2 reasons I support an armed public

There are many people who believe that there are too many guns in America, including great actor Liam Neeson.  These people believe that more laws need to be created to keep guns out of the hands of the public.

And every time there is an act of violence involving a gun, they use this as a reason for more gun control laws.  The most recent example is the violent action that occurred in France where police officers are unarmed and ride on bicycles.  They also frequently use school shootings, where guns are not allowed. 

There are two reasons why I am opposed to gun control laws.

1.  Bad guys will still get them.  If you could convince me that guns would be taken out of the hands of every thug in the world, I'd be all for gun control.

2.  The Police State would control us.  If you could convince me that the government would never take advantage of an unarmed populace, I'd be all for gun control.

Look!  Bad guys will get guns.  If the good guys don't have them, and the bad guys know this, then there's little hope for the good guys.

Look!  The U.S. military will always have guns, because their Raison d'être is to destroy things and kill people.  When the public no longer has guns, who is to prevent some future thug from getting elected president who will take advantage of this to control the people?

You see, people who support gun laws are the same progressives/liberals (fascists) who think they can perfect the world.  They actually think that if they get rid of guns there will be no criminals.  So the logic that bad guys would still commit crimes in a gun free world slips right by them.

Logic says that bad guys would find a way to get their hands on guns. If factories don't make them, then they would.  And if all the guns in the world miraculously disappeared, bad guys would use knives to kill instead.  So are they going to try to get rid of all the knives in the world too?

The truth is that most people who own guns are law abiding citizens who have a natural right to protect and defend themselves.  Attempts to take away their guns solves nothing, and creates chaos.

Obama defends executive powers

Obama has been accused of executive overreach.  Some say that his use of executive powers is violating the separation of powers, which are meant to prevent one branch of government from getting too powerful.  Yet Obama defended his executive usage to move forward his agenda.

At a press conference at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit on Wednesday, October 6, 2014, he defended his use of executive power as a means to bypass gridlock in Congress.  He said:

"The American people don't want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs and waiting for Congress to get something done,"

This is a perfect example of what I wrote about in a previous column, where I discussed that liberals, or progressives, like Obama believe that it's okay to ignore the law if the ends justify the means.  It's okay to ignore the Constitution so long as the progressive/liberal agenda is moved forward.

Those of us who love and cherish the Constitution and the rule of law, which would include all presidents prior to Obama, would put the Constitution and the rule of law before themselves and their political agenda.

Once again, this proves the Limbaugh Doctrine, whereby the President believes he is not responsible for anything bad that ever comes out of his term as President. He is not responsible for the down-trending polling numbers: it's the republicans fault.

Here's what I have to say on the matter:  "It's better to do nothing than to do something stupid.  It's better to do nothing and let the people solve problems, than to risk signing something into law that has never been tested before."

In other words, gridlock is better than passing stupid laws.  There's a reason for gridlock, and that is to prevent laws from being passed that will trample on the natural rights of those in the minority.

Should Obama be impeached?

If the only way to stop a lawless president from ignoring the constitution and over-stepping his bounds is impeachment, and the opposing party takes impeachment off the table for fear of backlash from voters, then there is no means of stopping him.

David Limbaugh wrote a good column ("Democrats, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law") on this subject. He makes a great point that. He writes:

Liberals believe, as a matter of their ideology, that the ends justify the means. We see it in practice every day. Liberals routinely distort facts and manipulate language to achieve their ends. As part of that, they will say that Republicans are guilty of precisely what they are doing. Manufactured projection is one of their most effective tools.

He added that while some conservatives would support a president ignoring the Constitution so long as the means was justified, most would not. He said:

But let me ask you to consider this: As a conservative, I would oppose judicial activism (roughly defined as the courts rewriting or making laws rather than interpreting them) to achieve conservative political ends. I don't know many liberals -- other than perhaps law professor Jonathan Turley -- who can make a similar statement.

It's not a matter of my (and conservatives generally) being more moral than liberals. That's not the point at all. The point is that we believe that preserving the integrity of the Constitution, as written and originally intended, is itself an essential end. 

We cherish liberty, and we understand the inextricable relationship between preserving the integrity of the Constitution and preserving our liberties. Anytime our constitutional system is undermined through egregious executive, legislative or judicial overreaches, our liberty is diminished.

He added:

When President Obama continues to act outside the scope of his executive authority and against the express will of Congress, he is, in effect, disenfranchising the people and thereby diminishing our liberties. When the courts rewrite laws to achieve their ideological or political ends, they assault the prerogative of the legislative branch and thereby further disenfranchise the people and popular sovereignty.

As a strong believer in the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers, the doctrine of federalism and other essential limitations on government, I abhor judicial activism, executive overreaches and congressional usurpations, even if these abuses might be in furtherance of my political or ideological preferences. For to me, there are few more important principles than preserving the Constitution and the rule of law.

Basically, there is no law to stop a lawless president. In fact, the only thing that has stopped a president from over-reaching as Obama is today is the honor system and luck.

We have been lucky never to have a Stalin or Hitler or Hugo Chavez or Obama elected to the office of the President. Plus, all previous presidents honored and respected the rule of law (the Constitution) basically on an honor system.

So, basically, the only thing preventing any of the previous presidents, those before Obama, from violating the rule of law was the honor system. Other than that, the only means of lashing out against a lawless president is to wait for the next election.

In this case, November of 2016 might be too far away. That gives the president another two full years to further ignore and trample on our great Constitution, at the expense of our liberties and freedoms. That in mind, I am not endorsing impeachment, but it should not be taken off the table.

Is it time to impeach Mr. Obama?

Okay, so I have never been an advocate of impeaching a president.  I think the idea is repulsive and counterproductive.

So you impeach a president and then what? You get his vice president as president, and he now has a fresh hold on the presidency and all the power that goes with it.  You have a potential, then, for eight more years of these guys being in power.

No!  That is not good.  But that's not even my main reason for being against impeaching a president.  In fact, back when there were arguments for impeaching President Clinton for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinski, I was opposed to the idea then.  The reason:  it looks bad for America.  As a person who loves my country, I do not want my country to look bad.

So now we have a few people talking about the possibility of impeaching Obama. You have people saying that the first thing Congress will do if people vote republicans into a majority in November of 2014 is to impeach Obama.

As noted, I have been completely opposed to this, until Obama released four of the world's biggest, most evil, villains in the world, giving them right back to the evil Taliban to which they came, in exchange for a person who appears to have been a deserter and not a prisoner of war.  Or, you could say it was one of our guys for four of theirs.

To me, this latest action makes all the suspect actions of Obama in the past several years make sense.  If Obama is making a four for one swap, releasing four Taliban leaders in the process, it's a sign to me that he does not see the Taliban as the enemy.  It's a sign that he sees his own country as the enemy.  That, dear readers, is an impeachable offense.  It's something I wrote about under my pseudonym even before Obama was elected.

Well, actually, what is impeachable is that he was, by a law that he signed, supposed to give Congress a 30 day notice for any prisoner swap.  But did you know that he tried to make this same deal back in March of 2012. The only reason this went public is because he briefed some members of Congress about it, they found it a repulsive idea, and so leading democrat and mega Obama supporter Dianne Feinstein put her country first an leaked the story to Foreign Policy magazine.

So this time Obama didn't want that to happen, so he bypassed the law and made the swap without telling Congress.  He broke the law.  This, by the way, is an impeachable offense.

However, we must temper any enthusiasm here.  The idea of this blog is not to be one sided, or blind sided, so we must take a look at all the facts before we come to any conclusions here.

Charles Krauthammer, in his June 5 column, notes the following:

There is strong eyewitness evidence that Bergdahl deserted his unit and that the search for him endangered his fellow soldiers. If he had served with honor and distinction, there would be no national uproar over his ransom and some of the widely aired objections to the deal would be as muted as they are flimsy. For example:

1. America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.  Nonsense. Of course we do. Everyone does, while pretending not to. The Israelis, by necessity the toughest of all anti-terror fighters, in 2011 gave up 1,027 prisoners, some with blood on their hands, for one captured staff sergeant.

2. The administration did not give Congress 30-day notice as required by law. Of all the jurisdictional disputes between president and Congress, the president stands on the firmest ground as commander in chief. And commanders have the power to negotiate prisoner exchanges.

Moreover, from where did this sudden assertion of congressional prerogative spring? After five years of supine acquiescence to President Obama’s multiple usurpations, Congress suddenly becomes exercised over a war power — where its claim is weakest. Congress does nothing in the face of 23 executive alterations of the president’s own Affordable Care Act. It does nothing when Obama essentially enacts by executive order the Dream Act, which Congress had refused to enact. It does nothing when the Justice Department unilaterally rewrites drug laws. And now it rises indignantly on its hind legs because it didn't get 30 days’ notice of a prisoner swap?

3. The Taliban release endangers national security.
Indeed it does. The five released detainees are unrepentant, militant and dangerous. They’re likely to go back into the field and resume their war against local and foreign infidels, especially us.
The administration pretense that we and the Qataris will monitor them is a joke. They can start planning against us tonight. And if they decide to leave Qatar tomorrow, who’s going to stop them?

So that was Krauthammer.  I think we can see he is equally concerned about this swap, although, because Congress has failed to show indignation at any of Obama's other unconstitutional moves, then how can he justify taking action on this most recent illegal move.  This kind of points the finger at the idea that neither the republican nor democrat party gives a hoot about the constitution.

However, I must note, that I recently watched the Untouchables starring Robert De Niro as Al Capone and Kevin Cosner as Eliot Ness.  This great movie reminds us that it was not that Capone was a famous mobster, nor that he sold alcohol illegally, nor that he killed hundreds of men in his attempts to get his way, that landed him in prison. No!  It was one small detail he considered to be minute:  it was tax evasion.

The fact that Obama has gotten away with illegal acts, acts that have weakened our economy, our borders, our national defense, our national resolve, and our confidence did not get him impeached.

He opens our borders and allows millions of illegals to cross our border, illegals who are prone to take low paying jobs and not bring in new ideas and technology to America, and illegals who will, more than likely, put themselves on the government dole and vote for democrats and their progressive ideals.

He allows guns to be sold near the border and to end up in the hands of Mexican drug lords to be used against American's trying to protect the border.  This was what many refer to as "fast and furious."  Obama wanted people to think drug Lords were crossing the border and purchasing guns at American stores, and he wanted to use this as a reason to get gun laws passed.  But, as it turned out, Obama is the one who allowed those guns to be sold.  Yes!  It all makes sense now why he would do it: he hates America.

It all makes sense now.  It's like I've had an epiphany of sorts.  All of these actions, when you put them together, all made America worse off.  It put us down to size.  Sure, Obama took hits. Sure, his popularity plummeted.  But, bottom line, he did what needed to be done: "fundamentally change America."

But this later action tops all of them, and should be the straw that breaks the camels back. It should be the action that causes -- forces -- Congress to take action.

I believe that he knows now that he no longer has the support of Congress, nor the people. For this reason, he is going to do whatever is in his power, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, to continue his efforts to, as he put it, "fundamentally change America."

In other words: Impeach Obama.  Don't give him another 2.5 years to continue to destroy our country that he obviously hates.