Search This Blog

Friday, December 16, 2011

Sneaky Way to Take Away Guns

Did you see this email yet. I received it on December 2nd and just got around to reading it. If you haven't read it yet, I suggest you do now.

This is another evil global plot to take away our guns, but it is very sneaky --That's the only way they can get away with it. Globalists just won't give up on their goal to disarm America. That means there is a reason they want our guns, and that can't be good.

Who is buying companies, manufacturing guns ?????

For the last several years a company called The Freedom Group has been buying up gun and ammunition manufacturers.

Some of the companies are Bushmaster, Marlin, Remington, DPMS, Dakota Arms and H&R. Some people worry that this Freedom Group is going to control most of the firearms companies in the United States.

If you control the manufacturers you can decide to stop selling to civilians. What a perfect way to control guns. Now if you do some digging you will see that The Freedom Group is owned by a company called Cerberus Capital Management. A very large privately owned LLP with assets of $13 billion. The company is named after the three headed dog that guards the gates to hell. [Nice touch?] Guess who controls Cerberus??? GEORGE SOROS !!!!!!!!! One of the most evil men on this planet who wants to restrict or ban all civilian guns.

Please pass this on to all your freedom loving friends. This needs to come out. Why have we not heard about this in the "mainstream" media? I would think this would be BIG news. (Soros also owns Progressive Insurance)

If you don't know who George Soros is, you need to do some research. He backed Obama with multi-millions of dollars and Obama is often characterized as a puppet on a string, controlled by Soros .

Send this to every gun owner in America!

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Isn't It Interesting How Things Work

134860238_crop_650x440Robert Meggers/Getty Images
Isn't it amazing that, within only one week of Tiger Woods crashing his Escalade, the press found every woman with whom Tiger has had an affair during the last few years? And, they even uncovered photos, text messages,recorded phone calls, etc.!
Furthermore, they not only know the cause of the family fight, but they even know it was a wedge from his golf bag that his wife used to break out the windows in the Escalade. Not only that, they know which wedge! And, each and every day, they were able to continue to provide America with updates on Tiger's sex rehab stay, his wife's plans for divorce, as well as the dates "tournaments" in which he will play.
Now, Barack Obama has been in office for over two years, yet this very same press:
  • Cannot find any of his childhood friends or neighbors;
  • Or find his Original, un-doctored birth certificate ;
  • Or find any of Obama's high school or college classmates;
  • Or find any of Obama's Girl Friends;
  • Or locate any of his college papers or grades;
  • Or determine how he paid for both a Columbia & a Harvard education;
  • Or discover which country issued his visa to travel to Pakistan in the 1980's;
  • Or even find Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis on racism.
They just can't seem to uncover any of this? Yet, the public still trusts that same press to give them the whole truth! Simply amazing, isn't it?
      This email started me thinking about today's biased media and made me wonder how we can have a fair election with negative forces like this working against us. I came to the conclusion that evil doers will have their way as long as there are those who will play this way. 

Well guess what, we don't have to play their way or accept their rules. If we don't like their game or their rules, we can take our ball and play with someone else. 

The question is, "Will we take our ball and go play somewhere else where people will let us play by established rules?" 

Another question is "Where else can we play or how do we play a different game when politicians hold all the balls and make all the rules?" The answer is no!! 

Politicians do NOT hold all of the balls because of the form of government we have in America. We CAN change the rules, we CAN change the players, and we CAN play with only those who will play by the rules. Fighting with the players will not make the game better or change rules to our favor. It only causes contention, and will get us nowhere. All we can do is WALK AWAY FROM THE GAME.
  • Since we want to play this game but we don't like how it's been corrupted, we can try to change it. We have our own ball and there are plenty of people who want to play with us. They don't like that game either and neither do they accept the corrupted rules; that's why they want to join us. 
  • At this point, we have two choices: (1) we can find new players that will play by the established rules and won't accept the current (corrupted) rules or (2) we can stay in the game and accept it as is. 
  • If we stay in the current game, we will be constantly complaining and become combative with people because we hate the way the game is being played.
Our Founding Fathers took their ball and went somewhere else to play because they didn't like the rules they were forced to accept. They wanted something better and so they brought their ball to America. They set new rules and clearly defined the goals for their new game.  Most of the players had the same vision for the outcome of the game and thus, the game was won and today we enjoy the benefits of that win. 

Now here we are again, confronted with the same battle the Founding Fathers had in the Old Country. However, unlike them, our vision for America has NOT changed from what was established by our forefathers. The problem is that some Americans have been lured by the prospect of another game.
  • Most of these people have not been around long enough to know what that game was like before it failed, and what they think they want is NOT what they will actually obtain. 
  • As I said, the game they think they want has been played before and failed because the players hated the game. The game favored some more than others and so the rules didn't apply the same to all of them. Others found the game too restrictive and binding without allowing respect for all the players.
  • The game that was rejected before is still being played around the world. Some in America want to play that game, even though it does not work the way our Founding Father's envisioned. In fact, that is the same game they left behind because it wasn't fair and it restricted the spirit of freedom. 
What will happen to the game? Who will win the present game, and what will be won? Are you willing to take your ball and play with people who respect the established rules and the spirit of the game, or will you be lured into thinking the vision politicians have for America is the game you want to play? 

It appears that people are starting to make their vision known, and so we need to choose which game we will play. This election will make it clear whose game we will play. 

If we don't want to play the present game then what will we do? There is something called Con Con (the Conference of States) that gives states the right to form a new Constitution and new Government. This is a dangerous concept to enact because it is extremely risky so it should only be used in dire situation.
  • One example for Con Con would be Martial Law imposed and  suspension of the Constitution. 
  • Another example would be a government that no longer respects State Rights. 
  • We are getting way too close to either of these situations and so it may be possible that this will be the only resolution.
  1. TOPIC: Con Con

    Good Advice Against a Con Con, 4-09-2010. Con Con Is a Terrible Idea, 12-19-2008. Bad New ... Beware Of Con Con Hidden In Term Limits Petition, 5-23-1996 ...
  2. Con Con Is a Terrible Idea - HUMAN EVENTS

    Dec 16, 2008 – The only thing more outlandish is the fanciful notion that a 2009 constitutional convention (colloquially known as a Con Con) could adopt such ...
  • CDR - Constitutional Convention/Con Con

    "First let me say that I hope everyone sees the critical need to head off both Con-Conattempts (the state-by-state Con-Con resolution effort and the COS). ...
For now, we must try playing the game with better players who respect the Constitution. That's why this election is so very important. It is truly going to have winners and losers but the outcome is far more reaching than just winning an election. 

This election will be a game changer! If NOT, things will stay the same. What will we do, we who refuse to play the game by the same rules? That's the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION and this election will make that decision for us, of that I am sure.


Monday, December 5, 2011

New Axis of Evil Video

Did you hear about the New Axis of Evil Video of Glenn Beck's interview with Michelle Bauchmann? It is very interesting. It shows how much she knows about world problems. I hope you will watch the video and pass on this information if you haven't seen it elsewhere. Glenn Beck Interviews Michelle Bauchmann about events going on in Europe and the affairs of America. Pay close attention to what Michelle tells Beck about the Federal Reserves and the alignment with Russia, Iran, China, and Syria. Also pay close attention to what she says about preparing our households for very hard times. If you have been reading my blogs for the past year you know that I have been very concerned about the Bilderberg Plans to take down America as well as the groups influence on key players in our finances. Now we are on the verge of America and Europe's collapse, just as it has been planned. What more proof do you need that what I've been saying for over a year, almost two years in fact, is coming to pass? What more proof do you need to store food and water?  

It's Not Yours to Give

Not Yours to Give

by Colonel David Crockett;

Compiled by Edward S. Ellis

       One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

     “Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

       Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

       He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

       Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

         “Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

       “The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

       “I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and--’

       “’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

       “This was a sockdolager . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

       “’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. . . . But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

        “’I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’
“’No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

       “’Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

       “’It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.

       Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

       “’So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

       “I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

       “’Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me
again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

       “He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

       “’If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

       “’No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’
“’Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’

       “’My name is Bunce.’

       “’Not Horatio Bunce?’

       “’Yes.’ “’Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

       “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance.
Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

       “At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had every seen manifested before.

       “Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

       “I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him--no, that is not the word--I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

        “But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted--at least, they all knew me.

        “In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

       “’Fellow-citizens--I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this
acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

       “I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

       “’And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

        “’It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

       “He came upon the stand and said:
“’Fellow-citizens--It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

       “He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before. “I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big
drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

        “Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.

        “There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men--men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Holders of political office are but reflections of the dominant leadership--good or bad--among the electorate.

Horatio Bunce is a striking example of responsible citizenship. Were his kind to multiply, we would see many new faces in public office; or, as in the case of Davy Crockett, a new Crockett.

For either the new faces or the new Crocketts, we must look to the Horatio in ourselves!

—Leonard E. Read