Hey People this is pretty serious stuff...

Someone should loose their job over this...

Now frickin pay attention Obama & Staff

In a 53-46 vote (46 Senators voted to abolish the Second Amendment)


Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everyone stands around...reloading. (Answer to a question by a Revolutionary Soldure)

Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Ignore the Constitution?  


June 2012 release below

Let their names become known !!

In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.  

The Statement of Purpose reads:  "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty."  The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms.  The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.

Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.

Baldwin (D-WI)

Baucus (D-MT)

Bennett (D-CO)

Blumenthal (D-CT)

Boxer (D-CA)

Brown (D-OH)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Cardin (D-MD)

Carper (D-DE)

Casey (D-PA)

Coons (D-DE)

Cowan (D-MA)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Franken (D-MN)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Harkin (D-IA)

Hirono (D-HI)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kaine (D-VA)

King (I-ME)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

McCaskill (D-MO)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Merkley (D-OR)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murphy (D-CT)

Murray (D-WA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sanders (I-VT)

Schatz (D-HI)

Schumer (D-NY)

Shaheen (D-NH)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Udall (D-CO)

Udall (D-NM)

Warner (D-VA)

Warren (D-MA)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

Wyden (D-OR)

This needs to go viral

These Senators voted to allow the UN power to take OUR guns

These communists need to lose their next election

America has been betrayed

46 Senators Voted to Give up your Constitutional 2nd Amendment Rights

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates. - Benjamin Franklin


Retired Army Officer: DHS Must Surrender Their War Weapons To Dept. Of Defense

A letter by retired Capt. Terry Hestilow to his US Senator John Cornyn.
On Saturday March 23, Terry M. Hestilow, a retired Army officer with nearly 30 years of service under his belt, posted this letter he sent to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) this week. Hestilow wants DHS to hand over their war weapons to the Department of Defense.
The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas
United States Senate
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America
Dear Senator Cornyn,
It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America. To date, DHS has been unwilling to provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the United States of America.
Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming,
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta  have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.
The Obama administration is deliberately defunding, overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense; the only legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a war mission.
This act of the Obama administration stands as a glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens! This act of the Obama administration can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America! If left unresolved, the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.
The only proper response to this threat against the American people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S. House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD). Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible. One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation. The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!
Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies, supported by Constitutional courts. We stand today at a cross-road. Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we honor our obligations to defend the Constitution against a “domestic” enemy? Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a Marxist leadership at home. You, sir, are our constitutionally elected agent to defend our Constitution at home. We are counting upon you. We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose ourselves as an easy prey to the authors of the destruction of our nation.
I know that this letter demands much of you. We elected you because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and office. We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS.
We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!
Captain Terry M. Hestilow
United States Army, Retired
Fort Worth, Texas
March 23, 2013


Dick Act of 1902 - Gun Control FORBIDDEN!  -  Were you aware of this law?

Protection  Against Tyrannical Government
It would appear that the administration is counting on the fact that the
American Citizens don't know this, their rights and the constitution. Don't
prove them right.
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R.
11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.
It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.
The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.


It's time to learn about your rights.  Our current President and the Democrats don't seem to worry about breaking laws or the U.S. Constitution.  They do things regardless even if it goes against the Constitution which they swore to abide by when each one of them took office.  That itself is an impeachable offense!


Kira Davis speaks out... Right On Kira!


Keep the 10th amendment in mind. It reads:

"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."

Also, keep in mind the process of making amendments. Amendments take effect only when three fourths of the states say they take effect. The federal government does not decide or veto the making of amendments. So while the constitution is the supreme law of the land, its authority extends to the rights it grants to itself, and which it prohibits the states from assuming. The founders were very, very wise.

Read more about it in the IMPEACHMENT Section of OBAMADEADPOOL.COM


Here is the real problem !!!


This is an ACTUAL photo from WWII Nazi Germany.  The Hitler quote was
looked up for historical accuracy, then added into the photo caption.

Some Local Sheriffs Will Fight The Gun Grab *UPDATED

January 14, 2013 by

Some Local Sheriffs Will Fight The Gun Grab *UPDATED

Sheriff Danny Peyman of Jackson County, Ky., reminded Americans who are concerned about the Federal government’s continued efforts to destroy the United States Constitution that there is still a powerful and peaceful means of resistance: the county sheriff.

We do our fair share of calling out crooked, Constitution-abusing police officers in the United States here at Personal Liberty Digest. So it’s nice to speak to and have the opportunity to write about members of the American law enforcement community who know the true meaning of the oaths they have taken. Peyman is most certainly one of them.

The Kentucky sheriff, speaking about the current gun control debate that has raged throughout the Nation, said last week: “My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore to uphold. Let them pull that stuff in other places if they want, but not in Jackson County, Kentucky.”

The brave officer hopes that his public message will encourage other members of the law enforcement community to join him in resisting Federal abuses of power.

“Just a few of us have to be willing to stand up to political opposition putting our people at risk,” Peyman said. “The other side will back down.”

That is a message that resounded with Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) Founder Richard Mack, who said in an interview with Personal Liberty: “I congratulate and applaud that sheriff for standing up for the Constitution and for the people of his county.”

Mack — who in 1997 won a Supreme Court case that allows State and local officials to refuse to enforce certain regulations that curb individual rights — asserts that sheriffs throughout the Nation should follow Peyman’s lead in protecting the Constitution against Federal overreach.

“Plain and simple, the sheriff of every county has taken an oath to not only protect his people from gangs and burglars, but also from anyone who threatens their Constitutional rights,” Mack said. “If any sheriff in the Nation says ‘well, I’m busy out here fighting the drug war, so it’s ok for the Federal government to come in and violate people’s rights,’ he’s not doing his job.”

Mack said there are some sheriffs throughout the country who haven’t been receptive to the CSPOA message. That, he blames on the possibility that they are afraid to lose out on the massive amount of Federal grant money that is doled out to law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation every year.

“I’ve told sheriffs throughout the country that they should stop taking this money,” Mack said. “It should be illegal and is certainly immoral. Sometimes, grants are given freely; and sometimes, they require some sort of compliance with the Federal government. But the same thing that we tell kids in stranger-danger classes applies: Sometimes, people handing things out freely are up to no good.”

The bottom line, according to Mack, is that the policies that the Administration of Barack Obama is pushing — even beyond gun control — will have a severe impact on American liberty. And the Nation’s freedom-loving people, the sheriff contends, so far have not been able to rely on even most members of the GOP to reverse them.

Asked what he believes the Federal government’s ultimate gun control goal is, Mack responded: “Registration and confiscation. They’re already talking about complete registration of firearms; well, history tells us what the next step is: confiscation. Hitler did the same thing in Germany and other countries that mandated complete registration did, too.”

Mack believes that the gun-grab agenda could be halted if just one-third of the Nation’s 3,100 sheriffs took the same position as Peyman.

“Every sheriff in this country can stop it,” he said. “And can you imagine how cowardly sheriffs that would stand by and let the Federal government come in and take guns and property — whatever they want — would have to be not to stand up for their people.”

CSPOA advises Americans to get in touch with their local sheriff and make sure that they vow to uphold the Constitution and protect local interests.

“It’s like Thomas Jefferson said; local government governs best,” Mack said. “And sheriffs should understand that and involve the community in keeping the area safe. Sheriff [Joe] Arpaio is setting an excellent example of that right now.”

Mack was referring to a program Arpaio, the sheriff of the Maricopa County, Ariz., has put in place whereby responsible, local gun owners who are trained by the department are patrolling streets around schools in a bid to deter crime and possible gun violence.

“The Sheriff is starting this School Posse program in order to allow everyone to feel safe sending their kids to school,” Arpaio spokesman Brandon Jones told The Daily Beast. “Using the history of his Mall Patrol Posse, statistically driving down crime at the local malls, he believes this is an appropriate way to address the public’s outcry for more security in and around schools.”

Mack said that people throughout the Nation should call their sheriffs and suggest similar approaches to making the ties closer between law enforcement and the general public.

“Isn’t that how it’s supposed to be?” Mack asked. “Neighbors looking out for neighbors.”

Learn more about the CSPOA here. And don’t forget to encourage your local sheriff to join the mission to protect the Constitution from Federal meddling.



Bill Bell of Durham NC seems to believe in using ENFORCEMENT intead of a BAN


What a Wanker!

CNN host Piers Morgan has seemingly chickened out of a second clash with Alex Jones on gun control, refusing to respond to a challenge by Jones that would have seen the two square off in a moderated debate.

On Wednesday, Jones challenged Morgan to another face-off that would follow classic debate rules, be overseen by an independent moderator and allow an equal amount of time for each speaker.

Despite the fact that Morgan has addressed Jones directly in a number of tweets since the challenge was issued, he has failed to respond to the challenge itself five days after it was made.

Whether or not Morgan is being prevented form having Jones back on the show by his CNN bosses remains to be seen, but Jones stipulated that the debate could also take place on his syndicated radio show or at a neutral venue.

During the 2013 Golden Globes last night, Morgan again chided Jones by joking, “the British really ARE coming again,” in reference to a large number of the award winners being British. During his volatile appearance on Morgan’s show, Jones made the point that the second amendment was primarily added to the Constitution by the founders as a safeguard against government tyranny in the aftermath of the revolutionary war against the British.

The CNN host has made similar haughty sideswipes in the past, previously bragging that he was, “Born (With Natural British) Supremacy.”

Over the weekend, immigration group ALIPAC called for Morgan to be fired by CNN for making on-air death threats against Alex Jones as he joked with guests on the Tuesday edition of Piers Morgan Tonight.

While debating Morgan’s contentious interview with Alex Jones, author Buzz Bissinger remarked, “But what do you need a semi-automatic weapon for? The only reason I think you’d need it is, Piers, challenge Alex Jones to a boxing match, show up with a semi-automatic that you got legally and pop him.”

“I’d love to see that,” responded Huffington Post’s Abby Huntsman, adding, “In uniform.”

“I’ll borrow my brother’s uniform,” Morgan responded.

Morgan’s supporters followed up by expressing their desire to see Alex Jones shot dead because of his pro-gun rights stance.

Despite Morgan’s repeated claims that his gun control views are shared by a clear majority of Americans, a rally in support of the CNN host held at CNN center in Washington DC last week was attended by just four people.






Dear President Obama:

Both Attorney General Eric Holder and Vice President Joe Biden have said you are weighing using “executive action” to implement gun registration and licensing beyond even the ban on semi-automatic firearms proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein and others.

When the National Firearms Act passed in 1934, Congress still understood that it didn’t have the power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate Title II weapons, so it imposed a tax – an exorbitant tax, perhaps, but still a tax. Since then, however, overbroad interpretations of its power to regulate “interstate commerce” have become the norm, and Congress now feels free to legislate gun laws.


“usurpation: …the unlawful or violent seizure of a throne, power, etc.” – Webster’s Dictionary

Apparently, however, even congressional usurpation of power is no longer sufficient for you: What you now threaten violates Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. Since you seem to have forgotten it, here it is:

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”

Is your usurpation of power by circumventing the legislative process a bid to turn our Republic into an autocracy? What will be your next Executive Order? Will it give you another four – or perhaps forty – years in the White House?


Do you expect the American people to take so lightly this assault on their freedom?

They won’t, Mr. President. Millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens will refuse to comply, and by so doing become criminals. But I suspect you know that, don’t you? Maybe that is exactly what you want because, as George Orwell noted in his book “1984,” government has no control over the law-abiding; it can only control people who violate existing law, such as it may be.

And what happens next, Mr. President? Do S.W.A.T. teams break into the homes of our citizens at night to confiscate arms and arrest offenders? Make no mistake: That is what enforcing this law will require.

And what happens when, inevitably, some resist? Do you honestly believe people will go peacefully into bondage? How many will die as the direct result of your actions?

There is no need to send the Secret Service to my door, Mr. President (although I suspect you might anyway). I am not advocating violence; I am merely saying what others are afraid to.

The real question, Mr. President, is whether you so hunger for power that you are willing to foment what might be the next American Revolution. Will that be your enduring legacy?

At the Battle of Thermopylae, King Leonidus I, facing demands by the numerically superior Persian army for the Spartans to surrender their arms, responded with what is now expressed as “Molon labe.”

It means, “Come and get them.”

Armatissimi e liberissimi,

F. Paul Valone II
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
Executive Director, Rights Watch International



Obama's America 2016 Now Showing at the theater below... click on the picture to watch the show!

 lying sack of shit

Lying to America


Ignorance is bliss!

Somewhere in Kenya there's a village that's missing it's IDIOT                                                        ButtonGenerator.com

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted articles and information about environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, Iand social justice issues, etc. This news and information is displayed without profit for educational purposes, in accordance with, Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law