Will Your Vote Be Counted?

For those of you who have read my posts wherein I state that I believe Obama has worked out the means to force his own re-election in November, no matter how the citizens of this country vote, read this article from Ron Paul's web site, "Daily Paul". In it, the person posting writes that the Obama administration is outsourcing the counting of votes for more than half the states in the Union, via a Spanish company that has connections to George Soros.

I don't know if this is the same method Ahmadinejad in Iran used to claim himself the winner of their elections or not, but it certainly supports the "open mike" comment that Obama was overheard making to Russia's President Medvedev, where he told him that he could be "more flexible after I am re-elected."

Not "if", but "when".

This would explain his confidence, his willingness to behave in ways that the majority of Americans don't like - such as forcing the passage of the Affordable Patient Care Act, which a significant majority of citizens do not want; like restricting the production of oil and natural gas in this country instead of encouraging it; like attempting to intimidate the Supreme Court in their decision concerning the Constitutionality of the Affordable Patient Care Act.

It would be hard to believe that a sufficient number of Americans would overlook the damage to our economy, the high number of people out of work (not simply the make-believe number of how many people are technically unemployed, according to the government's manipulated statistics), and such in order to vote for this fool. Nonetheless, I am convinced he will be re-elected, by hook or by crook (as in Chicago politicians, deceased voters, and undocumented aliens) in November.

As Kerodin , Pete at WRSA, and others have stated before, we won't be voting our way out of this mess. Unless we vote from the rooftops. Molon Labe.

If this article is accurate, and there certainly is reason to suspect it may be, as the facts are verifiable, then our votes will not count. Votes will be "counted", sure, but they may not be the votes we cast. And Obama will give himself the mandate he needs to re-shape America to suit his agenda of turning us into another failed socialist state.

Saudi Grand Mufti approves of sex with a dead spouse for muslims

I have written a number of times on my belief that islam is not a religion, it is a death cult and a sham religion created by an Arab pedophile in order to justify his desire to rule those around him and to be able to have sex with children without suffering any consequences. Recently, the Saudi Grand Mufti has decreed that a ten-year-old girl may be married, saying that a well-brought up child would be equipped to handle all marital duties. "Our mothers and grandmothers got married when they were barely 12. Good upbringing makes a girl ready to perform all marital duties at that age."

In Egypt, "Egypt's new Islamist-dominated parliament is preparing to introduce a controversial law that would allow husbands to have sex with their deceased wives up to six hours after death.

Known as the 'Farewell Intercourse' law, the measure is being championed as part of a raft of reforms introduced by the parliament that will also see the minimum age of marriage lowered to 14 for girls." (ANI)

Ann Barnhardt, known for her video - which "went viral" - where she denounces islam by quoting actual Sura in the Quran which expose islam for the death cult that it is (burning each page that the quotes were taken from), speaks to further evidence of the vileness of this fake religion as shown in this attempt by the islamists in Egypt to pass a law allowing necrophilia. Her article, Necrophilia Is Not A Joke, explains her stand on this horrifying display of the sickness inherent in the practice of islam.

While you are trying to digest this information, consider the possible corollaries: as the Unified Code of Military Justice has recently removed all punishments previously provided for sodomy and bestiality, due both to the end of DADT and the acceptance of muslims into the military, perhaps now necrophilia will become permissible as well, at least for muslims in the Armed Services. Perhaps the military will have to accept the presence of 10 year old girls as the spouses of muslim servicemen in the Armed Forces.

Additionally, wherever muslims live, could we begin to see the killing of even more muslim wives, wives killed simply because they refused sex with their husbands, who decided a six-hour window of "pleasure" was worth the lack of response available from a recently deceased wife?

These are not idle considerations, but realistic possibilities based on the pronouncements of imams and muslim legislators.

Do you still think it is possible to co-exist with muslims?

Do you understand this is orthodox islam we are talking about, not some "extremist" version?

Do you still believe this made-up "religion" needs to be accepted and allowed to be practiced in America?

I certainly don't.

Fast and Furious Film Production - Please Help

Mike McNulty, the producer of "Waco - Rules of Engagement", is looking to produce a film on the debacle run by BATF (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) called "Fast and Furious". For those few of you who come here that may not know what Operation Fast and Furious was, please visit the web site of David Codrea called "A Journalist's Guide to Project Gunwalker", wherein he and Mike Vanderboegh broke open the story of how the BATF coerced a number of private gun stores into selling over 2000 semi-automatic weapons - so-called "assault rifles", including a number of .50 caliber sniper rifles - to criminal buyers who then transported them into Mexico where they were given to their real purchasers, the drug cartels. Their facts and information were provided by direct testimony from BATF agents who were ordered by their superiors to allow the guns to be "walked" into Mexico, even though they knew people would be killed with those weapons.

The story finally came to light when a Border Patrol agent was killed with one of the weapons that was allowed to be taken into Mexico at the insistence of BATF supervisors in charge of this program. Brian Terry was gunned down, and the ATF - with pressure from the FBI - allowed the criminal cartel members to return to Mexico, because one of them was a "highly-placed" informant for the FBI. The FBI insisted that he be allowed to remain in place, in spite of the fact that he murdered a Federal law enforcement agent. Several BATF agents who were upset by this operation finally came forward when "one of their own" died because of guns they were ordered to allow to be walked into Mexico. [I won't speak to the fact that they only came forward when another Federal agent was killed, not when hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens - not competing cartel members - were killed with these weapons.]

Eric Holder, the Attorney general - who has stated, and made plain, that he will only prosecute when crime is white-on-black - denied any knowledge of this operation, but was caught lying when emails were discovered that indicated he had prior knowledge. The BATF supervisors involved in this were promoted and moved around within the agency in order to protect them and to keep them from testifying to what their involvement was in this criminal enterprise. The White House was proven to be involved as well, via emails to and from Obama's staff, although Obama continues to pretend he had no knowledge of the situation. Holder has stone-walled, refused to respond to subpoenas from Congress, redacted almost ever word from the few documents he has provided, and generally thumbed his nose at Congressman Darrel Issa and Senator Chuck Grassley, the two Republicans who have been making a half-hearted attempt to take BATF, DOJ, Holder and those others involved to task for this atrocious violation of domestic and international law (BATF and DOJ, as well as the State Department, never advised the government of Mexico that they were running an operation that affected their country, as well as providing guns to Mexican drug cartels. It is possible that Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, was read into this operation and had direct knowledge as well).

It should be well noted that BATF's excuse for running this operation was to "track" guns going to the drug cartels, supposedly for the purpose of arrests and prosecutions. This was obviously a lie, for several reasons. Once the guns were picked up by the "strawman" purchasers, the agents were refused permission to arrest the buyers. They were also refused permission to track these buyers back to the cartels. Insane, right? Contrary to what BATF claimed they were trying to accomplish, right?

The only way this operation makes sense is if you consider the real reason it was done: to raise the statistics on the number of deaths that could be attributed to firearms that were bought at gun stores in the United States which "found their way" into Mexico, so that BATF, DOJ, and the Brady Bunch could claim that American weapons sold through American gun stores were causing the deaths of Mexican citizens. So that when the Mexican government ran the serial numbers on crime guns found at the scene of murders in Mexico, they would come back to guns sold in the U.S.

Can you conceive of the depth of immorality and criminality of U.S. agencies banking on the deaths of citizens of another country simply so they could vilify American gun stores and try to further restrict the sale of firearms in our own country? That members of our own government could approve of allowing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of deaths in order to clamp down harder on our Second Amendment? Is this not treason, "high crimes and misdemeanors", committed against the citizens of another country and our own country simply to advance the socialist agenda of damaging the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens? It is an almost unspeakable crime to so completely devalue the very lives of hundreds of human beings just to attack our rights to sell and buy firearms. But, as we saw with the Left in Stalin's Russia and Mao's China, the deaths of even millions is "just a statistic", completely acceptable in order to advance the Marxist agenda.

So, back to Mike McNulty and his film, "Blood On Their Hands". Very little mention of this has been publicized by the mainstream media. CBS did a few segments, until their reporter Sharyl Attkisson was shut down by CBS after they received pressure from DOJ. Fox News did a few segments as well, but they dropped the ball too (Fox is lambasted by the Left as being a Republican mouthpiece, a "far right" slanted organization, but they have more lying liberals on their staff than they do real conservatives, and they did not follow up on this story). Consequently, McNulty wants to produce a film that tells the truth about "Fast and Furious". He needs funding to do this, and has engaged the web site "Kickstarter" in an attempt to develop the necessary funding.

Kickstarter collects the funds via on-line donations, but will return any and all donations if the amount required in total is not reached within the allotted time period. So your donation is safe, and will not be held unless it is actually used to fund the film. This is about as honest and as safe as it gets, folks. Please donate, even just a couple of bucks if that is all you can afford. It would be good to have this film produced, if only to provide a visual record of this horrendous debacle. If you donate at least $20, as I have, you will receive a copy of the film when it has been produced.

Who's Your Daddy?

Ah, it's good to be back to the old Blogger interface. Took me a while to realize there was a way to recover it.

I came across an article by Jerome Corsi at WND (World Net Daily) concerning who he believes the real, biological father of Barack Hussein Obama is, in fact. That would be his mentor Frank Marshall Davis, black member of the US Communist Party, radical, and (radical) poet.

Going strictly by the photo, I think there is good reason to believe Davis and our arrogant, petulant, and deceitful President share the same genes. Chin shape, facial creases, hairline are all quite similar, much more so than with Barack Obama, Sr.

Corsi goes on to give biographical data that support such a notion, as well. While sufficient evidence isn't provided in the article, it sounds as if it may be present in the film to which this article refers. Davis' presence in Hawaii at the same time as Stanley Ann Dunham is telling, as well, along with the known fact - admitted by our little Barry Soetero, aka Barack Obama II - that he spent some time under Davis' wing. Or perhaps even closer than that, as it has been said that Davis was "fond" of children.

It would also explain much more cogently why Obama is so enamored of Communist, socialist ideology, and a hatred for America and American "exceptionalism". Why little Barry feels the need to tear down our country in an attempt to render us no better than any other failed State in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, or Asia. Why he is willing to dupe the black community into thinking he has their best interests at heart, when he is actually simply using them in an attempt to divide America into (at least) two camps, two groups at each other's throat. Why he is so desirous of destroying the Constitution and rendering it powerless to protect us as it was meant to when it was written and ratified.

If you Google "Bill Ayers" for books written by him, "Dreams from My Father" shows up in the list. Based on the few writings that are proven to have been written by Obama, the spelling, grammar, and syntax of that book are at odds with Obama's literary abilities, or lack of ability, to be more accurate. So it is understandable that the "help" he admitted getting from Bill Ayers was probably more substantial than a bit of advice. The book was most likely actually written by Ayers, just as Google indicates.

Read the article. Corsi gives a reasonable and logical basis for believing that Davis was more than just a friend to Obama. It would certainly explain a lot. Such as the very first Executive Order written by Barack Hussein Obama, wherein he sealed all documents which would provide any transparency at all concerning his birth, his schooling, his nationality, and his true identity. In spite of the fact that claiming Davis as his other biological parent would clear up the "native born" American question relating to his eligibility to be President, the fact - if it is such - that his father was a registered member of the Communist Party might not sit so well with the voters.

No matter what the answer is, America really screwed the pooch electing this sick bastard. And I mean that biologically, as well as describing his aberrant personality.

If I Wanted America to Fail, aka Dreams from My Fathers

I just watched a powerful video, thanks to a post from TL Davis at TL in Exile. It - in my opinion - is exactly what Barack Hussein Obama wants. The dream he developed at the feet of his "fathers", his mentors: Lolo Soetero, Frank Marshall Davis, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and George Soros. His heros: V.I.Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung (Mao Zedong). The dream that he shares with Michelle Obama, who also hates America, except for what she can grab in the way of fame, fortune, and expensive vacations.

This video is so true to our times, to what is being done to us and this country in the name of "government", "the environment", "Anthropomorphic Global Warming" (AGW - now "Climate Change", since all the lies about warming have been proven false and fraudulent), "social equality", "wealth distribution", the  "needs" (greed and sloth-driven desires) of the "99%" and the OWS crowds, and the propaganda that the "filthy rich who aren't paying their fair share of taxes" (and they aren't talking about Obama's cronies at Goldman Sachs, The Federal Reserve, Lehman Brothers, Jon Corzine, Tim Geithner, etc.)

It doesn't mention the race war that Obama, Holder, Sharpton and Jackson have been trying to foment, but it doesn't need to do so. It speaks directly to how our country is deliberately being sabotaged.

Please watch this. It isn't long, but it is very important.

(Sorry. This horrible new version of blogger won't allow me to embed the video.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded

Bank of America supports Obama, not America

This is a bit of a departure for me, but I want to pass on the information I just picked up from PJ Media. Evidently, Bank of America is dropping McMillan Group International as a customer - a customer of over twelve years - because they have become too involved with firearms.

(http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-bank-of-america-reportedly-drops-gun-company-for-political-reasons/?singlepage=true)

It doesn't matter that they have been supplying our military with rifles and other tools to enable them to function better and keep each other safer when in combat. It doesn't matter that McMillan's rifles have been saving lives in combat for some years now, in the form of the M40 sniper rifle (taking out muslim snipers in the Middle East, as well as towel heads preparing to fire RPGs, emplacing IEDs, sitting in ambush, etc.). Bank of America has decided to make a political statement - once again, as they have done this before - attempting to damage a company which makes a significant contribution to getting our boys back home safely.

But that's not all. They also support little Barry Homobama by processing campaign contributions - many from illegal foreign sources and illegal domestic sources, as Barry has shut off the filters that would keep those donations from being processed. And B of A is permitting this to happen.

"Bank of America was the recipient of well over 100 billion dollars in federal money. They are also one of just two vendors processing payments for Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, employing a system that disables safeguards against illegal foreign donations. Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina, is the site of the Democratic Nation Convention in September." [For "federal money" substitute "with YOUR tax dollars".]

 And the NRA is playing patty-cake with B of A, claiming that there is no issue here:

"In a conversation with Douglas K. Bland, a BoA Senior Vice President, NRA-ILA was assured that there was no such anti-gun policy.

Mr. Bland provided NRA-ILA with a written statement of their policy, which states "Bank of America does not have a corporate-wide policy to deny banking services solely on the applicant's involvement in the firearms industry." [Notice they don't say it isn't a policy. They say there is no "corporate-wide" policy. But that's good enough for the ol' NRA.]

NRA-ILA is pleased with this statement, but will continue to monitor business activities to ensure that gun owners and gun related business receive fair treatment.  If you have had issues with Bank of America, please contact NRA-ILA so additional follow-up can be done.  If needed, Mr. Bland has indicated his desire to assist with claims of unfair denial of services for firearms related reasons."

As usual, the NRA pretends to protect gun owners and the gun industry, while accepting excuses that are easily proven false. Just as they do from RINOs and Democrats - like Max Baucus in Montana, who pretends to be pro-Second Amendment. Another fail, NRA. PJ Media goes on to note:

"This is at least the third time Bank of America has implemented a discriminatory policy against gun manufacturers. In early 2001, a scandal erupted over the bank’s attempt to discriminate against another Arizona-based company (Arizona Response Systems). The resulting public outrage forced a reversal of the policy."

So. Any of you folks reading this who do business with B of A and want to make a small but real difference, cut up your cards and mail them back in one of their pre-paid envelopes you get with your monthly statement. Include your own statement of why you are doing this. Between their support for Obama's campaign, including processing illegal contributions, and their attempt to damage businesses they do not approve of, they deserve to experience some pain. Even if you don't bank with them, write them anyway. They need to understand that the government won't be able to bail them out on our nickel forever. They certainly don't deserve to be permitted to call themselves the Bank of America.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-bank-of-america-reportedly-drops-gun-company-for-political-reasons/?singlepage=true

Why carrying a knife can be as useful as carrying a gun

Kerodin at IIIpercent to Bonnie Gadsden to Straight Forward in a Crooked World, a chain of posts that takes you to the article "Dark Arts for Good Guys: the Right to Knife" Part 1 and Part 2. Direct and real, even ugly in places, but excellent information that could save your life.

The only life or death confrontations I have experienced have been while on duty as a peace officer, and involved guns, and few of those, thankfully. But I carry a knife everywhere, all of the time. A good strong folder that can be used defensively, like my Emerson CQC-7B Wave. I had envisioned the possibility of using it as a stand-off deterrent, to ward off someone trying to grapple with me (remember, I am not trained in the use of a knife, so perhaps that isn't a good idea, though it sounded good). I imagined I could use it to fight someone else also armed with a knife, but feared getting fatally cut myself in the process, so I had hoped to be able to respond with my carry firearm instead in such a case.

The author at Straight Forward explained that a knife could be useful in broader circumstances, and that it could be possible to win without getting cut to ribbons. His descriptions of possible techniques and modes of attack are sometimes on the gruesome side for someone who has not stopped to really imagine what it would be like to stab or cut another person, but again, as I have posted elsewhere recently, we are talking about responding to someone trying to kill you, or someone you love.

This two-part article is something you should read if you are serious about winning against someone when armed only with a knife. Even if you have no plans to practice or train with a knife, alone or with a partner, just reading these articles may provide you with knowledge that will come back to you and save your butt should you find yourself in a fight for your life and only have a blade of some kind with which to work.

Great article by "Burned Out LEO"

Just read this at Roberts Gun Shop, where he reposted an article from Burned Out Leo, called "What They Don't Teach in Weapons Carry Classes". Actually, some instructors _do_ teach this kind of thing, at least one of the instructors I trained with some years back. It was much better firearms training than I received in the San Diego Police Academy. I was impressed by how much I learned at this class in 2004 that wasn't taught back in '79 when I attended SDPD's academy.

However, this article provides a number of ideas and concepts that will serve you in good stead for staying safe on the streets as a civilian. The author has BTDT, and his suggestions are not the BS you hear from gun store "commandoes", they are excellent techniques for staying safe and staying alive.

For those who visit here who are uncomfortable with violence, or with the thought of harming another human being, allow me to remind you that your life - and certainly the lives of your wife and/or children - are just as valuable as anyone else's. When a person decides it is acceptable to hurt or kill you simply to get what they want - your money, possessions, to rape your wife or abduct your child - the value of their life become worthless. At that point, they have made the decision to relinquish any claim they have to being treated with fairness, decency or compassion. Now, I know some of you may believe that taking another's life is not worth the money or possessions you could simply hand over in a robbery, but unfortunately, today that often is not enough for those who commit armed robberies. Some get a thrill from the ultimate control over another person - over their life or death - and some simply are unwilling to risk going to, or returning to, prison. These people will kill you, even though you have given them what they have asked for, even when a woman has submitted to rape (or G-d forbid, a child has been abducted and used for whatever gratification the sick bastard had intended).

As the author of the article wrote:

"Once a man starts armed robbing he has crossed a line most won't. Don't forget that when you are looking these bastards in the eye. Their decision to kill you is already made. Your life means nothing to him. Only his does. His sole motivation for not killing you is he doesn't want a murder case. He has already accepted he may pick one up though. "

He also goes on to write, "But be advised no matter where you are a hold-up man is going to be about the same. Whether he is a home boy or a guy who just exited the interstate into your town and needs some quick money. He is going to have a vicious streak and no regard for your life. Treat him like he treats you." So, don't believe you are safe simply because you live in the middle of Amish farm country, or because you live in a gated community. The bad guys have wheels, and they go places where they aren't expected.

I once worked for a particularly dumb Sgt. at a small police department in Northern California (Yreka), and he was unhappy that I carried a pistol off-duty. (Hard to believe, isn't it?) He whined about our little town not having that much crime, and most of it being non-violent, saying he saw no need for me to carry concealed. I reminded him that our little berg was bisected by Interstate 5, and that there was lots of drug traffic right past us on its way to Seattle and Yakima. This hypocrite carried a .38 snubbie in his golf bag wen he went golfing with his cronies, but in his case it was only for show, to impress his civilian friends.

For you ladies reading this: I know many of you feel you could never shoot at someone, never take the life of another. A while back I read an article about a married couple that took a handgun training course together. The wife just couldn't hit the target, and showed no inclination to improve. She was obviously just going through the motions. The instructor took her aside, and after she explained her problem he asked her to consider a scenario. He asked her to imagine she had stopped at a service station to fill up her car, with her three year old belted into her car seat in back. As she was returning to the car after paying for her gas, she saw a man taking her daughter out of her car seat and carrying the screaming child to his van.

The instructor asked what she would do - call 911? She told him no, she would kill the SOB with her bare hands. She realized that there was at least one situation in which she would be comfortable taking the life of another. She ended up being one of the best shots in that class.

So, please read the article linked above. Read Jeff Cooper's books concerning personal defense, paying attention to his "color codes". And stay safe.

BTW, a little bit of trivia, for those of you who have read American Handgunner magazine: One of the editors, Roy Huntington, was in my class at SDPD. He was the best shot with a handgun I had ever seen at that time, easily the best in our class and probably in the whole department. He helped several in our class who were having trouble qualifying at the range. Believe it or not, Roy had been a professional flower arranger for a large commercial florist before becoming a police officer! I never worked with Roy after the academy, but from what I heard he was an excellent officer, an exceptional guy throughout his career there at San Diego PD. I can tell you for a fact that he was a hell of a nice guy, and I'm sure he still is.

Thoughts to ponder and keep you safe

I am currently reading a book called Survivors, by John Wesley, Rawles, also the author of Patriots, A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse. He is a former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and has been a survivalist for many years. I realize to some who read this, including some of the Left-leaning members of my family, the word "survivalist" conjures some negative images, holds some negative connotations. Also, the notion of a "collapse" is often considered a bit of paranoia "clung" to by those of us who mistrust our government and the way the economy is being mishandled.

Being prepared for emergencies is the duty of any parent, any man responsible for a wife and/or children, elderly parents, or other responsibilities. If a man prepares for a tornado, a hurricane, or a forest fire where those are prevalent, as out West, he is considered thoughtful and wise. If he buys life insurance to protect his family should he die, or disability insurance should he be injured and unable to work, he is considered a smart and responsible individual.

Those of us who prepare - now being labeled "preppers", almost as derogatorily as we used to be called "survivalists" - are not considered wise or smart to create our own insurance should the system break down more significantly. Having been raised where hurricanes and blizzards were a part of life, it was not unusual to find yourself without power for a week or two after a very bad storm, or with the roads so badly blocked by snow that you couldn't get to a store to buy food, and it wouldn't be open even if you could get there. In the Northeast, at least, it was common to keep a large pantry where at least a week's worth of staples (and usually more) was available to keep the family fed.

Many years ago, having had a friend who became a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints, I was introduced to the idea of storing a year's worth of food. This was a requirement for LDS members (probably better known as "Mormons", although I think there may be a bit of an insult involved in calling them that) back then, although I understand that at one point it was upped to two years. Living in the country as I prefer to do, this sounded like a sensible idea to me. From what I understand, the LDS folks are required to do this in case there is some sort of economic collapse or societal upheaval, but in many, many instances it has kept a family well fed when the bread-winner has been injured and unable to work, or laid-off and unable to find work immediately. Can you imagine the relief many families living today would feel, where the husband has lost his job due to our terrible economy, knowing they could at least feed themselves? To not have to beg for food or listen to your children cry, going to bed hungry?

So, I decided this was a sound idea, one that couldn't hurt, and could easily help. Storing other necessities beyond food seemed like a reasonable extension of this notion. Have you ever run out of toilet paper, perhaps discovering there wasn't even a box of Kleenex in the house? If you haven't, does that sound like something you'd like to experience? (Sears isn't putting out the big catalogs they used to make available ;-) It is an easy step from there to stocking a bit of everything you might need. When it is used, you simply replace it with more from the nearest Walmart, Costco, or supermarket.

The argument you get from those with more "liberal", collectivist tendencies is that being a survivalist (now "prepper") is "all about guns". While that certainly is untrue - you can't eat a gun, or purify water with one, or dig a garden, fillet a fish with one, or wipe your bottom with one, they are still useful, especially for us who live in the country. In Montana and Wyoming - even in far Northern California where I used to own a little 40 acre ranch - bears can be a problem, one that can't always be avoided. Sometimes they seek out your pets or your livestock for food, as do coyotes and mountain lions. We had all three in Northern California, when I lived just outside of Yreka, up near the border with Oregon.

As society becomes more violent, with more rapes and assaults and robberies and home invasions happening, especially in the urban areas, being able to defend yourself calls for more than a cellphone and some pepper spray. It is easy to say, "Oh, I live in a safe area. I don't have to worry about that", but allow me to tell you that you are wrong. Having worked in law enforcement on and off for over seventeen years, I will remind you that the bad guys have cars and trucks, and don't merely prey upon their own socio-economic class. A Nike-wearing CEO who jogs down quiet neighborhood streets in Portland, Oregon is as easily assaulted and raped - and even murdered - as a poor Hispanic lady forced to carry her groceries on foot from the local bodega to her basement apartment in the nasty part of town.

Guns are tools. They are not inherently evil, cannot operate themselves, and most of them are incapable of going off on their own even if dropped onto hard ground. Like all tools, they can be misused. A hammer can drive a nail or smash a skull. A knife can cut some rope or slit a throat. And for those who claim that they only purpose for a gun is to kill, I call "bullshit". The primary purpose for a gun other than providing meat for the table via hunting is for the stopping of violence. For the purpose of preventing harm caused by someone intent on doing that harm. Sometimes the only way to stop someone who wants to hurt or rape or kill you is by actually firing the gun at that person, but in many, many more instances, the mere threat of being shot is enough to cause a bad person to turn and run away. There are millions of defensive uses of guns every year in this country, compared to the mere thousands of times they are actually fired, or the few thousand times they actually kill someone. Far more people die from improper treatment by doctors and hospitals ("medical misadventure" is the euphemism), or by car accidents, than die from firearms in this country.

So. The bottom line, one which the folks on the Left do not want you to understand, is that the gun is insurance. Just like afire extinguisher which you hope you never have to use, or that jack and spare tire in your trunk. Or the life preserver (PFD - personal floatation device) you had better be wearing anytime you go out in a boat or kayak. Those of us who carry handguns or other firearms do so not because we want to use them to kill, but because we want to use them to keep from being killed ourselves. Or to protect those we love.

If you and your wife, or you and your husband, are accosted by three or four men who have decided to rape someone, they certainly will be done with both of you long before a police officer could respond, even if you have the opportunity to dial 911. As a former police officer, I know this for a fact. Often, those who rape have already developed criminal records and don't wish to return to jail or prison, so they are not interested in leaving witnesses behind. Some of the scum who inhabit our world even enjoy the feeling of power they get from the taking of human life.

Possessing a firearm and the training to use it effectively can save your life. Often merely displaying a weapon will stop the action, but you must understand that this can only be done when your life, or the life of another, is in danger of serious bodily injury or death. That can mean one attacker if you are frail, female, disabled, or elderly. It can mean someone smaller than you, if they have you down and are trying to seriously injure you, or if they are armed with a club or a knife or gun.

We can never know when violence will present to us, anymore than we know when a forest fire or a tornado will threaten us. Being armed is simply a means of insuring that you have a better chance of going home alive if you or a loved one is attacked. It is a good feeling to know that you are prepared to deal with the possibility of violence should it occur. And I promise you that the gun will never leap into your hands to wantonly take the life of someone innocent. With a little training, a little information, and some common sense, it will never threaten your children or family, friends or neighbors, either. It can be as safe a tool as any other in your toolbox, workshop, or kitchen.

And remember that violence used in the defense of those you love and wish to protect is neither evil nor wrong.

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue- and thoroughly immoral - doctrine that ‘violence never solves anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, The Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon.

Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms”.

Robert A. Heinlein, from Starship Troopers

.Gov violates the Bill of Rights - repeatedly

This is a MUST SEE video message from Bill Whittle at Afterburner. It deals with the fact - yes, it is an indisputable fact - that our government has chosen to ignore our natural, God-given rights, to actually deny them and run roughshod over them.

The Bill of Rights is not, has never been, a list of rights granted to us by government, nor by the Founders, nor even the ratified Constitution itself. The Bill of Rights is a document that details how our government may not ever violate those natural rights that we possess.

But our government has been violating those strictures, those limits upon its actions, for many, many years. Recently, however, it has gotten even worse. Bill explains just how and why that is.

Constitutional crisis, redux

I have been reminded by Kerodin at III percent.com that the idea that the Supreme Court can decide the Constitutionality of a law is wrong, a myth that originated with the SCOTUS decision in Marbury vs Madison.

To clarify this - if I am indeed understanding this correctly - it is rather a matter that the Supreme Court is the last court of appeal in deciding if an individual (or entity, as in the case of a corporation) has indeed violated a law. If they determine, in the opinion of the court, that a law is an illegal one which violates our Constitution, or violates our natural rights as delineated in the Bill of Rights - or that the individual never actually violated that law to begin with - then that person is allowed to be released from whatever penalty - including incarceration - that an Executive office (local, state, or Federal) placed upon them via a lower court.

This is not the same as ruling upon the Constitutionality of said law, beyond determining that the individual ran afoul of a law that did not meet the criteria for a valid law under the terms of our Constitution. A precedent may be set, such that it would prevent another individual from being arrested and tried, or at least found guilty, for the same violation, but it does not strike down the law per se. That is beyond their power. Congress itself may vote to rescind a law that they passed in a proper and legal fashion which the Executive office then signed into law, but SCOTUS may not legitimately deem a law to be unConstitutional, per se, with the expectation that it be struck down, instanter.

This is fortunate, as otherwise one Justice, one man or woman (as in the case of the numerous 5-4 decisions the Court has arrived at) would then have the power to determine what laws Congress might write that citizens would then be responsible for complying with or ignoring. Or so I understand it at this moment. Indeed, at this point in time it appears that most of us in this country have been misled to think this is indeed a power owned by SCOTUS, which would mean that nine people in black robes - or even one such person, in a 5-4 decision - may decide our fate, the amount of control our government may exert upon us in spite of our natural rights.

I still have not come completely to grips with the notion of the separation of powers within the Federal government. The only protection I am certain of - although pretty much every court in the land denies it in its instructions to the jury (as a threat to their power to rule us) - is the power of jury nullification. The states may offer some protection via the 10th Amendment, and the right of the states - and the people - to possess the powers not _specifically_ given to the Federal government, but the only protection then from the power of the states to make law, as well as the power of Congress to make law - is jury nullification.

As I have written about before, jury nullification is the right - and DUTY - of every juror to judge just not the facts of the case in question, but the LAW in question. If the defendant did in fact violate a law, but the law is an unjust law, or if the punishment for that violation is deemed to be excessive or unjust, then that juror may legally - and has a moral duty to do so - find him not guilty. (You may read about the John Peter Zenger trial back before we actually became a nation at FIJA.org.)

So, strictly speaking, SCOTUS does not possess the power to deem Obamacare unConstitutional, even though we might wish it so. I do believe, until I am corrected on this, that they may find that the individual or entity that has brought this case forward may be relieved of suffering any penalty from not following the mandates placed within this law, though. If their decision is that the any part of, or entire law, is unConstitutional, it does not remove the law from the books, does not strike it down as such, but would establish precedent such that no one should suffer any penalty for non-compliance.

Should they fail to find it violates our rights through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then it would be up to us to either nullify it in court when someone is arrested and tried for non-compliance. Failing that, or even in addition, it would be up to us to force our representatives to rescind the law. If they fail to do so, we would be left with the sole remedy of rejecting the government we have and forming a new one.

Constitutional crisis?

Tom Baugh, the author of Starving the Monkeys has written an article titled The Supreme Militia. In it, he speaks to the fact that Obama has spoken of the Supreme Court in disparaging terms, calling them "unelected" (as if that diminishes their authority) and saying that they should not overturn legislation which has been passed by "a strong majority" (a utter lie that anyone who watched the process that Pelosi and Reid used to force the Affordable Patient Care Act through Congress is well aware is a lie). He basically has ordered them to find it Constitutional, this legislation that was passed without a single Republican vote, that required promising billions of dollars of earmarks to various Congressional members, and of lying repeatedly about both the cost of the bill and its effect on the citizens of this country and the health care to which they would have access.

Mr. Baugh speaks of the fact that it is entirely possible that Barry Soetero, aka Barack Hussein Obama, may refuse to accept the decision of the Supreme Court, and seek to implement this legislation - legislation that over 70% of America does not approve of - in spite of their decision pertaining to its Constitutionality.

As I have mentioned before, the Supreme Court is the final court of law in deciding whether or not a law is Constitutional. They are not the actual final arbiter - that is the citizenry of the United States of America, via jury nullification - but they are indeed the final court. What happens when they make a determination, and the Executive branch of our government decides to ignore that decision? What happens if an elected President is impeached, but decides to ignore said impeachment, refusing to leave office? What happens if this President decides to ignore the required election process, and simply declares that he has no intention of leaving office, despite whatever took place during the election process?

William Lafferty, retired as a staff attorney from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, has written a series of novels which deals with some of these issues. In his seventh book, "They Came For Our Guns, They Came For Our Freedom" he postulates a President who refuses to leave office and who must be forced out. In the novel, elements of the government work with members of the military to effect his removal, finally accomplishing that task. Lafferty talks directly about President Obama in an essay on his page describing his eighth book, , making some excellent points, some of which are quite familiar to readers here.

This present situation with Obama expressing his unwillingness to accept a decision from the Supreme Court of which he does not approve, could indeed trigger a Constitutional crisis. If he resists it, refuses to stop the implementation of Obamacare/APCA, there will certainly be some serious consequences. One can only hope that impeachment is one of them. It would be nice to be rid of this craven individual who - in the opinion of many of us - was never legally eligible to be elected as our President in the first place. The fact that it is a fait accompli does not make it taste any better. If he is impeached, but refuses to relinquish his office, it could get nasty.

However, given the cowardice of the current representatives in both houses of Congress, I am afraid that impeachment isn't in the cards. If Harry Reid can subvert the function of the Senate to the extent that it has not submitted a budget in the three years that Obama has been president, I have little faith that he would permit a vote for impeachment. Or would declare a "voice vote", and pretend that the majority of the Senators had voted not to impeach.

America is certainly facing some "interesting" times ahead. Let us hope that we can survive them as a country, and as a nation that at least resembles what we once were.

It's coming. Can you hear it?

"Americans have thus far been unable to deal with the reality of our desperate circumstances. They remind me of people who see the ocean recede from the shoreline and curiously venture out where the sea had flowed to pick up trinkets and pretty shells with no sense of what is truly happening. The deadly 20 foot high tsunami headed their way will be a complete shock when they are swept away in a torrent of bad debt and worthless currencies. " Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform, via Zero Hedge.

This quote is taken from a post entitled, "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet - Part One" by Jim Quinn, the Administrator at the Burning Platform.

Although it is the role of the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter of the Constitutionality of any law written by Congress, as the final appellate court for all of the lower courts, our current President has decided to warn the Supreme Court that they must determine the Affordable Patient Care Act ("Obamacare") to be Constitutional. He has indicated that he will not accept any other determination. So, obviously this noted "Constitutional Scholar" (by his own words) has concluded that the Separation of Powers as listed in the Constitution is null and void. He is arrogant enough to publicly declare that he is the one who determines if a law is Constitutional or not.

Does this bother anyone? It bothers me. The tsunami is coming. The waters that have receded will return, and they will damage not just those who have not paid attention to the trouble our economy is in, nor just those who haven't paid attention to the dictatorial powers the President has granted unto himself, but it will damage those of us who are aware, who have been aware of the danger our country is in thanks to this craven marxist who believes only he is wise enough to determine what is right for America and all of the citizens of America.

Being a collectivist, he isn't concerned with how this affects individual people. As long as his actions support his vision of what is right for the group, the collective, he is satisfied. If he is permitted to continue, especially for another four years, when he would have more "flexibility", those of us who value our freedom, our liberty, will suffer the most.

Our country was founded upon the idea that the rights of the individual are as important, as deserving of protection, as the rights of society at large. Obama and his Marxist friends and supporters want the needs of the many given more weight than the rights of the few, the individual being the smallest possible "few", the smallest minority.

Please. Let us vote - if voting is still permitted by this egomaniac in November - to remove this craven politician from office. None of the other choices are actually worth voting for, but any of them would be better than what we are presently suffering under. Go to the polls and un-elect this monster.