Even AFL-CIO Liberals are Waking up to Obamacare

Liberal Labor Union Leaders Rejecting Obamacare

Obamacare will raise the cost of union healthcare plans, and that’s causing an outcry from the AFL-CIO, and many other liberal individuals and groups.

The “Affordable Care Act,” derisively dubbed “Obamacare” is considered by most politically aware critical thinking Americans to be an obtuse intrusion in to our personal lives and finances as well as a blatant violation of our intrinsic rights expressed in our Constitution.

Not only is Obamacare illegal, wildly unpopular (34%), and conveniently exempts special interests like big business and the congress who voted for it, but it fails to fulfill the stated goals of the administration.

Obamacare Violates Liberty

For example, under the legislation, health insurance costs will go up for most Americans, and millions who choose not to purchase health insurance and opt out entirely will face the IRS, an organization that continues to be publicly exposed for targeting Americans who advocate for individual liberty and Constitutional Rights. Meanwhile the quality of care will be reduced while waiting times are expected to rise.

Obamacare runs at a deficit and is funded by money from Medicare, and many Americans are concerned that Medicare could be bankrupted by the failed policy.

The 2,700 page law imposes new mandates and policies which will be forced on doctors and care providers, causing many to leave the profession in early retirement, and others to abandon the idea of entering medical practice altogether.

Ultimately, these and other practical criticisms of the law, while noteworthy, are not necessary except to the uninitiated in the philosophy of liberty.

The federal government, or any other entity or group, have no right to force you, a free person, to purchase any product or service, or compel you to be examined, searched, or evaluated by any medical or security professional.

That is your right as a free person. It is up to you whether or not to exercise it, or to roll over like a dog and submit to this illegal and immoral law.

Of the many “solutions” to the problem which We’ve heard peddled on “conservative” talk radio, (and perhaps we should pursue all of them,) the one I have not heard is that which is so obvious, which is to say No.

Hell No.

Share

Note from Rand Paul and Public Letter to President Barack Obama

Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Al Queda in Syria.

I just got this email from Rand Paul. Please note that Obama gave 20 F-16 fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood controlled government in Egypt, which is 4 MORE than we had over our homeland on 9/11.

Dear Justin,

I do not believe we should be arming radical regimes like those of President Mohammed Morsy and his Muslim Brotherhood Party in Egypt.

Earlier this year, President Obama sent 20 F-16 fighter jets and Abrams tanks to the Morsy regime.

And now the people of Egypt are rising up and demanding President Morsy’s removal.

Sending American aid to government’s run by radical’s like the Muslim Brotherhood weakens our national security when the people of Egypt see our government aligned with a regime they are protesting.

I hope you’ll take a few moments to read my op-ed

In Liberty,

Rand Paul

My friends, we live in very dangerous times.

Tomorrow, July 4th, marks more than a day in our nations’ history. It marks a mindset, a worldview, a philosophy. This ideal, “Individual Liberty & Self-Government”, was the height of the enlightenment, and mankind’s greatest achievement.

Today, Americans are faced with a government that is a Beast when compared to the paltry taxation that sparked the First American Revolution.

George Washington said that “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Barack Obama says that “..if the people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the constitution, due process, and the rule of law then we’re going to have some problems here.”

Well Mr. President, allow me to explain to you why the American people don’t trust the American government.

  • Both Republicans and Democrats voted approve of massive payouts to private banking and business interests without reading the bills.
  • Both parties voted for the “Patriot Act” and NDAA, destroying the 4th amendment.
  • Obamacare forces Americans who can’t afford it to purchase products from insurance companies, enforced by the IRS.
  • The IRS targets conservative and other anti-establishment political groups and then lies about it.
  • The NSA monitors and stores all American’s eMail and electronic communication and then lies about it.
  • DHS publicly identifies veterans and patriotic groups as potential terrorists.
  • The press & white house engage in a public campaign to strip responsible Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights.
  • The president signs executive orders infringing on the 2nd Amendment.
  • The federal government support a revolution in Egypt whereby the Muslim Brotherhood is brought to power immediate followed by mass murder of blacks and Christians then rewards them with FIGHTER JETS and other weapons systems.
  • Benghazi?
  • The federal government supports a revolution in Syria and continues to arm the Al Queda rebels with a variety of weaponry to facilitate the revolution.
  • Congress Votes for open borders and amnesty.
  • The Supreme Court Declare Obamacare a tax and upholds it.
  • The Supreme Court establishes gay marriage
  • The Fed declares quantitative easing will continue forever.
  • Multiple reporters die mysteriously hours before they announce they are going to break a story that will bring down the whole house of cards.
  •  Individuals who feel obligated by their oath to reveal secret programs that violate our constitution are publicly demonized and prosecuted.

This list does not even serve as an introduction to the corruption of this government.

Since, Mr. President, you insist that “we have a problem” if “we cannot trust this government”, I have no choice but to infer that you either believe we are utter fools, or you know full and well that we have a problem, because you know that you’ve been a bad boy.

You know all the dirty dark secrets of your administration, and your predecessors, and you know, that if the people ever find out, they will rise. You know that people like Edward Snowden, Andrew Breitbart and Bradley Manning will continue to come forward out of necessity. After all, humans still do have consciousness… and that’s why we can’t be trusted with weapons.

This 4th of July, I will celebrate my Independence. Not from England, and no, not from Congress or a corrupt Judiciary. I celebrate my eternal inherent Independence, and the rights that flow from it. These rights are not granted by you Mr. President or any other “Public Servant,” they flow from God.

These rights are not granted to us by the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, they do not come from local, state or federal lawmakers. These are inherent rights, granted to us by our Creator, expressed in the Constitution.

These rights are not only inherent, but sacred, even as sacred as the lives of our children insomuch as they are forever tied to the quality of life our progeny will, or will not enjoy.

Share

Letter from Rand Paul – Oppose Ban on Transfers and Registry Sign the Petition: NAGR

Letter from Rand Paul:

Dear fellow Patriot,

My jaw hit the floor.

After reading Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban, I can only describe this radical scheme as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.

The gun-grabbers are going for broke, doing everything they can to “cash in” on the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.

They’re targeting EVERYTHING — rifles, shotguns and even handguns — and every gun owner and gun purchase is to be catalogued and tracked by the federal government.

That’s why it’s absolutely critical you act IMMEDIATELY.

As you’ll see, I’ve enclosed a special Emergency Second Amendment Protection Directive INSISTING your Representative and Senators vote against this radical scheme.

Won’t you please sign it TODAY? 

 There’s no time to waste.

President Obama’s Administration is announcing it will “push forward quickly” on gun control — and Vice President Joe Biden is promising it will be a “done deal” in a matter of weeks!

If passed, Feinstein’s Gun Ban would:

  1. Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns!
  2. Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one “military characteristic” — which could mean just about anything that makes a gun “look scary;”
  3. Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds;
  4. Force owners of ALL “grandfathered” weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and fingerprinting — treating law-abiding citizens like criminals;
  5. Force owners of ALL “grandfathered” weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining a permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law.

That’s right.  If you own a $10 magazine that’s more than 10 rounds, you’ll have to register it with the BATFE in their National Firearms Registry.

The ban on “transfers” means you and I can forget about ever handing down one of these guns to our kids and grandkids.

Worse, it could mean widows become instant felons if their husbands owned one of these banned magazines or firearms!

And make no mistake, the gun-grabbers’ TRUE motives behind gun registration is always the same — outright gun CONFISCATION, and to do that they must first register every gun and gun owner.

Then Senator Feinstein will be able to achieve her publicly stated goal:

“Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

I can hardly even think about what a DISASTER for our country it would be should President Obama, Senator Feinstein and their anti-gun pals succeed in ramming this monstrosity down our throats.

This is exactly the WRONG move for our country — for our liberties and for our safety.

Now I know THAT’S something you’re not hearing from the anti-gun propagandists in the national media.

But the truth is, increasing gun sales in America in recent years has led to lower crime rates.

The same is true all over the world.

Studies show countries with low rates of civilian firearms ownership are the most violent.  Countries with high rates of civilian firearms ownership are the safest.

Just look to nearby Mexico if you want to see an example of the gun-grabbers’ idea of utopia.  Effectively ruled by violent drug gangs in many areas, Mexico is a cesspool of rape, violence and murder.

If you and I want to keep the Second Amendment freedoms we’re so blessed to enjoy as American citizens, it’s absolutely CRITICAL you and I act IMMEDIATELY.

That’s why I’ve agreed to help the National Association for Gun Rights fight back to stop this Gun Ban and help lead the fight AGAINST the gun-grabbers.

They’re tough.  They’re principled.  And they know how to win.

They know the ONLY way you and I win this fight is if my colleagues here in Congress understand that voting for gun control will mean the END of their political careers . . .

And they’re busy mobilizing pro-gun Americans all over the country to make sure Congress gets that message loud and clear.

Won’t you please sign it TODAY?

But with President Obama, Sarah Brady and all the gun-grabbers doubling down, there’s not much time.

To defeat this radical scheme, the National Association for Gun Rights is going to have to pull out all the stops to alert and mobilize Second Amendment supporters all over the country.

Direct mail.  Phones.  Email.  Blogs.  Guest editorials.  Press conferences.  Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits.  The whole nine yards.

Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.

But that’s not easy, and we may not have much time.

In fact, if gun owners are going to defeat Feinstein’s Gun Ban, pro-gun Americans like you and me have to get involved NOW!

So please put yourself on record AGAINST the Feinstein’s Gun Ban by signing NAGR’s Emergency Second Amendment Protection Directive.

But along with your signed Directive, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second Amendment rights.

For Freedom,

Rand Paul
United States Senator

P.S. The gun-grabbers are going for broke.

My jaw hit the floor reading the list of anti-gun provisions in Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) new Gun Ban.

I can only describe this radical scheme as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.

And time is running out to stop them.

Please sign your Emergency Second Amendment Protection Directive and put yourself squarely on the record AGAINST the Feinstein’s Gun Ban.

And if you can, please make a generous contribution to the National Association for Gun Rights of $250, $150, $100 or even just $35 right away!

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Share

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

1,100 Green Berets Signed this letter, reposted from: http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40772

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

Share

MESSAGE TO THE OATH BREAKERS AND TRAITORS: MOLON LABE

The following was received in our inbox from OathKeepers.org and is posted at: www.molonlabepledge.org

We at Liberty-Corps.com stand with the oath keepers and encourage our members to take the oath personally to defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. You do not need to be a member of the armed services, the secret service, or any other institution to take the pledge.

OATH KEEPERS MOLON LABE PLEDGE

We will never disarm. We will never surrender our military pattern, semi-automatic rifles and the full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition that go with them.  The fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of We the People so we will have effective means to resist tyranny. Regardless of what unholy, unconstitutional filth issues from the mouths of oath breakers in “Mordor on the Potomac” our answer is MOLON LABE. 

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”- Patrick Henry

We will not allow our children to be disarmed.

We will pass on those military pattern rifles, magazines, and ammunition to our children and our children’s children.

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. – Tench Coxe, 1788

Click to read entire Pledge 

Share