Recently released FBI Violent Crime Statistics report that "preliminary January-through-June figures showed the number of violent crimes declined 6.4 percent from the previous year, led by a 5.7 percent drop in murders and a 5.1 percent decrease in rapes. In other violent crime categories, robberies declined 7.7 percent while aggravated assaults fell 5.9 percent. The FBI's regular statistical report did not give any reasons for the lower crimes nationwide."
Is it just a coincidence that in 1980 there were only one million concealed firearm permits in the USA, and that today there are over six million concealed firearm permits issued? Is it simply another coincidence that the FBI - an agency of the currently left-wing federal government - "did not give any reasons for the lower crimes nationwide."? Or, is it possible that the leadership of the FBI, fearing reprisal from within the liberal, Marxist-Socialist Obama administration, opted not to suggest that contrary to the administration's position on gun control (which position is contrary to the Second Amendment), the vast majority of gun owners in our country are responsible, law-abiding citizens?
Eric Holder's Department of "Justice" was recently caught up in the tangled web of "Operation Fast and Furious", a government sponsored program that forced several border state gun dealers to sell some serious firearms (fully-automatic machine guns, sniper rifles, etc) to straw buyers for the Mexican drug cartels. Why? So the administration could say, "American guns are being illegally sold to, and used by, Mexican drug lords. We need more stringent restrictions on gun ownership in this country!!" The administration wasn't about to mention that those illegal gun sales were conducted at the direction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). And, by the way, the BATFE issues and controls licensing and inspections of firearms dealers. That control was used to leverage gun dealers into cooperating in "Operation Fast and Furious"... which resulted in the deaths of two federal agents, and the feds inability to account for more than half of the 2,200 firearms illegally sold under their direction. Technically, our government is probably one of - if not the - largest illegal firearms traffickers in North America!
Amendment II of the US Constitution closes with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Therefore any modification of the 2nd Amendment is a violation of what is arguably our most important Constitutional right. The 2nd Amendment insures "We the People" have the capability to keep all the other rights.
Showing posts with label violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violence. Show all posts
Monday, December 19, 2011
Monday, April 19, 2010
VIOLENCE AND SEDITION - What Will The Left Think Of Next?
Interestingly, the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats in government have labeled those of us who attend TEA Parties as "inciting violence" and "seditionists". Obama finds us "amusing"... your President finds concerned Americans who disagree with the direction in which he is sailing our "ship of state" to be "amusing"!
I have attended two Tea Parties locally, and have yet to witness any acts of violence, and have not yet heard a call to commit acts of violence. In fact, the only acts of violence I have even heard of are those committed against the TEA Party attendees by supporters and sympathizers of the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats. A cowardly demonstration of attempting to provoke peaceful TEA Party attendees into acts of physical violence against the socialist turncoats.
Sedition is defined thus - "Conduct which is directed against a government and which tends toward insurrection but does not amount to treason." I don't know that there have been any acts of sedition associated with the TEA Party movement. If so, they were not sponsored or condoned by the TEA Party movement. But, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, in spite of the fact that the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats wish to deny that Constitutionally protected right to those who voice disagreement with them.
Perhaps they have an understandable guilt created by diverting our government from its intended course, and an attendant fear that they will someday be held accountable for their treasonous acts by We the People.
The last statistic I heard regarding the Constitution dealt with the Tenth Amendment (States Rights), which states in plain English - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". The statistic I refer to reported that 33 states had reaffirmed their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Now that may just be "window dressing" - like a couple reaffirming their marriage vows -, or it may be a precursor to secession. Could secession be considered an act of sedition? I suppose it could be if it were left up to some radical left-winger to define. But the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines secession to be - " 1 : withdrawal into privacy or solitude 2 : formal withdrawal from an organization." In other words, it's a simple statement saying, "I refuse to play your game any more because you want to change the rules the game was established with." If you can understand that then you have a grasp of the meaning of secession. It means a state - or states - chooses to remove itself from the Union of States.
Washington has turned a deaf ear to the conservative voices in this country... and THAT is the worst possible action the government could take. George III failed to hear the voices of the American colonists until December 16, 1773 - the night of the original Boston Tea Party. The rebellion against tyranny is not only expected of free men, it is required of them when rebellion becomes necessary to maintain that freedom. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Jefferson was also - by today's definition - a "seditionist", condemned to be so by his own words. Read carefully and thoughtfully... "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." He suggested that the people take arms against any tyrannical ruler. Along that same line, his view of the Second Amendment (Keep and Bear Arms) was quite elegant - "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." And - "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Attempts to erode and subvert the intent of the United States Constitution. Seditious speech? It would only considered as such by those who fear a free people.
Surprisingly, Jefferson also had views on government bailouts, stimulus packages, welfare and national health care, even though he had no exposure to such things -
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. "
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now."
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
The seeds of violence and sedition have been sown by those who thought it wise to blame the conservative right for such actions on nationwide television and radio. There were no such acts supported, coordinated, or condoned by the conservative right prior to April 18, 2010. There may be random acts of individuals here and there, but violence and sediton is not the goal of the conservatives. On the other hand, I once saw a bumper sticker that read "WHEN REASON FAILS, FORCE PREVAILS", which seems to be the motto of all international negotiators.
I wonder how "amusing" Obama will find the TEA Party movement in November...
I have attended two Tea Parties locally, and have yet to witness any acts of violence, and have not yet heard a call to commit acts of violence. In fact, the only acts of violence I have even heard of are those committed against the TEA Party attendees by supporters and sympathizers of the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats. A cowardly demonstration of attempting to provoke peaceful TEA Party attendees into acts of physical violence against the socialist turncoats.
Sedition is defined thus - "Conduct which is directed against a government and which tends toward insurrection but does not amount to treason." I don't know that there have been any acts of sedition associated with the TEA Party movement. If so, they were not sponsored or condoned by the TEA Party movement. But, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, in spite of the fact that the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats wish to deny that Constitutionally protected right to those who voice disagreement with them.
Perhaps they have an understandable guilt created by diverting our government from its intended course, and an attendant fear that they will someday be held accountable for their treasonous acts by We the People.The last statistic I heard regarding the Constitution dealt with the Tenth Amendment (States Rights), which states in plain English - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". The statistic I refer to reported that 33 states had reaffirmed their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Now that may just be "window dressing" - like a couple reaffirming their marriage vows -, or it may be a precursor to secession. Could secession be considered an act of sedition? I suppose it could be if it were left up to some radical left-winger to define. But the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines secession to be - " 1 : withdrawal into privacy or solitude 2 : formal withdrawal from an organization." In other words, it's a simple statement saying, "I refuse to play your game any more because you want to change the rules the game was established with." If you can understand that then you have a grasp of the meaning of secession. It means a state - or states - chooses to remove itself from the Union of States.
Washington has turned a deaf ear to the conservative voices in this country... and THAT is the worst possible action the government could take. George III failed to hear the voices of the American colonists until December 16, 1773 - the night of the original Boston Tea Party. The rebellion against tyranny is not only expected of free men, it is required of them when rebellion becomes necessary to maintain that freedom. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Jefferson was also - by today's definition - a "seditionist", condemned to be so by his own words. Read carefully and thoughtfully... "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." He suggested that the people take arms against any tyrannical ruler. Along that same line, his view of the Second Amendment (Keep and Bear Arms) was quite elegant - "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." And - "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Attempts to erode and subvert the intent of the United States Constitution. Seditious speech? It would only considered as such by those who fear a free people.Surprisingly, Jefferson also had views on government bailouts, stimulus packages, welfare and national health care, even though he had no exposure to such things -
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. "
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now."
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
The seeds of violence and sedition have been sown by those who thought it wise to blame the conservative right for such actions on nationwide television and radio. There were no such acts supported, coordinated, or condoned by the conservative right prior to April 18, 2010. There may be random acts of individuals here and there, but violence and sediton is not the goal of the conservatives. On the other hand, I once saw a bumper sticker that read "WHEN REASON FAILS, FORCE PREVAILS", which seems to be the motto of all international negotiators.
I wonder how "amusing" Obama will find the TEA Party movement in November...
Saturday, February 20, 2010
GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS EXPOSED!
Here's a new acronym for some of you out there - IANSA. This is how they describe themselves: "The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the global movement against gun violence - a network of 800 civil society organisations working in 120 countries to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons." Sounds innocuous enough, eh? After all, nobody is in favor of gun violence. They go on to say,"IANSA seeks to make people safer from gun violence by securing stronger regulation on guns in society and better controls on arms exports. It represents the voices of civil society on the international stage, for example in the UN process on small arms, and draws on the practical experience of its members to campaign for policies that will protect human security."
The UN (which recently described its "process on small arms" activity as "Throughout October 2008, governments are attending the First Committee, which proposes and adopts resolutions on disarmament and international security. Their discussions include resolutions on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and small arms control.") is notoriously anti-gun simply because civilians owning guns are an indication of a free people, and those who enjoy freedom just may make it difficult for the UN to establish itself as the One World Government.
Sculpture outside the U.N. Secretariat in New York City
The UN (which recently described its "process on small arms" activity as "Throughout October 2008, governments are attending the First Committee, which proposes and adopts resolutions on disarmament and international security. Their discussions include resolutions on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and small arms control.") is notoriously anti-gun simply because civilians owning guns are an indication of a free people, and those who enjoy freedom just may make it difficult for the UN to establish itself as the One World Government.
Sculpture outside the U.N. Secretariat in New York CityWhat exactly is the United Nations, and how does it relate to the United States Constitution? The United Nations is an association of non-elected representatives from approximately 192 nations around the world. During the 20th century, only 31% of the human population lived in fully democratic nations, the remaining 69% are limited democracies, communist states, one-party rule, autocracy, traditional monarchy, military junta, or have no government. Which means that more than 2/3 of the U.N. is occupied by something other than fully democratic nations. The bulk of these nation's representatives are motivated by resentment, envy, jealousy, fear and hatred of Democracy - Democratic Republics in-particular - as demanded by their leaders (possible exceptions: UK, Scandinavian countries, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand... maybe France).
You should be able to determine for yourself how the U.N. relates to the United States Constitution by now - but, in case you can't, the answer is... NOT AT ALL! The vast majority of U.N. representatives fear our Constitutional guarantees, and look for every opportunity to reduce our nation's citizens to the same subservient status as their own.
Back to IANSA... IANSA is funded by socialist-progressive organizations including George Soros' "Open Society Institute", and liberal foundations including the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. IANSA's postion on "Women and Guns" is ludicrous: "It is overwhelmingly men who buy, sell, and use small arms around the world, while women are victimised to a disproportionate degree. This dynamic is often overlooked in discussions of armed violence." There is nothing in our country stopping women from "buying, selling, or using small arms", other than lack of interest or personal choice. And armed citizens - male or female - are significantly less "victimised" than are unarmed subjects. The Brady (Gun Grab) Campaign/Center is one of the 700+ members of IANSA, and I'm certain they would have the support of Bandits Without Borders. IANSA is "on board" with the UN's "process on small arms".
In October of 2009, Obama made a couple of moves to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations. The upside of such a treaty for Obama would be deniability - "I didn't revoke the 2nd Amendment, I simply signed a UN treaty. It's not my fault they want to take your guns away." The downside for Obama and the UN is that, according to the Constitution, all treaties must be ratified by Congress before they become binding. I don't know that Congress is willing to completely abdicate our sovereignty in such a fashion... not if they're half as smart as they want us to believe they are, anyway.
Eliminating guns will not eliminate violence. Inasmuch as they are known for breaking the law, criminals will still have guns - but their innocent victims won't. They will be left defenseless. Baseball bats, golf clubs, machetes, kitchen knives, bricks, rope, ballpoint pens, lumber and automobiles have all been used as weapons to commit intentional acts of violence, but they aren't particularly effective against a criminal armed with a firearm. Your survivors can have "First Runner-up" engraved on your grave marker. Australia's relatively Draconian gun restrictions resulted in a substantial increase in violent crime. In the United States, those states with the least restrictive firearms laws have the lowest violent crime rates!
IANSA, it's members and the United Nations combined, are a greater threat to American sovereignty than many people realize. The IANSA/UN partnership is second only to the current administration in that regard.
You should be able to determine for yourself how the U.N. relates to the United States Constitution by now - but, in case you can't, the answer is... NOT AT ALL! The vast majority of U.N. representatives fear our Constitutional guarantees, and look for every opportunity to reduce our nation's citizens to the same subservient status as their own.
Back to IANSA... IANSA is funded by socialist-progressive organizations including George Soros' "Open Society Institute", and liberal foundations including the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. IANSA's postion on "Women and Guns" is ludicrous: "It is overwhelmingly men who buy, sell, and use small arms around the world, while women are victimised to a disproportionate degree. This dynamic is often overlooked in discussions of armed violence." There is nothing in our country stopping women from "buying, selling, or using small arms", other than lack of interest or personal choice. And armed citizens - male or female - are significantly less "victimised" than are unarmed subjects. The Brady (Gun Grab) Campaign/Center is one of the 700+ members of IANSA, and I'm certain they would have the support of Bandits Without Borders. IANSA is "on board" with the UN's "process on small arms".
In October of 2009, Obama made a couple of moves to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations. The upside of such a treaty for Obama would be deniability - "I didn't revoke the 2nd Amendment, I simply signed a UN treaty. It's not my fault they want to take your guns away." The downside for Obama and the UN is that, according to the Constitution, all treaties must be ratified by Congress before they become binding. I don't know that Congress is willing to completely abdicate our sovereignty in such a fashion... not if they're half as smart as they want us to believe they are, anyway.
Eliminating guns will not eliminate violence. Inasmuch as they are known for breaking the law, criminals will still have guns - but their innocent victims won't. They will be left defenseless. Baseball bats, golf clubs, machetes, kitchen knives, bricks, rope, ballpoint pens, lumber and automobiles have all been used as weapons to commit intentional acts of violence, but they aren't particularly effective against a criminal armed with a firearm. Your survivors can have "First Runner-up" engraved on your grave marker. Australia's relatively Draconian gun restrictions resulted in a substantial increase in violent crime. In the United States, those states with the least restrictive firearms laws have the lowest violent crime rates!
IANSA, it's members and the United Nations combined, are a greater threat to American sovereignty than many people realize. The IANSA/UN partnership is second only to the current administration in that regard.IMPEACH OBAMA, HIS CZARS, AND THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
GUN CONTROL!! GUN CONTROL!! STOP THOSE VIOLENT GUNS TODAY!
The most recent act of domestic terrorism has left the nation stunned. The calculated slaughter of 13 American soldiers by one of their own was, by all reports, not an unforeseeable incident. Army Major Nidal Hasan, had been repeatedly overheard making negative remarks about the USA and our commitment in the middle east, and espousing his Muslim faith at inappropriate times - like the time he was supposed to present a paper at a medical conference.
Major Hasan is a Muslim. As soon as his identity was revealed, his religion became the subject of a ferocious public debate: bloggers claimed the massacre cast doubt on the loyalty of all American Muslims, while commentators on the other side argued that even to consider the role of Hasan's faith was Islamophobic. To NOT consider his religious beliefs would be sheer stupidity! Islam is not a religion of peace, love and brotherhood. Looking back through the world's history, no religion has unwaveringly remained in that category. We have the Christians behind the Spanish Inquisition, the Jewish Zealots at Masada after being defeated at the rebellion against Rome, and the several conflicts between the Christians and Muslims known as The Crusades. All religions are man-made... and therefore they are just as flawed as the men who created those varying systems of belief. God did not create "religion". He was too busy creating the universe and all the things therein... so he left it up to mankind to devise the means by which they could learn to hate one another - even in the name of brotherly love.
Before I digress into a religious quagmire, let me return to my original train of thought, and the dual role Nidal Hasan's religion played. Given a choice between following military orders, and being put in a position where he may have been called upon to kill fellow Muslims, Nidal chose to take up arms against "the infidels" as the Q'uran requires. His religion required him to "convert the infidels or put them to the sword". At the same time his Islamic faith protected him from appropriate actions by the military when his performance, judgment and attitudes were viewed as being well outside the normal realm of acceptability - because his superiors didn't want to be seen as intolerant racists and/or Islamophobes.
Now the left-wing once again raises the hue and cry against gun ownership by individual citizens, as if the guns were alone in the murders of those 13 soldiers and the wounding of 30 others. Was there no operator aiming them and pulling the triggers repeatedly? Did these evil guns walk into that building under their own power and begin firing randomly into the room? How do we justify transferring the necessary human emotions of anger, fear, and hatred to these inanimate tools? And, short of prohibiting the private ownership of firearms, how do we insure that the crazies of the world do not have ready access to those firearms? For the moment, our ability to "keep and bear arms" is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and that guarantee is the one that protects all the other rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.
The elimination of that pesky old Second Amendment is something the left has been after for decades. Elimination, or at the very least the emasculation of the Second Amendment would certainly make it easy for a tyrannical socialist "progressive"/Marxist government to assume and retain control of the people, wouldn't it?
The recent spate of mindless, multiple shootings simply provides the Liberal Left ("liberal" about everything other than that which the Right values) with more "ammunition" for their agenda - an agenda with which most Americans are at odds. Our choices are to be apathetic and expect the situation to self-correct, or to become pro-active and demand that our elected "representatives" maintain the course that has kept our nation and its citizens free and prosperous for 233 years.
The Liberal Left is well-organized and overflowing with activists, while the Conservative Right is... conservative! Not only are most of us conservative in our values, but we are equally conservative in our behavior. We are The Silent Majority! What has our silence gained us? To remain silent is to remain unheard, and to be unheard is to be passed by unnoticed. The time for silence has long passed, but that passage has gone mainly unnoticed. If we do not make our voices heard now, we may well be silenced forever!
PROTECT OUR NATION BY DEMANDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT FOLLOW THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS IT IS WRITTEN - NOT AS SOME INCOMPETENT "CZAR" OR ACTIVIST JUDGE INTERPRETS IT!
Major Hasan is a Muslim. As soon as his identity was revealed, his religion became the subject of a ferocious public debate: bloggers claimed the massacre cast doubt on the loyalty of all American Muslims, while commentators on the other side argued that even to consider the role of Hasan's faith was Islamophobic. To NOT consider his religious beliefs would be sheer stupidity! Islam is not a religion of peace, love and brotherhood. Looking back through the world's history, no religion has unwaveringly remained in that category. We have the Christians behind the Spanish Inquisition, the Jewish Zealots at Masada after being defeated at the rebellion against Rome, and the several conflicts between the Christians and Muslims known as The Crusades. All religions are man-made... and therefore they are just as flawed as the men who created those varying systems of belief. God did not create "religion". He was too busy creating the universe and all the things therein... so he left it up to mankind to devise the means by which they could learn to hate one another - even in the name of brotherly love.
Before I digress into a religious quagmire, let me return to my original train of thought, and the dual role Nidal Hasan's religion played. Given a choice between following military orders, and being put in a position where he may have been called upon to kill fellow Muslims, Nidal chose to take up arms against "the infidels" as the Q'uran requires. His religion required him to "convert the infidels or put them to the sword". At the same time his Islamic faith protected him from appropriate actions by the military when his performance, judgment and attitudes were viewed as being well outside the normal realm of acceptability - because his superiors didn't want to be seen as intolerant racists and/or Islamophobes.
Now the left-wing once again raises the hue and cry against gun ownership by individual citizens, as if the guns were alone in the murders of those 13 soldiers and the wounding of 30 others. Was there no operator aiming them and pulling the triggers repeatedly? Did these evil guns walk into that building under their own power and begin firing randomly into the room? How do we justify transferring the necessary human emotions of anger, fear, and hatred to these inanimate tools? And, short of prohibiting the private ownership of firearms, how do we insure that the crazies of the world do not have ready access to those firearms? For the moment, our ability to "keep and bear arms" is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and that guarantee is the one that protects all the other rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.
The elimination of that pesky old Second Amendment is something the left has been after for decades. Elimination, or at the very least the emasculation of the Second Amendment would certainly make it easy for a tyrannical socialist "progressive"/Marxist government to assume and retain control of the people, wouldn't it?
The recent spate of mindless, multiple shootings simply provides the Liberal Left ("liberal" about everything other than that which the Right values) with more "ammunition" for their agenda - an agenda with which most Americans are at odds. Our choices are to be apathetic and expect the situation to self-correct, or to become pro-active and demand that our elected "representatives" maintain the course that has kept our nation and its citizens free and prosperous for 233 years.
The Liberal Left is well-organized and overflowing with activists, while the Conservative Right is... conservative! Not only are most of us conservative in our values, but we are equally conservative in our behavior. We are The Silent Majority! What has our silence gained us? To remain silent is to remain unheard, and to be unheard is to be passed by unnoticed. The time for silence has long passed, but that passage has gone mainly unnoticed. If we do not make our voices heard now, we may well be silenced forever!
PROTECT OUR NATION BY DEMANDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT FOLLOW THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS IT IS WRITTEN - NOT AS SOME INCOMPETENT "CZAR" OR ACTIVIST JUDGE INTERPRETS IT!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)