The Left’s Continued Assault on Our Rights

February 19, 2013 at 9:45 AM 3 comments

As a Christian, I realize that my citizenship is not here – as I discussed in an earlier blog post.  My true citizenship is in heaven.  However, I am here now on this earth and it just so happens that God decided I would be legally born in the United States of America.  It also just happens that America was founded as a Constitutional Republic with the Constitution and Bill of Rights as founding documents.

Because of this, I in fact, have somewhat of a “dual” citizenship; one in heaven and the other one here in America.  As such, I would be foolish not to avail myself of the rights and privileges that are guaranteed to me under the United States Constitution.  This is in spite of the Left’s continued assault on those rights.

We are all aware of how the TSA, under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violates the 4th Amendment just about every time one of us goes through security to board a plane.  We’ve heard all sorts of stupidity and even blatant lies from the TSA agents and because they appear to be some sort of law enforcement officer, they also appear to have authority over us.  It’s the uniform and nothing more, plus those dime store badges they wear.  Both the uniform and badges are designed to intimidate the public.  It often works.

So, when some TSA agent barks at someone to stop recording a pat down they are doing on some poor civilian, usually the person stops recording.  Why?  Because people wrongly believe a TSA agent when they are told that recording a security process is illegal.  It’s NOT illegal.  The only thing that flyers are not allowed to record are the machines the TSA uses to look into our bags or on our persons.  When someone is being patted down manually, there is absolutely no law being broken that prohibits anyone from recording the event.

Here is a very sad video about a 3-year-old girl who is in a wheelchair and being searched.  While the parents try to video-tape the event, TSA agents inform them that it is illegal to do so.  Again, it is NOT.  Moreover, the parents were not allowed to approach the little girl to comfort here.  The Gestapo needs to have their way to breed fear and intimidation into the mind of this little girl.

Of COURSE she’s a terrorist!  I have frankly lost track of how many times I have seen old people (and especially Asians) pulled aside for additional searches while at the airport.  It’s absolutely ridiculous, but what do you think would happen if an Arab person was pulled off the side?  CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) would have a sacred cow and threaten to sue.

So instead of profiling people who are actually likely to be terrorists, our own government decides that’s not going to happen.  Instead, they decided to simply deal a huge blow to the 4th Amendment and pick people out of the line indiscriminately for additional searches and even warrantless seizures.

But then, you have the sheep who brightly chirp, “But if these additional searches make us safer as we fly, then it’s worth it.” No, stupid, it’s NOT worth it because we are literally saying to the government that it is okay to remove our rights and the Constitution does not allow for that.  People may allow for it, but the Constitution does not.

Of course, we are well aware of the State of New York’s attempt to grab guns.  Apparently, they will stop at nothing to confiscate as many guns as possible.  Even though resistance to the new laws in New York is strong, with numerous gun manufacturers banding together to boycott these illegal laws and law-abiding citizens standing together in resistance, NY legislators are not done yet.  They aim to take guns one way or another by making it financially impossible to keep them.

The latest salvo was shot by another NY Democrat by the name of Felix Ortiz, out of Brooklyn, NY.  His idea is to force gun owners to buy liability insurance if they own guns.  He says owning a $1 million dollar policy should work at the cost of anywhere from $1,600 to $2,000 per year.  Gun owners who do not comply will immediately become criminals.  So, even if you simply collect guns and never shoot them, you would still be required to purchase insurance.  This is bill S2353 and if it passes, gun owners would have 30 days to comply with the terms of the bill. [1]

In essence, this indirectly infringes on the 2nd Amendment because it makes it that much more difficult for the average law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun.  Of course, we all know that the true criminals will not be putting in a phone call to their insurance company anytime soon.

In effect, this bill, like all others, will have no effect on the criminal.  It will only negatively impact law-abiding citizens.  It could also hurt gun sales, an industry that has been doing well ever since (and even before) Obama was re-elected because of fears that he would go whole hog during his second term to obliterate the 2nd Amendment.  Those fears are proving to be grounded in reality.

Apparently, joining in the anti-2nd Amendment parade is Comcast, who has recently decided to cancel all gun shop advertising. [2]  By doing so, they are refusing to deal with law-abiding citizens who own guns and also risk offending these same people, many of who are likely subscribers to Comcast.  But I’m quite certain Comcast’s parent company – MSNBC and NBC – don’t care since we all know how much they have supported this administration’s agenda, even creatively editing numerous news videos in order to slant the news to their liking.

If you use Comcast and you appreciate the 2nd Amendment, you may wish to cancel your subscription.  If they are the only cable company in your area, there is always one of the satellite companies.  Alternatively, you can simply purchase an Internet connection through your land line phone service and then sign up for Netflix or some other pay-per-view (or pay monthly) service.

Bank of America is another company that refuses to have anything to do with gun-related companies.  Of course, for the longest time, Bank of America was owned by the Vatican and the Jesuits and the Rothschilds. [3]  You remember those folks, don’t you?

PayPal is another company, as is eBay of course.  I think it’s fascinating that these companies are allowed to discriminate as they do and the government never steps into do anything about it.  We all know why, don’t we?

I think it’s interesting to see the companies that hate various amendments.  They are obviously Marxist in their philosophy.  It’s good to know so that they can be avoided.

Anti-2nd Amendment Companies

There are many companies that are anti-2nd Amendment.  Here is a page you can connect to in order to see which companies you should avoid, if you value your Constitutional rights.  They certainly don’t and while they would argue that they are not in any way, infringing the 2nd Amendment, a good argument can be made that says they are doing just that.  What’s next, freedom of speech?

[1] http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/ny-democratic-bill-will-require-gun-owners-to-carry-million-dollar-liability-insurance/

[2] http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/outrageous-comcast-drops-all-gun-shop-ads-from-its-nationwide-cable-network/

[3] http://www.bbsradio.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=11090

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Shadow Government, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: , , , , , , .

One Foot in Heaven Columbine Victim Speaks Out About Gun Control Efforts

3 Comments

  • 1. Steve  |  February 20, 2013 at 12:08 PM

    1. When will conservatives get it through their thick skulls that no one, and I mean absolutely no one, is proposing a total assault on the 2nd amendment. It’s so simple to see the scare tactics you’ve adopted. We’re all supposed to be unnecessarily paranoid that Obama is “coming for all the guns” because you are? That’s so stupid!

    2. So Chick Fil A, for instance, can essentially lobby against homosexuals and get the overwhelming support of “conservatives” because they exercised their right (when we all know the support comes from anti-homosexual sentiments), but when another company expresses their support for a political issue the conservatives attack them because they don’t agree with the position? Which is it: you support the freedom of enterprises to do what they please, or you pick and choose based on your absurd ideology.

    3. People need to learn what “Marxism”, “Communism”, and “Socialism” are before they throw them around as carelessly as you do. It’s become such a farce on the Right because that’s the go-to insult for Obama (despite the fact that there’s not real support, intelligent discourse concerning, or evidence supporting it). If you use a word (incorrectly I might add) enough times it starts to lose its meaning.

    When the government actually starts to come for your guns (I’m assuming you’re not toting around an AR-15) then you can start your psycho-babble about the dismantling of the 2nd amendment. Until then you just sound like someone who’d rather treat the constitution as gospel, rather than the gospel itself. Can you really take up your cross AND carry an assault weapon? Definitely not.

    • 2. modres  |  February 20, 2013 at 1:09 PM

      Steve, when will the Left get it through THEIR thick skulls that ANY laws that restrict my ability to buy a gun or ammo is an INFRINGEMENT on the 2nd Amendment?

      What the Left does NOT understand is that this country is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. As such, the rule of law is based solely on the U.S. Constitution and it is NOT up for debate.

      You may think it’s stupid to think that the government is “coming for our guns,” but the naivete you are living under is asinine. Gov. Cuomo has stated PUBLICLY that gun control (in New York) COULD involve CONFISCATION. He has set out to do just that. One way or another, he will get what he wants. The NY legislature has first, created new gun laws that are ridiculous if only for the fact that these new laws will NOT impact criminals at all. Now, they are trying to force people to buy liability insurance ($1 million) at a cost of $1600 to $2000 per year. I’m sure the criminals – who are actually creating the PROBLEM – will be calling their insurance agents right away.

      It’s amazing how legislators cannot go after criminals (What? You mean criminals don’t obey the law?), so they go after law-abiding citizens. These new laws turned almost every gun owner in New York into a felon overnight. Way to go, New York. I’m sure the criminals are shaking in their shoes…

      Liberals like yourself will simply never get it. You have way too much trust in our government to actually be able to see the reality.

      Let’s look at your #2. Me deciding where I will or will not EAT has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. You’re making no sense, Steve.

      What does THAT have to do with me deciding on which COMPANY I will support based on my ideology? I’m sure you do the same thing, don’t you?

      Of COURSE I can decide which company I will or will NOT support as a form of protest. That is my RIGHT under the SAME Constitution that also includes the 2nd Amendment.

      I can take my protests to companies who support Saturday Night Live and their mockery of Jesus Christ. Did I say that I want to REMOVE their freedom of expression? No. Did I say I want to limit their freedom of speech? Again, NO. It would be great if they simply thought in terms of whether or not Christians might be offended, rather than how they can get a larger share of ratings.

      However, as much as THEY have the right to say what they want regardless of whom they may offend, I have the right to SAY that I do not like it and I can also refuse to do business with the companies that support Saturday Night Live. This is perfectly legitimate and in no way, comprises hypocrisy as you are implying.

      Peaceful protesting is a right guaranteed under the Constitution, Steve. I’m not threatening physical harm to anyone. I am simply telling them that I will not support them with my hard-earned money.

      Your twisted logic (such as it is) is evident.

      You and all the other Leftists can argue that the 2nd Amendment is outmoded, outdated, or should be limited, but that’s only because you think that America is a DEMOCRACY and amendments are up for vote. The 2nd Amendment – like the rest of the Constitution – is NOT up for a vote. It is the law of the land and it does not matter if 100% of the people in the USA wanted to get rid of it either. The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with me legally protesting a company with whom I choose not to do business with. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition does that all the time. I don’t hear you condemning them for it. Oh wait, they’re on the Left, so it’s okay. What is it YOU (and the rest of those on the Left) do NOT understand about this statement that is built into the 2nd Amendment: “shall not be infringed”?

      There are also people on the Left (currently in Congress) who are saying that the 1st Amendment should be limited. Really? Who is to decide what can and cannot be said? We already know that those within Islam want to behead those who insult them. We know we should avoid offending them at all costs. Christians? Not so much.

      What about the 4th Amendment, Steve? Every time you go through airport security, the GOVERNMENT (TSA) puts you under unnecessary search and even possible seizure. “Oh, that’s okay, if it makes flying safer.” Really? Then, give up part of your 1st Amendment rights too, Steve, if they mean nothing to you.

      Steve, it is CLEAR that Obama is a Marxist and a Socialist. I have received emails from people in foreign countries who agree with that assessment, who are living under a system of Socialism now, but who also tell me that Socialism is BETTER. I’m sorry you cannot see that. It’s laughable because it is so obvious. Have you actually READ his books? Have you paid attention to what he’s doing? He wants to take MORE of my taxes (and yours) to help the “poor.” He wants to “spread the wealth” around. How? By taxing ME more. Clinton wanted to do the same thing and I also disagreed then as well. In fact, most of Congress disagreed with socialized medicine under Clinton, but we dare not disagree with Obama because he’s a person of color and if we disagree with him, then we are racist.

      As a Christian, I OBEY the law. That law for America is based on the Constitution. The apostle Paul was a Roman and he complained to his captors that as a Roman, he had the right to be treated better than he was being treated (cf. Acts 16). As a Roman citizen, it was against the law to put him in CHAINS or BEAT him without benefit of a trial. He had no trial but was chained and beaten and told his captors that the treatment he was receiving was not acceptable OR legal. Are you saying Paul – a Christian – should not have said anything? He should not used his rights as a Roman citizen? He should have just sucked it up?

      With respect to the 2nd Amendment, I cannot believe there are people so naive as you are with respect to your beliefs about the 2nd Amendment.

      You don’t think that the Arms Trade Treaty that Obama is pushing with the UN could easily turn into mandatory action for the United States, which could ultimately mean gun confiscation? Any treaty we sign with the UN simply gives the UN some of America’s sovereignty. America does not NEED to be under the UN’s sovereignty, thank you very much.

      You don’t think that universal background checks such as those wanted by the Obama administration could easily become a means to catalog every gun in America (except the ones owned and carried illegally by criminals) as a way of eventual confiscation? It could easily mean that, all the while doing NOTHING to curtail criminal activity.

      The NRA recently exposed an internal DOJ memo that supports FULL gun confiscation. Here are two quotes from it:

      In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact.” [1]

      Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.” [2]

      Note the DOJ is admitting that “assault” weapons are not a big contributor to gun homicides. Their solution? A FORCED gun buyback WITH NO EXEMPTIONS.

      So, while they are willing to admit that ARs have no REAL impact on gun violence, they still want them. Beyond this, they also want a MANDATORY gun buyback. This is called CONFISCATION, Steve.

      By the way, an AR is simply a semi-automatic RIFLE. I have several semi-automatic rifles. They do the exact same thing that an AR does, except they do not look TACTICAL. That’s the only difference, Steve.

      Also, have you read the letter written by a person who was wounded at Columbine, yet lived? It’s an interesting read. Here’s someone who was actually almost killed by the two loons at Columbine High School and is dead set against the gun control tactics of this and other administrations. You can read the letter here (if you’re interested): http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/20/columbine-survivor-pens-bold-open-letter-to-obama-rejecting-gun-control-whose-side-are-you-on/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons

      You want me to WAIT until the government actually COMES for my guns? By then, it will be too late, Steve. Again, are you THAT naive? Apparently. I listen to those on the Left a lot and I am continually amazed at the vapid, ridiculous comments that they make. A Colorado Democrat recently stated that women are essentially not smart enough to know if they are being raped, so they should not be allowed to have concealed carry permits. The media ignores it, but let a conservative make a comment that denigrates women, and the media comes unglued.

      Why are so many Sheriffs throughout the USA coming together to stand against any unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional legislation produced by the Federal government? Because they KNOW that the government WILL take the opportunity to eventually confiscate guns. I’m sorry you can’t see that, Steve. Maybe you should just get on the cattle car now…

      Steve, every time some liberal, left-wing legislator tries to create another piece of legislation that further restricts the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns, they are INFRINGING the 2nd Amendment. You don’t get that though, do you? You think they have the RIGHT to restrict and even abrogate my 2nd Amendment rights if they want to do so for “public safety.” You don’t care that it could lead to wholesale gun confiscation, do you?

      You obviously don’t know your history either.

      By the way Steve, Peter carried a sword and Jesus stated that His followers should sell what they could to buy a weapon (Luke 22:35-38). When Peter used his short sword to cut off the ear of one of the guards in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night Jesus was betrayed, Jesus rebuked him ONLY for using it THEN. Jesus did NOT say that Peter should NEVER carry a sword. If you’re interested, read about it here: John 18

      Believe it or not Steve, God actually ALLOWS me to use lethal force in SELF-DEFENSE to protect myself or my family. The idea that I’m supposed to lie down and give myself over to some criminal is based on a complete misunderstanding of Jesus’ directives about “turning the other cheek” and “go the extra mile.” These have nothing to do with my right to defend myself against the criminal element. In order to understand these statements, you need to actually understand the culture of the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus and the expectations that were placed on the average person. It’s very interesting, but is not a blanket directive for how Christians are to live in this world. I can love people without being a milksop or doormat.

      Your assertion that I cannot carry a cross and an assault weapon is a specious argument. The LAST thing I want to do is have to hurt someone who is trying to harm me or my wife. However, to NOT even try to defend myself or my wife is ludicrous.

      If only someone at the Aurora CO movie theater had a gun on them. James Holmes could have been taken out before he wound up killing and/or injuring as many people as he did. Oh wait, Cinemark Theaters has a policy that says NO GUNS ALLOWED. Guess what the law-abiding citizens did? Left their guns in their cars. Guess what James Holmes did? Brought his guns INSIDE the theater, against corporate policy. He also had items on him (and in his apartment) that were completely illegal to own. Funny, but the existing laws did not stop him. Weird, huh?

      Cinemark has the right to post that policy. I have a right to avoid spending my money at their theaters. It’s simple. Criminals will continue to ignore the “Gun Free Zones” that are set-up by companies because they never set up a way to enforce their policies.

      Cheese and crackers, wake up, man. Wake up.

      [1] http://www.independentsentinel.com/2013/02/nra-exposes-internal-doj-memo-gun-confiscation/#comment-20631

      [2] Ibid

    • 3. modres  |  February 20, 2013 at 1:45 PM

      Oh, by the way, Chick-Fil-A does not LOBBY against homosexuals. They simply believe that homosexuality is wrong. Because the owner (and their families) is a Christian, that’s the way he thinks.

      Are you saying that Chick-Fil-A does not SERVE people who are homosexual?

      Are you saying that Chick-Fil-A does not HIRE people who are homosexual?

      The interview you’re referring to was in a religious magazine. The owner of Chick-Fil-A simply responded to the question that was asked of him at the time and he answered it truthfully.

      Do you honestly believe that EVERY person Chick-Fil-A hires is a Christian? Hardly. They do not discriminate.

      The gay and lesbian groups got hold of that interview and forced it to go viral so that they could attack Chick-Fil-A. That was their intention so those who support Chick-Fil-A came out in support of them and against the tirades of the gay and lesbian communities. Many who support Chick-Fil-A are not even religious. They simply support them because of the quality of food and pricing.

      I’ll tell you what WAS completely illegal though. It was when several mayors decided that Chick-Fil-A was NOT welcome to open up a restaurant in “their” town. Since Chick-Fil-A does NOT discriminate, then what these mayors were advocating was fully ILLEGAL.

      So when you say that Chick-Fil-A lobbies against homosexuals, you are 100% WRONG. They do not actively engage in any type of lobbying or discrimination. This is exactly what those on the Left say to falsely characterize companies like Chick-Fil-A as something they are not.

      This tactic of lying while pretending the lie is truth is something that the Left has done to perfection.

      You said it yourself: “If you use a word (incorrectly I might add) enough times it starts to lose its meaning.

      Actually, what the Left likes to do is tell LIES so often that the lies become TRUTH. It starts out by something as simple as your comment that Chick-Fil-A lobbies against homosexuals. No, they don’t. Had it not been for the Gay and Lesbian activists who deliberately thrust that interview into the public eye, Christians and others would not have been forced to come out in support of Chick-Fil-A. Obviously, the gay community was hoping for a different response, weren’t they? They tried this same thing several years ago too. I’m sure they’ll try it again.

      Of course, let’s not forget that the Left’s biggest lie is that anyone who disagrees with Obama’s policies is a RACIST. This is in spite of the fact that most of the policies that Obama has been putting forth are very much like the ones Clinton attempted to do during his presidency. What’s interesting is that even some of the media was trouncing on Clinton’s attempts to create socialized medicine and they called it that then.

      Now however, to criticize Obama equals racism, in the eyes of the Left. It is simply one of the means they use to shut down discourse.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,204 other followers

Donate to Study-Grow-Know 501 (3)(c) Non-Profit)

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 742,716 hits

%d bloggers like this: