"In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states. These states -- "Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California...Georgia," South Carolina, and Texas -- "have all introduced bills and resolutions" reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states."
It was unsurprising that our left-wing Socialist Government would move quickly to minimize states rights. Equally unsurprising are the various left-wing efforts around the country to make gun ownership extremely difficult and/or extremely expensive, inasmuch as they understand the immediate citizens response to making ownership of firearms illegal. Labyrinthine laws, Draconian in their intent and confusing by design, have sprung up in many places. One state legislator has proposed a law requiring that all gun owners must provide proof of a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy specifically for their firearms. This is good news for the insurance companies, but not so good for the honest working-class citizen. Illinois Representative Bobby Rush has submitted HR45: Blair Holt's Firearms Licensing and Record of Sales Act of 2009, as a proposed law in an attempt to intimidate gun owners by tracking them like ex-convicts, and burying them in an avalanche of administrative requirements. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A STATES RIGHTS ISSUE! And apparently, it's one of the many Constitutional protections the left-wing wishes to eliminate. Registration is the first step toward confiscation.
Here's an excerpt from a little known passage in our Declaration of Independence - "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 reference, of course, is to the tyrannical rule of King George III over the "subjects" of the British Colonies now known as the United States of America.
Given our present course, I see the USA being replaced by the SSA (Socialist States of America), because of our complacency. According to the published election results, a slight majority of our countrymen - both living and dead - chose to elect a known left wing Socialist as our President. Barack Obama is a man, who through deed and word, has demonstrated his disdain for our country, its customs, and our cultural heritage. He failed to show respect to our flag - a flag for which tens of thousands of freedom-loving Americans have sacrificed their lives. And in his book, "The Audacity of Hope" there's this statement:
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”I'm sorry, but how ignorant does one have to be to NOT understand that Obama does not now, nor has he ever, had the best interests of our country at heart? IF he is an American by virtue of his birth to an American mother - and notice that's a big IF - it is the only connection he has to America. Factual proof of his place of birth has not yet been made public. In fact, those records have been sealed. Why? Another unanswered question surrounds the origins of the financial means by which he attended "Ivy League" universities ... but, again, those records have been sealed. Why?
I could be wrong about all this ... but I'm NOT!