National Day of Resistance Set to Oppose Obama Agenda, Gun Control by Alex Newman
Conservatives, libertarians, Tea Party groups, and liberty-minded citizens are organizing a nationwide “Day of Resistance” on February 23 to oppose President Obama’s radical agenda — especially his “executive order” assaults on the Second Amendment. Organizers say over 50,000 people in more than 30 states have already signed up to participate in an estimated 100 local rallies, with the resistance movement aimed at unifying patriotic Americans from across the political spectrum behind the U.S. Constitution and gun rights.
“On January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive actions against your 2nd Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms,” explains the “Day of Resistance” website, operated by an organization known as “Stop This Insanity” and by TheTeaParty.net. “He did this without the consent of Congress, which in itself violates the foundation of the Constitution and the co-equal branches of government.”
Due to the lawless assault, organizers say, it is time to get active now. “In response to these unconstitutional actions by the President, on .223, February 23, 2013, the American people will stand together in defiance to protect the right that protects ALL of our rights, the 2nd Amendment!” the Day of Resistance homepage continues, referring to .223 caliber ammunition used in popular weapons being demonized by Obama and his anti-gun rights allies.
According to organizers, the myriad rallies will be organized locally in an effort to bring neighbors together with each other in defense of American principles. The goal of the local organizing, they said, is to unite communities so they can reassert their right to determine their own destiny free from lawless federal dictates that violate the U.S. Constitution and infringe on the unalienable rights of the people.
Some states will have multiple rallies going on in different cities, the official list shows. Alabama, the first state on the list, for example, already has three official rallies scheduled in different cities. Meanwhile, national organizers are still soliciting help from local volunteers to get even more events off the ground in other areas, with the central website offering users easy tools to get involved, organize local action, or just connect with other like-minded citizens nearby.
Among the organizations that are participating in the Day of Resistance are local and state Tea Party groups, Women Warriors, an anti-political corruption group known as Western Representation, and other conservative organizations and grassroots activists. The upcoming rallies, meanwhile, have already started to receive significant attention in the press, with even the far-left U.K. Guardian writing a story about the effort.
"We're actually seeing an entirely new crowd of people who weren't politically active at all," Day of Resistance organizer Dustin Stockton told the controversial British paper, which devoted much of its “article” to demonizing gun owners and weapons. “All of a sudden they hear the debate move to guns. We're seeing a lot of people who are outdoorsmen, who probably didn't vote in the last election, [or] in the last two elections.”
Based on the feedback so far, Stockton said he expects the rallies to be highly significant on the national stage. "From the response that we've been getting we believe this is actually going to be larger than the Tea Party wave in 2009,” he said. “We have this whole new group who are involved, and the Second Amendment is really a unifying issue for a lot of Americans, Republicans, independents and even moderate Democrats."
As mentioned above, one of the groups participating in the Day of Resistance is the conservative-leaning political action committee known as Women Warriors, which recognizes the importance of the right to keep and bear arms — especially for females, who tend to be physically weaker than males and, therefore, more vulnerable to attack. A promotional YouTube video on the rally’s central website features multiple women discussing the Second Amendment and the tens of millions of Americans who refuse to tolerate any further unconstitutional restrictions on the gun rights of law-abiding citizens.
“People who kill will kill with a gun, a car, a knife or anything else they create,” the group’s executive director Tiffiny Rueger told the Guardian, a newspaper that suffered a major blow to its credibility for hyping bogus global-warming hysteria in recent years. “Enacting more bans on guns will not stop bad people — it will leave good people unprotected. If bans on things were successful, there would not be drug users."
The February 23 date for the nationwide rallies was chosen for multiple reasons, according to organizers. Among the most important: the fact that 2/23 brings to mind .223 caliber ammunition, the bullets used in popular semi-automatic firearms like the AR15 that are being targeted by Obama and certain extremist Democrats in Congress. The date is also a Saturday, allowing working people to attend. It is the day that American forces raised the flag at Iwo Jima in 1945, too.
While the Second Amendment and Obama’s lawless “executive orders” are a primary focus of the rallies, those are hardly the only concerns, organizers said. Indeed, the effort is much, much broader than that. Leaders behind the Day of Resistance say they are hoping to help reignite the passion and outrage of 2009 and 2010 that contributed to major conservative and Tea Party victories in national elections, with extremist Democrats and “moderate” Republicans swept out of office — particularly in the House of Representatives — amid a tsunami of disgust with the federal government.
There are also a lot of other serious issues facing America that organizers want addressed — everything from Obama’s takeover of the nation's healthcare system to the seemingly never-ending series of scandals swirling around the administration are in the crosshairs. “We think that gives us an opportunity to talk about how ObamaCare is affecting people’s personal privacy and all the other issues the Tea Party movement has to talk about,” Stockton told Breitbart, a major conservative media outlet. “We’ll talk about over-regulation, bailouts, crony capitalism, Benghazi, Fast and Furious."
For Stockton and countless other Americans, despite a ham-handed cover-up by the administration and its allies in the increasingly discredited establishment press, Operation Fast and Furious is still a big deal that must be properly addressed. The Obama administration scheme, which was first exposed by brave whistle-blowers in the ATF, involved arming certain Mexican drug cartels with heavy American weapons, all paid for with taxpayer money.
Official documents later revealed that the “targets” of the supposedly “botched” operation were already working for the FBI. The resulting violence — hundreds of Mexicans and at least two U.S. law enforcement officers have been murdered with “Fast and Furious” weapons so far — was intended to be used by the administration to demonize the Second Amendment, Justice Department e-mails showed.
In the wake of the explosive revelations, disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder eventually became the first sitting Justice Department chief to be held in criminal contempt of Congress — primarily for his lies and his role in the ongoing cover-up of the scandal. He is currently abusing his position to avoid prosecution. "When the top cop in the country is as crooked as Eric Holder, it really cements our argument that ‘yeah, you really need to not be counting on law enforcement for protection. You need to be taking personal responsibility,’” Stockton explained.
Of course, Stockton and other organizers told reporters that they realize anti-gun rights zealots and their allies in the mainstream media will try to criticize or downplay the effort — if the rallies are covered at all. The establishment press, though, has come under heavy fire for hyping insignificant protests while ignoring or demonizing major efforts to restrain an out-of-control federal government or stop abortion, for example. The public is catching on, too: According to recent polls, the vast majority of Americans no longer trust the major media.
Last month, in the face of a hostile media and government climate, tens of thousands of people rallied at state capitols nationwide in defense of the Second Amendment. At the same time, the public and its elected officials are increasingly stepping up to defend gun rights and defeat Obama’s lawless assault on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Hundreds of sheriffs in virtually every state, for example, have publicly vowed to protect the rights of their constituents no matter what unconstitutional “laws” or executive edicts come out of Washington, D.C., or the White House. State governments are taking action too, with well over a dozen legislatures and some governors working to nullify federal assaults on gun rights. Even cities and counties are nullifying gun control in their jurisdictions.
Analysts say the establishment’s exploitation of tragedy led by Obama and the increasingly ridiculed press to push for more infringements on the rights of law-abiding Americans has inadvertently awoken a sleeping giant. The Day of Resistance, like the Guns Across America rallies last month and the quickly expanding nullification movement, may be just the beginning of an awakening that will ultimately contribute to restoring lawful, constitutional government in the United States.
With each passing day, activists say more and more Americans are waking up and getting involved. That trend, meanwhile, is expected to continue accelerating fast. Obama, of course, may think he can do whatever he wants, and mountains of evidence suggest that he does. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the American people and a growing segment of Congress do not plan to accept it without a fight.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Monday, February 4, 2013
MOLON LABE SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER MUST SEE Sandyhook dad you`ll have to take my guns from my cold dead hands
In the last century the governments of the world killed at least 270 million people outside of war . Hey how about a little common sense and some facts about the overwhelmingly vast majority of gun owners. Nation wide over 120 million …. At least 120 million gun owners . With a conservative estimate of at least 300 million guns in the country. Over 3 million AR-15 semi-automatics in circulation alone.
So politicians your living in a fantasy world that inanimate object are the problem. Quit the hysteria , stop the having a hissy fit , get a grip on reality.
God Given rights to self protection guaranteed by the supreme law of the land the constitution as codified by the alive , well and to be defended 2nd amendment { WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO ABOUT HUNTING OR TARGET SHOOTING } are non-negotiable , not now not ever and will be defended by many real Americans .
Molon Labe
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER MOLON LABE Guns and Freedom by Andrew P. Napolitano
Guns and Freedom by Andrew P. Napolitano
SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER MOLON LABE
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.
As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior – like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy – immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.
The essence of humanity is freedom. Government – whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force – is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of Communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.
The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty – the personal dominion over self – by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.
But we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.
To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.
There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century – from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad – have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.
The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.
Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?
This brings us back to guns. The Constitution expressly prohibits all governments from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This permits us to defend ourselves when the police can’t or won’t, and it permits a residue of firepower in the hands of the people with which to stop any tyrant who might try to infringe upon our natural rights, and it will give second thoughts to anyone thinking about tyranny.
The country is ablaze with passionate debate about guns, and the government is determined to do something about it. Debate over public policy is good for freedom. But the progressives want to use the debate to justify the coercive power of the government to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding folks because of what some crazies among us have done. We must not permit this to happen.
The whole purpose of the Constitution is to insulate personal freedom from the lust for power of those in government and from the passions of the people who sent them there.
Reprinted with the author's permission.
SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER MOLON LABE
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.
As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior – like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy – immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.
The essence of humanity is freedom. Government – whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force – is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of Communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.
The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty – the personal dominion over self – by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.
But we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.
To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.
There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century – from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad – have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.
The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.
Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?
This brings us back to guns. The Constitution expressly prohibits all governments from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This permits us to defend ourselves when the police can’t or won’t, and it permits a residue of firepower in the hands of the people with which to stop any tyrant who might try to infringe upon our natural rights, and it will give second thoughts to anyone thinking about tyranny.
The country is ablaze with passionate debate about guns, and the government is determined to do something about it. Debate over public policy is good for freedom. But the progressives want to use the debate to justify the coercive power of the government to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding folks because of what some crazies among us have done. We must not permit this to happen.
The whole purpose of the Constitution is to insulate personal freedom from the lust for power of those in government and from the passions of the people who sent them there.
Reprinted with the author's permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
