THE HYPOCRITE IN THE WHITE HOUSE

SPECIAL POST

This President doesn't stand for anything. He will turn his back on his principles in a nano-second if it suits his purpose.   

Take for example his unprecedented position of keeping Israel at arms length, rudely snubbing Netanyahu and taking the side of the Palestinians.  It's been patently obvious that he doesn't like Jews.  For that matter, he despises whites, hates Christians, loathes gun owners, denigrates business owners... there are not too many people on this planet that Obama does like.   

But, when Romney announced that he was going to Israel to meet with Netanyahu, Obama did a 180.  Not only did he rush to the teleprompter to announce how much he admires Israel, but he also literally stumbled all over himself  trying to send them money, help them with strategic defense issues and to announce that he supports their stance against Iran.

It was an obvious attempt to upstage Romney, but it also speaks volumes about his principles and his willingness to stand by them.  You never really know where this jackass is coming from, and that's why you're a total idiot if you lend any credence at all to anything he says.  He's a three-faced liar, pure and simple, through and through.   

That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.  

UNITED NATIONS GUN ACCORD FAILS

We’ve been made aware of a United Nations move to bring member nations into an agreement to ban “illegal” guns and gun sales throughout the world.  We are all aware that such an agreement would most certainly be the precursor to abolish the 2nd Amendment.  In fact, we’ve been told that, at the direction of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton was going to sign on to that treaty and use the treaty to defeat the 2^nd Amendment to the Constitution.  

The U.N. resolution hit the table yesterday.  The U.S. refused to sign on and asked for “more time.”  Some diplomats and treaty supporters subsequently blamed the United States for triggering the unraveling of the month-long negotiating conference.  A bipartisan group of 51 U.S. senators on Thursday threatened to oppose the global treaty regulating international weapons trade if it falls short in protecting the constitutional right to bear arms. 

The word from Washington is that Obama did not want to push this unpopular proposal before the November election, but that he is fully prepared to support it if he wins. 

The Constitution's Second Amendment offers broad protection for weapon ownership by civilians. As recently as 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed it when it struck down a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, ruling that individuals have a constitutional right to keep guns for self-defense and other purposes.

The court also has ruled separately that treaty obligations may not infringe on individual constitutional protections and rights within U.S. borders. This goes back at least to a 1920 ruling that a migratory bird treaty with Canada, which prohibited the hunting or capturing of certain birds, was an unconstitutional interference with states' rights under the 10th Amendment.  Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/un-fails-to-reach-deal-on-global-arms-trade-treaty-as-us-asks-for-more-time/#ixzz21sUu3R7O 

This is a temporary win for all American gun owners.  I say “temporary” because, if Obama wins in November, his intentions are to scuttle or evade most of the Amendments considered to be the Bill of Rights.  And, the far-left liberal agenda is in agreement with Obama’s agenda.  

We need to take every possible step to elect members of Congress who will stand up as Americans and protect our fundamental rights, whether they be Democrat or Republican.  

That’s MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.   

V-DAY

SPECIAL POST

Regardless of the hype, the coming election is not about the economy, immigration, Solyndra, Fast & Furious, the civil rights violation at the voter's polls in Philadelphia in 2008.... none of those things.  

What this election IS about is the philosophy of Marxist-Socialist government vs. a republic democratic form of government.  Which one do YOU prefer? 

That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.

A CALL TO ARMS

SPECIAL POST

Diane Feinstein suggested Sunday that the “weapons of war need to be removed from the streets.”  And so begins the call for curtailments of gun ownership to varying degrees.  Some want guns abolished altogether; this in the face of firm evidence that communities with a high ownership of guns have low incidence of violent crime. 

To her credit, Feinstein went only after the high-capacity magazines and fully-automatic weapons.  But, would someone else see it a different way?  Just what constitutes a weapon of terror as opposed to anything else?  Is it a Glock 23?  A Remington 22?  A 7mm high-powered long rifle?  An AR-15?  A .50 caliber weapon?  The problem is that, once you define a weapon as being a weapon of terror that must be banned, every psycho sicko is going to want one, and their drive will be to go to Mexico or elsewhere to get it.  Then, we do we fight back with? 

And, the arguments begin: if a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol is too much, why isn’t a .40 caliber or a 9mm?  Well, someone suggests, we’ll allow such guns for collectors, but they must be antique and rendered unusable.  What’s an antique… 50 years old or 51, or 100?  Why not 50 years old; anything over 50 years old left in the desert becomes of historical significance and can’t be removed. 

The fact is that any infringement on the right to own and bear arms is an infringement on the 2^nd Amendment.  This is not only in the strict and pure sense of the word, but it is true because the definitions of infringement blur over time and the right gets lost. 

On the other hand, can you imagine that Holmes would have gone into that theater if he knew that everyone in there was carrying a concealed weapon?  Not even a madman takes those steps. 

It appears to me that the answer for gun violence is not to get rid of the guns, but to require that every able-bodied and sane American carries one. 

That’s MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.  

AURORA

Now comes the man in black armed to the hilt with pistols and long guns,who enters a theater full of people and opens fire on innocents; deathly carnage ensues. 

Surely, all of us are in sympathy with the people of Aurora and none of us would wish this on anyone.  Every legitimate gun owner in the country feels that way.  We members of the NRA feel that way.  Yet, by the end of the day today, allegations are going to be made that the guns did it and the resulting assertions will be that we have to confiscate every gun in the country. 

If there were no legal guns left in the country, you and I both know that there would be illegal guns and everyone else would be a target for crime.  The individual who perpetrated this horror evidently had been planning it for several months; if he wanted to get his hands on illegal guns, he surely could have.  What I am saying here is that the guns did not commit the crime; they did not design it, plan for it, load themselves… the guy did all of those things. 

Why didn’t some alarm go off when he went out the side door to get his guns?  Why wasn’t some security camera on the outside of the building watching him don his dark clothing and getting his weapons? 

There have been statements that he had buckets full of ammo in his apartment.  Between my guns, I have well over 1,000 rounds of ammo.  But, it’s not unusual.  When I see sales on ammo, I buy.  I also go to the range and shoot targets and go through ammo.  But, I don’t have buckets full; my ammo is all sorted and in cartridge cartons. 

I wish I had been there to blow the guy away and stop that ugly terror.  Every law-abiding gun owner is just as angry and wishes the same thing.  We are so sorry for what happened and we so much wish that our society would get back to the days of real values when these things never happened and, just like today, a whole lot of people had guns.  

The problem is not guns; it's our society.  

That’s MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted. 

AND... UP YOURS, OBAMA

SPECIAL POST

I'm an American small businessman.  I started my business in January of 2008 when things were starting to get tough in this country.  I went five months without a dime in income and depleted all of my savings trying to get my business off the ground.  Things started to happen and I ended that year having made more than I'd ever made in my lifetime as a wage earner.  Uncle Sam participated by getting a higher tax payment out of me. 


But, as we all know, 2009 was a disaster.  I sweated the entire year thinking that I might not make enough money to keep on going in year three.  Nevertheless, by year's end, I had made twice what I made the year before.  Fortunately for me, I've been successful ever since, although 2011 brought me less net income than any of the other years.  This year is going extremely well. 

I worked long and hard hours, I made hundreds of telephone calls, I sent out literally thousands of mailers.  And, I have succeeded in fulfilling a need and creating a new business and making a decent income.  I have done all of this regardless of the government.  The government never helped me, never sweated with me, never put it's last dollar on the line with me.  I did it.  All the government did in this process was to keep piling on regulation after regulation after regulation in what now seems to me to be an overt attempt to keep me from succeeding. 

But, I did it, despite the government and definitely not with their help.  

Having the President of the United States tell me that I did not do that, I did not create this successful business... it was because of government that I accomplished what I did, is a direct insult to my integrity, my efforts, and my risk.  Insulting America's successful businessmen is just about the dumbest thing Obama has ever done.  He truly deserves to be "tarred and feathered."  

That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted. 

MORE SPENDING GOING DOWN THE TOILET ON WELFARE

SPECIAL POST

Just so you know, DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is issuing an illegal edict that allows people on welfare to quit looking for work and/or quit working part-time or low paying jobs in order to qualify for welfare benefits.  In other words, they can go back to sitting on their collective asses and get paid for it.  And, who is going to pay for it?  You are. 

That’s right… Every red-blooded American, white, black, Hispanic or whatever, male and female, Democrat and Republican who is working and struggling to make a living is going to take on an additional tax burden to pay for those who no longer have to try and get out of the welfare system. 

As a DHHS Secretary, she does not have the authority to ignore, change or reject a law passed by Congress.  But, like Obama, she is going to do it and get away with it and you are going to pay for it. 

Don’t you think it’s time for every red-blooded American, white, black, Hispanic or whatever, male and female, Democrat and Republican who is working and struggling to make a living to stand up and raise Holy Hell over this bullshit? 

That’s MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.  

ONLINE SALES TAX LOOMS

A bipartisan group of senators plans to offer online sales tax legislation on Tuesday as an amendment to a small-business tax credit bill.  Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said the amendment closely resembles their Marketplace Fairness Act, a bill they introduced earlier this year to empower states to collect taxes on online purchases.

Note: This is a bi-partisan bill.  The argument is that allowing purchasers to buy tax-free goods on the Internet is unfair to the local merchant.  While I agree with that concept, the simple and plain fact of the matter is that the local merchant is also selling goods on the Internet through his/her website.  So, that particular argument is null and void. 

The real reason that they want to tax Internet purchases is that the states and local governments want the sales tax revenue.  While many Americans have resorted to buying on the Internet in order to contain costs and survive, this bi-partisan group wants to eliminate that avenue of survival in a time when the country is in dire economic condition. 

The fact that this is a bi-partisan effort underscores my contention that both parties are guilty of running this country down the drain.  While they are enthusiastically going after the tax revenue and your money, neither party seems to be willing to discuss spending cuts with any degree of sincerity. 

We need to make our voices heard in Washington, and the sooner the better. 

That’s MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.