By Matt Patterson (columnist – Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner) Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barrack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard – because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest? Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clich, and that’s when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office. Please pass this on after you read this one. Suddenly people are getting wise to this enemy of our USA.

March 21, 2013

By Matt Patterson (columnist – Washington Post, New York Post,  San Francisco Examiner)

Years from now,  historians may regard the 2008 election of Barrack Obama as an inscrutable and  disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin  perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man  so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could  manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military,  execute the world’s most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining  Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite  unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a  “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of  legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often  did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United  States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature  legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling  associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served  as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as  Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future  historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected  president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman  Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be  sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of  America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would  have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore  entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against  various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a  pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard –  because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And  in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate  and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave  him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the  curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the  animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal  sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all  affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make  white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves  on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are  not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance  and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority  students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and  deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative  action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of  the color of his skin – that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that  isn’t racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama.  True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why  would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia  despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for  the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good  enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life,  every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in  spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this  breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In  2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved  about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people –  conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clich, and that’s when he  has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely  think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth –  it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for  100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly  blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad  luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to  advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But  really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything,  so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our  president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the  intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you  understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense.  It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

 

Please pass this on after you read this one. Suddenly people are getting  wise to this enemy of our USA.

Advertisements

Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA won’t oppose background check bill.

Received as email alert 3/13/13 (Do NOT trust all you read in the media.)

An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers.

The story posted on NBCNews.com alleged that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, “provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks”. This statement is completely untrue. The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.

The NRA supports meaningful efforts to address the problems of violent crime and mass violence in America, through swift and certain prosecution of violent criminals; securing our schools; and fixing our broken mental health system.

Is your sheriff a “Constitutional Sheriff”?

By Mike Austell, Florida Chapter President

 

Recently, a blog was put out that declared every Florida sheriff, all 67 of them, to be Constitutional sheriffs and that they would stand up for the Second Amendment.  This immediately sent up a red flag with Oath Keepers who have been paying attention.  Unfortunately, this story got picked up and spread all over the internet.  This fanciful notion came about from a rather wishy-washy resolution passed by the Florida Sheriffs Association on January 29, 2013.  It’s my understanding that only about 50 or so sheriffs even attended the meeting, and a majority of those present voted for the resolution.  Hardly overwhelming!

 

Why do I have a problem with this?  Because THIS IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE FEELINGS OF ALL FLORIDA SHERIFFS!  As much as we would love for this to be the case, we know better.  I know some sheriffs in Florida who would seize your guns in a heartbeat, if they thought it would further their political ambitions.  I also know some very good sheriffs who would stand with their citizens and protect them from any infringement of their God-given rights.  In these times we do not need a false sense of security.  This was simply disinformation, and we won’t let it go unchallenged.

 

So, how can we tell the difference?  How can we be sure that our sheriff is not just playing politics?

 

To understand what our Founders intended, we need to examine several documents.  First, the Preamble to the Declaration on Independence states:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

In the Founders’ time, a-lien-able simply meant that a lien could be place against something, much as a mortgage is placed on your home.  These rights are unalienable, therefore, no encumbrance could ever be place upon these natural, God-given rights.

 

Since these rights are unalienable, they cannot be changed.  Not by congress.  Not by an executive order. Not even by an amendment.

 

When you read statements by your sheriff, you need to look at the language they use.  Look at how they parse their words.  The National Sheriffs Association Second Amendment statement refers to “rights conferred by the Second Amendment”.  This is totally wrong!  Our rights are not given by the Second Amendment or by any document or by “government”.  They are natural rights.  Remember, anything given to you by government can be taken away by government.

 

Another trap I see in some sheriff’s statements goes something like this.  “No deputy in my office will every come

after or seize a lawfully owned weapon from law-abiding citizens.”  What’s wrong with that?

 

Well, if some court, or some congress, or some dictator decides to make a law outlawing your gun, then, guess what?  It’s not a “lawfully owned weapon”, is it?  And you are no longer a law abiding citizen.  You still have your God-given right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what any government functionary says! 

 

If we are to be well-armed in this fight for the truth, we must have the knowledge that comes from research and study.  Study the founding documents such as The Federalist, as well as the Constitution, and other documents of the day.  If we have a chance of keeping our rights, we must first understand our rights.

 

To close, I would like to quote from the closing paragraph of the Utah Sheriffs’ Association letter to President Obama from January 17, 2013.  It has one glaring error (see if you can spot it), but look at the tone.  Is this the mindset you would like to see in your sheriff?

 

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights-in particular Amendment II-has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

The Utah Sheriffs’ Association

Keep the faith, Oath Keepers!

Mike

Two new articles added to the Armory.  Each one of the gun owners in the United Staqtes HAS to decide what to do in the event of drastic changes out of the White House.  these articles give some background and information about our options.