ACTION

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The 1st Amendment is primarily an enumeration of the "negative rights" imposed upon government by the Constitution. In other words, we have the right to speak, report and comment, assemble, and worship without the interference of the government.  We do not have the "right" to impose speech, opinions, or religion on another, nor they, upon us.  So the right to speak one's mind is not the right to have another listen, if they choose not to.  

I'm not quite sure how I would argue in defense of my 1st Amendment right to "political speech," if I had to sue FaceBook for infringing my constitutional rights.  Facebook is a privately-run, free and public forum for socializing and information-sharing.  But its anonymous administrators have a history of discrimination against those who exercise political speech as a function of their social network.

In Schenck v. United States (1919), Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that freedom of speech could be restricted if the speech represented a "clear and present danger."  He gave the example of one shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, in which the resulting panic could cause a lethal stampede as people ran to the exits. 

It is largely understood that the 1st Amendment protects, primarily, political speech, since it is political speech that is most apt to be shut down by those who disagree.  Facebook and other social networking sites add an interesting dynamic to the free exercise of political speech.  Depending on how you set up your Facebook "wall," and depending on how many "friends" you have, your remarks can potentially be read by many thousands of people. Facebook has features where one can "hide" certain posts or individual, or where you can "block" certain people entirely.  The other feature is a form of quickie police monitoring, of which I don't disapprove, but anyone can report any post as being "spam, harassment, hate speech, offensive content, pornography, or threatening comments."  Apparently the anonymous administrators at Facebook are more interested in the "seriousness of the charges", than they are in any evidence that something untoward has actually occurred.

I was scrubbed from Facebook a couple of days ago apparently for making "threatening comments."  I am known for debating other users on political and social topics, but I don't use profanity, I'm always polite and truthful, and the only thing I might threaten is to "fight" the enemies of freedom in purely rhetorical form.   Someone, somewhere in my vast network of friends, and friends of friends, found my political speech to be a threat and so I was reported and essentially censored.

If I took this to court, one of my arguments would be that Facebook regularly allows profanity, questionable photographs and music, and highly offensive conversations on the site without interference from its faceless administrators.  There is a logical gulf in Facebook's selective use of standards.  The only sensible conclusion that one can use to bridge that gulf is that Facebook finds political speech either pornographic, threatening, harassing, hateful, offensive, or all of the above.

I am not the first Conservative activist to whom this has happened. My friend who is on the GOP board of directors for Racine County, Wisconsin got shut down just this morning. Another friend who is a representative for the conservative "Winning With Women" organization has been shut down on 4 separate occasions.  

The Left is sending out a warning shot.  Social media is a powerful tool for political activism, and the Right is using it in a big way.  My advice: Don't back down! If Facebook shuts you down, flank them through a different account, or create a new page using a different email address. Draw attention to their efforts to shut down political speech and information sharing. Don't shut up, shout it from the roof tops. If this is an effort by Facebook to impede the tsunami of Tea Party Conservatism sweeping America, it will surely backfire. We're pissed off now. You mess with our Constitutional rights we'll be even more pissed off.  Oh, sorry, did that offend you? Well, too Freaking bad!

President Barack Obama (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama’s upcoming bus tour through the Midwest states typically viewed as swing states during presidential election years will be paid for by the taxpayers, the White House says.

Obama will start the tour on Aug. 15 and will talk about strengthening jobs and the economy, the White House announced on Tuesday.

“He is very happily getting out into the country again after a very sustained period here in Washington and he looks forward to talking to folks about growing the economy, creating jobs," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. "We will have more details, as I said, about the specifics of the trip."

Carney indicated he did not know now precisely where the president would go or what he might be announcing.

CNSNews.com asked Carney, “Is that a campaign event or a presidential event?

Carney answered, “Negative. That is an official event.”

CNSNews.com followed, “So it is being funded by taxpayers in battleground states?”

Carney responded, “He’s the president of the United States.”

Another reporter followed up about whether there was a political nature to the trip.

“The air of cynicism is quite thick,” Carney shot back. “The idea that the president of the United States should not venture forth into the country is ridiculous.”

The reporter said, “I didn’t say that.”

Carney said, “No, but you implied it in your question. It is absolutely important for the president – whoever that person is, in the past or in the future – to get out and hear from people in different communities."

The national unemployment rate was 9.2 percent for the month of June, according to the Department of Labor.

A USA Today story published on July 17 asserted that half of the travels Obama made to 40 states (over the last 2.5 years) were to swing states, also called battleground states,  or because they are not predictably red (Republican heavy) or blue (Democrat heavy), or purple states. Those swing states likely will determine the winner of the 2012 presidential race.

Ohio, with 20 electoral votes, topped the list for Obama visits, according the newspaper’s analysis. Republican George W. Bush carried this state in 2000 and 2004, but Obama carried the state in 2008.

One of Obama’s narrowest victories in 2008 came in the Midwestern state of Indiana, with 11 electoral votes. Indiana has typically gone to Republican presidential candidates.

In other cases, the state of Michigan, with 17 electoral votes, has gone Democrat in the last five presidential elections. But Michigan is facing a 10.5 percent unemployment rate, which could present problems for an incumbent president. Meanwhile, Iowa has been volatile in recent cycles, as its seven electoral votes went for Democrat Al Gore in 2000, swung to Republican Bush in 2004 then swung back to Democrat Obama in 2008.

The generally accepted policies in place since the Reagan administration for incumbent presidents running for re-election are based on legal opinions from the Department of Justice and Federal Elections Commission (FEC), which say that taxpayers should cover the cost of official presidential travel while travel relating to the campaign will be reimbursed to the government through campaign funds.

According to the FEC, when a presidential or vice presidential candidate travels on the taxpayer’s dime for political purposes, they “pay the pro rata share of the fair market value of non-commercial flights.” Reimbursement guidelines include payment of the “lowest unrestricted and non-discounted first-class airfare in the case of travel between cities served by regularly scheduled first-class commercial airline service.”

This forum will always be open to varying points of view.  There is a big difference from debating points of views and making personal attacks.  I've raised my children to be tolerant and use reason when dealing with idiots (radicals).  I've encouraged them to take the attack or issue and flip it (i.e. make it funny).  If the individual pursued the attacks then this issue is not a misunderstanding but malicious intent to harm.

We are not here to do harm to our message or our nation.  We are here to gain insight and add value to another to ensure our country is preserved.  I pray that this is the intent of all that support the Tea Party.  However, there are individuals that have an agenda contrary to this movement and the will be removed.

Sincerely,

Tea Party

Rep. Allen West makes it clear the Tea Party needs a plan.  The True Tax is a plan to get our nation on track.  Do yourself a favor and learn about.  Otherwise we are left with poor plans rammed down our throat.  Check out Rep. West video:

http://truetax.ning.com/video/tea-party-needs-a-plan

Solutions are like the old adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."  Let's us not be foolish that hapless rantings will change our nation.  We need solutions that will stop the growth of government and mandate that leaders follow our directions.  Without a plan, then plan to failure.  Our Country deserves better.  Click on the copy below and read for yourself:

Is It 1787 Again?

Much has been said lately about the current direction of our great American country.  Our National debt must be acknowledged by any faction to be ridiculously, obscenely out of control.  The Federal Government has usurped authority and control of our freedoms that was not allowed to them by our Constitution and we seem to have no voice in the matter.  In these times, I feel moved to repeat the following lines:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” (The various emphases have been added by this writer.)

Many of you, perhaps most of you, and maybe all of you will recognize these words as from the text of the Declaration of Independence, which preceded the Revolutionary War that liberated our Nation’s founders from the bonds of tyranny and the intolerable weight of despotism.  Then in 1787 some Plain, Honest Men [title of the book about the making of the Constitution written by Richard Beeman] concluded that the government created by the Articles of Confederation was fatally flawed and set out to replace it and to institute new government.  On September 15, 1787, these “plain, honest” men delivered our current form of government through the Constitution.  The flaws they saw to be fatal and in need of correction were; 1) the National Government’s inability to levy taxes to support the rightful duties of the national government (the National Government was too week), 2) it required unanimous approval of the state legislatures to amend the document (making it extremely difficult if not impossible to change and adjust when needed), and 3) there was no provision for an executive office (one person to represent the country).

Some today say that the Constitution needs to be INTERPRETED in the light of present day conditions.  However, the founding fathers intended that the constitution be strictly construed.  They provided for changing when times seem to require it; it’s by the amendment process.  Our present day elected officials betray their oaths of office when they pretend that the Constitution can just be ignored when it’s inconvenient to follow its requirements.

But now, in the face of years and to my mind egregious violations of the Constitution and actions by our Government that threaten our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and general safety and well being, we may well have come to a point where we should no longer suffer these evils.  It seems like it is 1787 again.  There seem to me, given the circumstances of the present day, to be some fatal flaws in our current form of government that we should no longer suffer.  Granted that government form should not be changed on a whim and that is the strongest argument for a representative form of government and I would not suggest that we should go so far as to depart from that safeguard against gyrations caused by the whimsy of the day.

One fatal flaw that I see is the unjustified lack of adequate check on the power of Executive Branch.  In 1787, those who wrote the Constitution perceived that the Federal Government needed to be strengthened for the good of the whole.  From the circumstances they saw, they were undoubtedly correct but today it is evident that they went too far in that direction.  It’s time to swing the pendulum a little back toward controlling the powers of the Executive Branch.  The President should not be able to unilaterally establish non-elected government agencies and Czars with authorization by him to perform tasks of GOVERNING with powers not allowed to them by the Congress.   The rewritten Constitution (or by amendment) should specifically prohibit the creation of such entities, without Congressional approval.

Also the President wields too much power with the current form of the veto process.  The Constitution requires that the President give the house of the Legislature, which originated the bill, his objections to a bill when he sends it back.  I believe he/she should also be required to give a Constitutional analysis of the bill and his/her objections to the bill.  If the President fails to do this within 7 days of sending the bill back, the bill should automatically become law, as it was approved by the two houses of the Legislature.  Much like the requirement for a unanimous approval of an amendment, under the Articles of Confederation, was considered a fatal flaw by those “plain, honest” men, the need for a two-thirds vote by the Congress to override a veto is too onerous.  A veto should be able to be overridden by a 60% + 1 affirmative vote by Congress.  A simple majority would be too lax in a representative form of government.  Likewise, an Amendment to the Constitution should continue as it is.  This process was intended to not be taken too lightly, so much that the ‘whim du jour’  could cause radical fluctuations in the rules of the land.  This would be chaotic.

Another flaw is the ability / allowance for Congress to incur debt.  If it is believed to be necessary to spend in excess of revenue, from time to time, there should be an absolute limit on the amount by which spending can exceed revenue.  It should be something modest.  Either a fixed 5% or tied to current Government Bond interest.  This should be an amendment to the Constitution so Congress cannot simply LEGISLATE an increase in the debt ceiling.  This ceiling should be an absolute and not an amount that can be added each year.  Once the Federal Government has reached this limit, it can incur no more debt; not in the current year, not in the next year not ever.  The idea is to pay down that debt before incurring more.

On a related but different subject, Congress should be responsible for doing an annual, or causing that there be an annual actuarial analysis of the Social Security funding, as was originally required by the bill that became the law creating the Social Security System.  And to make adjustment as necessary each year to avoid a collection of deficits that when finally addressed seem insurmountable.  And the actual assets of the Social Security Fund should be required to be funded just as ERISA requires private defined benefit plans to be funded.  They should not be allowed to decimate the fund by using ‘funny money’ on the balance sheet.

I call for some Plain, Honest Men with the influence to do so to call for a Constitutional Convention and change our form of Government to better protect our unalienable rights to freedom, safety, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and to free us from the overly burdensome interference from a Federal Government.

We've all become acquainted with the legal definition of insanity...here it is in spades;

In a shocking display of violent rhetoric given that Leftists routinely plea for 'civil discourse' and decry the 'tone' of conservatives, Progressives are increasingly issuing death threats to Patriots who are dedicated to the primacy of the Constitution in U.S. law. One such propitious champion of 'kinder, gentler' dialogue called for the systematic roundup of what he calls 'Tea Baggers'--the derogatory term coined by Progressives to smear members of the Tea Party--in order to subject them to a year's worth of 're-education' at so-called 'green' internment camps.

For informational purposes, readers should recognize that the terms 'Leftist' and 'Progressive' are interchangeable. They refer to the same thing--those who wish to 'change' America into a totalitarian system where government dominates and regulates all of human life, and where the economic system of capitalism is junked in favor of a Marxist-Socialist model.

To those who have  followed the Left ever since the 1960s, such vitriol is no surprise. From Saul Alinksy to Cloward and Piven, from Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn to Ward Churchill and the Symbionese Liberation Army , Progressives have consistently called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. Constitution and the murder of persons they identify as the stalwart defenders of American freedom and capitalism.

It should never be forgotten that confirmed domestic terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, launched the political career of Barack Obama in their living room in Chicago in the 1990s.

Thus, the current bombast coming from Progressives is no surprise. The thing that raises eyebrows, however, is the vehement attempt to portray the Tea Party as a dangerous group that is responsible for everything from the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords to Standard and Poor's downgrade of America's credit rating--all while the Left continues its tendency toward violence, death threats, and its periodic calls for a roundup of those who disagree with its extremist views.

Here is a sample of such rhetoric from extremist enviornmentalist Derrick Jensen, via The Blaze , as reported in Sipsy Street Irregulars :

One of the activists, Derrick Jensen, allegedly even believes those who destroy the environment should be summarily executed: “If it were up to me, all the people associated with the Gulf oil spill, which is murdering the Gulf, would be executed. That would be part of the function of a state,” said Jensen.

In addition to Jensen, the two other environmentalists interviewed in the article – Lierre Keith, and Aric McBay — have spearheaded a fringe movement called the “Deep Green Resistance” (with a book of the same name) that calls for “direct attacks on infrastructure” and an annihilation of civilization as we know it.

According to the far-left triumvirate, humanity must devolve into living primitive, “indigenous” lifestyles. To this end, Keith targeted a litany of ills that must be stopped, declaring: “We need a culture that is self-consciously oppositional to things like corporate power, capitalism, industrialization and ultimately civilization, because that is the arrangement of power on this planet right now.”

Another Progressive, Jeffrey Wells, had this to say on his website, in his own words :

Many times I've riffed on a dark, delicious fantasy about rounding up Tea Bagger types and sentencing them to green re-educat... for minimum one-year terms. Not to punish per se but to expose these contemptible morons to facts, to truth, to the way things really are and how they're being played by the rich, and the fact that Boomers have taken almost everything and that diminished lifestyles and economic security are being bequeathed to Genx and GenY for decades to come, and that the best is definitely over. The infra-structure that once provided decent, fair-minded quality of life to middle-class people in this country isdisintegrating . The game is rigged. This is the fall of the Roman Empire.

All largely because of impediments to logical, intelligent governing put up by the knee-jerk, mule-like, corporate-kowtowing mentality of Tea-Bagger types and their 60 or so looney-tunes Congresspersons now in office. We've truly become a South American society of rightist oligarchs, angry lefties, disillusioned wage-earners, retirement-age fuddies and struggling, debt-smothered have-nots, and the rightist boobs will never understand that they're primarily the problem .

Wells has also called for violent, London-type riots in the streets of America.

Further, last evening on Twitter an intriguing exchange occurred between several Patriots and a team member of Fox News Radio's token Progressive, Alan Colmes. The team member had hinted that Progressives may wish to engage in violence in order to stop Tea Party activists from achieving their goals. Attempts to pin down the team member for clarification were largely unsuccessful, but the genie was already out of the bottle.

In pre-WWII Germany, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis engaged in a scheme to demonize and vilify various groups of persons, falsely projecting onto them all sorts of hideous and despicable motives and acts, so as to divert attention from those very same hideous and despicable motives and acts being carried out by Hitler's SS and storm troopers.

There is a most important lesson in that, to those who are smart enough to get it.

Be sure to catch Anthony Martin's blog at The Liberty Sphere.

Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries .

Here is another tidbit...a little lengthy, but worth it.  Essential Information resides herein;

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/08/11/the-real-revolution/

Whether you think the man is crazy or dead on the money, listen in on Monday night, 9 p.m. EST on Tea Party Radio

Information is essential for us to move forward, and the better informed you are, the more aware you are, the more

effective you are.  

This is from a post by Jedi Pauly, who I've been acquainted with over the last few years.  He has gone to great lengths and has done an incredible amount of research to come to his conclusions.  Great progress has been made over the last 2 years or so...take the time to see why by following this link:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/08/13/purpura-v-sebelius-the-last-chance-for-a-republic/

I have invited Jedi Pauly to join us Monday night on Tea Party Radio as a guest, to explain his take on things.

I encourage as many that can make it @ 9 p.m. EST to join us on Tea Party Radio on BlogTalk.  Call-in # is 646-200-4032.  

There will be more coming here shortly concerning these issues.  God Bless...

Sent by our friend David Toy---a MUST SEE!!

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMAN DISTIGUISHED HERSELF IN THE GREAT DEBATE, SHE MET EVERY CHALLANGE THROWN AT HER WITH GRACE, SINCERITY AND HONESTY WITHOUT REVERTING TO THE "CONVENTIAL POLITICS"

I FOR ONE HAVE HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH OF CONVENTIAL POLITICS, I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THESE POLITICS HAVE EVOLVED, IT IS TIME TO BRING HONESTY, UNCOMPROMISING COMMITMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS AND SHE EXHIBITED THAT SHE HAS THE FIRE IN HER BODY AND SOUL (NOT JUST HER STOMACH).

I LIKE AND RESPECT RON PAUL BUT HIS ISOLATIONIST VIEWS TROUBLE ME.  I RECALL FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISWTER NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN VISITING EUOROPE DURING HITLERS RISE TO POWER AND COMING HOME TO BRITAIN TO TELL HIS FELLOW BRITS THAT THE EVFENTS IN EUROPE WHERE OF NO CONCERN TO BRITAIN AND THAT BRITAIN SHOULD JUST MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS, WELL WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER HIS REPORT BACK HOME.

I RECALL THAT A JAPANESE DELEGATION VISITED WASHINGTOM D C IN NOVEMBER 1941 TO DISCUS A TRADE AND MUTUAL COOPERATION TREATY  AND WHAT HAPPENED ON DEC 7.  WE HAVE TO BE ON CONSTANT ALERT BECAUSE SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS COME ALONG WITH ASPIRATIOINS OF WORLD DOMINATION. THE ONLY MAJOR FORCE STANDING IN THE WAY OF THEIR ASPIRATIONS IS  THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHICH CONTAINS MANY NATURAL RICHES, BUT IT ALSO CONTAINS THE SPIRIT OF 76 AND WILL NOT BE DEFEATED.

ALL OF THESE PRIOR ATTEMPTS AT WORLD DOMINATION HAVE FAILED BECAUSE OF THE INDOMINABLE SPIRIT PRESENT IN THE BODY AND SOULS OF AMERICANS.  BECAUSE WE CANNOT BE DEFEATED MILITARILY, WE ARE NOW UNDER ASSAULT BY DEVIOUS AND COVERT MEANS WHERE THOSE WHO WISH TO DESTROY US AND THE OTHER FREE DEMOCRACY'S IN WORLD ARE ENGAGING IN AN INFILTRATION TACTIC IN THE U S, BRITAIN, FRANCE, GERMANY, ETC.  THEIR PURPOSE IS TO CREATE AN INTERNAL CANCER WITHIN OUR BORDERS, WHICH WILL EAT AWAY AT OUR FREEDOMS IN AN ATTEMPTR TO DESTROY US THAT WAY.  I FOR ONE SAY NO WAY JOSE' AND ALTHOUGH I ABHORE VIOLANCE OF ANY KIND, WE HAVE TO MEET THIS ASSAULT WITH EVERY WEAPON WE CAN.

Here we have a good entertaining clip---click the link below and then ponder the real state of the Union;

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRmZ9zH-mYM&feature=email

Radical College Professor that Seeks Demise of United States Part of Obama Inner Circle

See the article that exposes it all:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=333005

Wake up call!

Posted on NRA-ILA-On August 12, 2011:

“By now you have seen the headlines and images of destruction: the rioting, looting, violent assaults, and arson.  London and other UK cities look like war zones and their citizens are afraid to venture out, because the danger is very real.  It’s a view of the temporary breakdown of society.  It is gut check time; a time when the concept of being able to defend oneself gives way to the stark reality that few viable options to do so exist. 

Gun laws in the UK are among the most restrictive in the world.  In March of 1996, a deranged man walked into a school in Dunblane, Scotland and killed 16 children and one teacher. In the aftermath of this tragedy, British politicians sought to reduce violent crime by enacting a ban on all handguns. Handgun owners were given a February 1998 deadline to turn in their firearms—and they did. The UK was supposed to become a much safer place—but dramatic increases in crime following the gun ban proved it didn’t.  

A July 3, 2009, Daily Mail article reported that “Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European Union, it has been revealed. Official crime figures show the U.K. also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa.”

And the current bedlam has proved it further.  Restrictive laws concerning long-guns, combined with the outright ban on handguns, leave the country’s citizens largely defenseless (it was reported this week that sales of one type of aluminum baseball bats on Amazon UK rose 6,541 percent).  In many places, it was reported that police were unable to stop the mayhem. As a result, panicked, defenseless law-abiding citizens were forced to flee their homes, while others watched as their businesses were destroyed.  Compare this to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when armed citizens were able to protect their lives, families, and property from looters and violent mobs.

An August 11 Herald Sun article reported one resident as saying, “its absolute bedlam on the street.  People have been openly looting for an hour, two hours, and the police have been ineffectual. They’ve done nothing.”  Another victim, who was trapped in her hair salon in Clapham Junction while a mob smashed its way in and trashed it, said, “They were mocking us, [saying] ‘look, look, they look scared’.  Where is the police?  I want protection.  This is what they’re here for . . . I’m not secure at my workplace. I’m not secure at my home place.  Will they be there to protect us tonight?  They weren’t here to protect us last night.”

The Telegraph.com.au reported on Tuesday that mobs were forcing hapless victims to strip off their clothes while being robbed, and described a shocking video that shows a bleeding, already-pummeled teenager being robbed in broad daylight by lawless thugs who pretend to help him to his feet, and then steal the contents of his backpack while he can barely remain standing, much less defend himself. 

This is what a disarmed country looks like.  This is how little is left when free men and women surrender their right to own a firearm.  

One has to wonder how differently this all would be playing out if the law-abiding were allowed to arm themselves.  How different would the reports be if violent, opportunistic, amoral thugs were confronted with armed resistance from their intended victims? 

It has been said that, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”  In this case, good men and women have been stripped of their ability to do something, and evil has certainly triumphed. 

Ironically, the UK is an outspoken proponent of the United Nations’ efforts to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty.  Presumably the UK’s goal in supporting an ATT is to spread the “safety and sanctity” they imagine their country as having to the rest of the world.   Perhaps the recent calamities will cause the British to rethink their position; we certainly hope so.  It’s time for the British government to drop its draconian gun-control laws and restore the right of self-defense to its law-abiding citizens.

It’s time to face the facts.  When law-abiding citizens are disarmed, is their society a safer one?  Do gun bans reduce violent crime?  Will the police always be there to protect you?  England’s current plight is just the latest example to show us, yet again, that the answer to these questions is an emphatic “No.”

Source:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7025

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. British gun laws: Coming soon to a country near you?

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner-By Paul Valone, Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner-On October 13, 2009:

“British authorities are apparently so satisfied with the results of stringent gun laws that they intend to use the United Nations to bring gun control to the United States.

According to “The State,” seven countries have begun a campaign to “regulate the global arms trade” and “prevent the illegal transfer of guns.” And leading the charge is John Duncan, Britain’s ambassador for multilateral arms control and disarmament, who described a recent month-long meeting of the UN General Assembly’s disarmament committee as “pivotal” in launching a new global treaty.

Despite previous U.S.-led resistance to international gun control, when U.S. ambassador John Bolton repudiated such efforts, Duncan and other supporters hope to have the U.N. General Assembly vote on a draft treaty later this year.

American Versus British Crime Rates:

Ironically, the same Britain now trying to export gun control has experienced an explosion in violent crime since virtually banning guns in 1997. In an article just three months old, the British MailOnline reports that England and Wales now have the highest violent crime in the European Union – a rate which, in fact exceeds that of the United States and even hyper-violent South Africa.

Says MailOnline:

“In the decade following [the election of the Labor Party] in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 percent to 1.158 million – more than two every minute.”

Indeed, the U.K. – a laboratory for the near-complete prohibition of private gun ownership – has a violent crime victimization rate of 2,034 per 100,000 residents.

Meanwhile, the U.S., with its far less restrictive gun laws, has a violence rate of only 466 crimes per 100,000 residents.

Even South Africa’s rate is lower, at 1,677 violent crimes per 100,000.

Downplaying the report, British Police Minister David Hanson cited differences in crime reporting to call the figures “misleading.”

Other Countries:

Also supporting the U.N. effort are Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan and Kenya. While violent crime rates are not readily available for Argentina, Costa Rica and Kenya, anecdotal evidence suggests violence exceeding our own.

Argentina: The Argentine Post, conducting a survey of households in 40 urban centers, reports fully 32.7% or respondents had a family member who had been victimized, and only one-third of such crimes had been reported.

Finland: With gun laws the BBC laments as “among the most liberal in the world,” Finland has a violent crime rate of only 738 per 100,000.

Japan: While violence is historically low in Japanese culture, suicide rates are invariably high, despite a near-complete ban on private gun ownership.  Additionally, Japanese residents live in a virtual police state.

Australia: Another laboratory for gun control since restricting gun ownership following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, MailOnline reports a violent crime rate for Australia of 92 per 100,000 residents. This seems unlikely, however, since The Australia Institute of Criminology reports that assault alone occurs at a rate of 840 per 100,000 – a rate which increased dramatically since the Port Arthur ban. Other sources, including Austin Gun Rights Examiner Howard Nemerov, report either flat or increasing trend lines for violent crime since the ban.

Speaking of Australia...

And since the Australian government seems to want its restrictions brought to the U.S., perhaps we should glimpse what its subjects can expect in the future. “The Manly Daily,” of Australia, reported on October 9 that pursuant to the Australian Firearms Act of 1996:

“Northern Beaches Police will be turning up on the doorstep of every licensed gun owner in the area over the next four years to check their firearms are stored correctly.

“Operation Aston follows the gun amnesty that ended on May 31 and will target guns stored incorrectly and the security of gun safes, Northern Beaches Commander Doreen Cruickshank said.

“Gun owners have a responsibility to ensure their weapon is safely stored at all times when not in use,’ Supt Cruickshank said.

“Licensing police will be attending the home of every licensed firearm owner in the northern beaches over the next four years to inspect every weapon and check the gun safe.

“Officers will be examining all gun safes to ensure they comply with the legislative requirements, particularly in relation to the standard and security of safes.’” [Emphasis added]


ENOUGH SAID?” 

Source:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d13-British-gun-laws-Coming-soon-to-a-country-near-you

II. Proposed U.N. Treaty to Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns for U.S. Gun Makers!-Posted on FoxNews.com-By Maxim Lott-On August 5, 2011:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/05/proposed-un-treaty-to-regulate-global-firearms-trade-raising-concerns-for-us/

III. U.S. news agencies 'looking to disarm American people'!-Posted on WND.com-By Joe Kovacs-On August 4, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=329953

IV. Lawsuit Challenging the Obama 
Administration’s Multiple Sales Reporting Requirement!-Posted on NRA-ILA-On August 4, 2011:

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/ComplaintJ&GvMelson.pdf

V. NRA Chief LaPierre: Eric Holder Must Go!-Posted on NewsMax.com-By Wayne LaPierre-On August 3, 2011:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/LaPierre-Holder-NRA-gunrunner/2011/08/03/id/406035?s=al&promo_code=CC44-1

VI. Gun Groups to Sue Over New Obama Regulations!-Posted on FoxNews.com-By Mike Levine-On August 3, 2011:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/03/guns-groups-to-sue-over-new-obama-regulations-doj-vows-to-vigorously-oppose/

VII. Video: Fierce Battle Over Gun Rights!-Posted on FoxNews.com-On August 5, 2011:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1095760427001/fierce-battle-over-gun-rights

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

What is the true intent of the UN Small Arms Treaty?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/what-is-the-true-intent-of-the-un-small-arms-treaty/

Did ATF provide weapons to Mexican drug cartels that were subsequently used to kill one of our own?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/did-atf-provide-weapons-to-mexican-drug-cartels-that-were-subsequently-used-to-kill-one-of-our-own/

Threat of the Mexican drug cartel, illegal border-crossers and “sanctuary cities”!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/threat-of-the-mexican-drug-cartel-illegal-border-crossers-and-“sanctuary-cities”/

How Much Longer Will We Be "Allowed" To Keep Our Guns?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/how-much-longer-will-we-be-“allowed”-to-keep-our-guns/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

  IS IT TRUE ~ THAT THE UN HAS OWNERSHIP OF 47 OUT OF 98 NATIONAL PARKS IN THIS COUNTRY ?

  IF THAT IS TRUE ~ THE CORRUPTION IN THIS ADMINISTRATION IS WORSE THEN THE PRES. GRANT'S

  ADMINISTRATION IN THE 1870'S !

Italy Announces Tough Austerity Measures.  Maybe our Congress will be brave enough to do the same.  Do you think?  Read all about it:

http://www.cnbc.com//id/44124168