Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. could be renamed the Retribution Department, looks the other way depending on the race of the parties involved.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana's 2005 photo ID law, which the Democratic Party and several interest groups had challenged as a "severe burden."

But, as American Civil Rights Union attorney Peter Ferrara noted in the group's friend- of-the-court brief:

"No one has been denied the right to vote by the Indiana Voter ID Law. The record clearly establishes without challenge that 99 percent of the Voting Age Population in Indiana already has the required ID, in the form of driver's licenses, passports, or other identification. Of the remaining 1 percent, senior citizens and the disabled are automatically eligible to vote by absentee ballot, and such absentee voting is exempt from the Voter ID Law."

Does that sound "severe" to you?As Mr. Ferrara notes, "the slight burden of additional paperwork for a fraction of 1 percent, to show who they are and thereby prove their eligibility to vote, cannot come close to outweighing the interests of all legitimate legal voters in maintaining their effective vote."

A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2005 chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. The panel recommended a national photo ID system and a campaign to register voters.

In a 2008 column, Mr. Carter and Mr. Baker cited a study by American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management that echoed the election commission. Among other things, researchers found that in three states - Indiana, Mississippi and Maryland - about 1.2 percent of registered voters had no photo ID.

Since the GOP took a majority of governorships and legislatures in 2010 and continued enacting voting safeguards, you can feel the panic in Democratic strongholds.

The Obama administration is playing the same race card that Democrats have played for decades. But this is not about race; it's about whether legitimately cast votes will be wiped out by illegally cast votes.

In Chicago, a federal investigation of the 1982 gubernatorial election estimated that at least 100,000 illegal votes had been cast and that voter fraud had been routine for many years. In 1960, Mayor Richard J. Daley's Chicago Democrat machine almost certainly sealed John F. Kennedy's presidential election by delaying reporting by Democratic-controlled precincts and counting them for Kennedy.

Vice President Richard M. Nixon, the Republican candidate, had a compelling case for a challenge, but chose not to do so. The media would have crucified him as a sore loser without seriously investigating fraud allegations.

Conversely, in 2000, when Democrat Al Gore challenged George W. Bush's razor-thin victory in Florida, the media flogged Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris because she refused to overlook "hanging chads" and other questionable vote counting.

The stakes are enormous, and the Obama administration is quite aware of the danger posed by an aroused electorate on a level playing field.

With the economy in a ditch, their only hope of stemming the conservative tide might be to rig the returns, especially where political machines still prevail.

Uploaded 1/2/2012

Holder Race-Baiting About Obama's Re-Election, Not Voting Rights

This column by ACRU Senior Fellow Ken Blackwell and ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Ken Klukowski was published December 30, 2011 on Big Government.

Eric Holder's Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an all-out war on voter-ID laws and other measures to safeguard the electoral process. Although Holder's actions are purportedly to prevent African-Americans from being disenfranchised, the reality is that they serve the crass political purpose of ensuring that Holder's boss gets reelected next year.

In the past several years states have increasingly focused on measures to protect the vote. After years of the federal government loosening voting regulations, such as through the Motor Voter Act and HAVA (Help America Vote Act), the pendulum started swinging back at the state level.

The clearest example of this trend is through voter-ID laws. In 2008 the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's landmark law requiring citizens to show that they are the person they claim to be by showing government-issued ID before casting a ballot. But to ensure that those without driver's licenses or passports are not disenfranchised, Indiana provides free ID's to everyone who applies for one. The Court upheld this law, with the primary opinion written by no one less than liberal lion Justice John Paul Stevens.

Such laws combat voter fraud that we see on Election Day, especially in certain parts of the nation. In Washington State, King County suddenly "discovered" enough previously "unnoticed" votes for Democrat Christine Gregoire to edge out Republican Dino Rossi for Washington's governorship in 2004. There are also examples from Wisconsin, Missouri, and other states.

Yet Holder has blocked South Carolina's voter-ID law. DOJ argues that this law is different from Indiana's because South Carolina is subject to additional federal oversight under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. (This is especially important because there are several federal cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 5.)

But the reality is that DOJ's actions are not focused on protecting voting rights. They are instead intended to make sure that Barack Obama wins reelection.

It's not cynical to say this. The twelve or so battleground states that will decide the 2012 presidential election suggest Obama's reelection strategy. These states include Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri. All these states have large African-American populations.

The African-American community has a staggeringly-high unemployment rate under President Obama. So Black Americans will not vote for this president because of any prosperity he's brought to that community. Instead, he has to gin up their votes by painting a picture of racial conflict in which he--and the governmental agency dealing with such things, DOJ--is their champion.

This is also seen in Holder's incessant playing of the race card. First he says we're a nation of cowards about race. Now that he's on the ropes for DOJ's scandalous Operation Fast and Furious gun-running scandal into Mexico, he has the audacity to say that he and President Obama are being attacked in part because they're both African-Americans.

Voting is a fundamental right. It is the means by which "We the People" consent to be governed for a fixed period of time by certain individuals, by electing them as stewards of governmental power. They wield this power to secure our rights as set forth in the U.S. Constitution and (for state officials) the constitutions of the fifty states.

But there is another voting right. It is the right not to have your legal vote diluted by fraudulent votes. As we explain in our Yale Law & Policy Review article "The Other Voting Right," every invalid vote cancels out one valid vote. Each such cancellation undermines our democratic republic and reduces the legitimacy of election results.

Voting is also unique in that it might be the only right that is also a duty. It's not too much to ask for citizens to exert a minimal amount of effort to fulfill reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

Every eligible citizen has a duty to vote. But as we explain in our book Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America, it is a duty to cast an informed vote. Although there are only so many hours in the day, we each need to make an effort to gather enough information to understand the major issues facing our nation, state, and community, and to carefully vote for candidates who offer the best solutions for our long-term safety and prosperity.

Because voting is a duty, and also because every voter has the right to ensure their valid vote is not diluted by fraudulent votes, citizens can be expected to fulfill certain requirements that would not be justified when exercising other rights, such as free speech or the free exercise of religion. Measures such as showing up at the correct place on the correct day to cast a ballot under the watchful eyes of trained precinct personnel are examples of fulfilling our duty, as is showing valid ID to prove that you are the person listed on that precinct's voter rolls.

These measures are essential to our self-governing republic. As examples the world over show, losing the integrity of the electoral process is a mistake a free people often gets to make only once

Uploaded 1/2/2012

The Other Voting Right: Protecting Every Citizen's Vote by Safeguarding the Integrity of the Ballot Box

There is a saying that "people get the government they vote for." The implication of the maxim is that if undesirable or unwise legislation is enacted, if executive branch officials are inept or ineffective, or if the government is beset with widespread corruption, then such unfortunate results are the consequence of the electorate's decision regarding whom to trust with the powers and prestige of public office. The Constitution does not forbid people from enacting wrongheaded policies. If voters elect leaders that fail them, then the citizenry is saddled with the consequences of its choice until the next election. Such is the reality in a democratic republic.

But this argument begs the question of whether voters did in fact elect the individuals who take their oaths of office. How do citizens know which candidate actually won in any given election? Election results are legitimate only to the extent that the returns include every legal vote--and only those legal votes--undiluted by fraudulent or otherwise unacceptable votes. The task of counting every legal ballot and excluding every unlawful one is the challenge faced by practitioners of election law, whether as lawyers or as election officials. Primary authority for elections in America rests with the states, and in each jurisdiction the secretary of state is the senior executive officer responsible for ensuring a free and fair election. Thus the secretary of state is involved in the unique act of balancing the duty to ensure access to the ballot box with protecting the integrity of the voting process.

Over the past four decades, most developments in voting rights legislation and case law have focused specifically on the franchise: the right to cast a ballot and have that ballot tabulated as a vote. These advances, albeit important, have left underdeveloped the concomitant right to an undiluted count. And if we seek to ensure the legitimacy and fairness of our electoral system then we must now turn to protecting this "other voting right" vigorously. Further, we must do so in a manner that recognizes voting as a duty and that expects the voter to exert some effort toward fulfilling that duty.

This Essay explores several aspects of protecting the second, equally important, right to a protected ballot box. Click here to download the full essay. (PDF)

 Return to the top