First and Second Amendment Rights part 1

I am watching, and know that I am also being watched.

The rest of this post is to establish a backup for my Facebook pages, which appear to have been selectively edited. As a professional author and editor, I recognize the hallmarks of a "discredit" campaign: the stuff which was taken out was what I put there to encourage rationality. 

 

I have posted below, as a first step, the stuff which has remained on Facebook. There was a discourse on each step of King Obama's own press release, beginning with #1 and going through to #14, and several have disappeared, as well as some comments I made in between.

 

Unfortunately, despite my own verification that posts had made it, several of them have disappeared from Facebook. I will no longer use FB as a forum, because it is obviously subject to government censorship, or at least censorship AS ORDERED BY the current administration of King Obama. I cannot even be sure that stuff that is posted on there was written by me, because things that I actually wrote (and verified original posting) have disappeared or been selectively edited.

The first step is to put up what still remains. After that I will put in a new post, one for each piece that was deleted. When done with that, I will continue with the analysis of King Obama's campaign to remove and/or circumvent the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

So, here is what is left of more than twenty posts I put on Facebook.

The next one, I nearly busted a gut laughing:

"14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

Centers for Disease Control? Give me a break. The Presidential Memorandum (royal decree) most likely (especially since no one can access the actual "executive order") is directing the CDC to find that anyone who owns a gun is a potential granola bar (or, as one of my favorite fictional characters says it, "nutty as squirrel ****"), because they are so "inherently dangerous."

OBVIOUSLY, "anyone who owns a gun is a nut case," in our current society, because guns have been portrayed as "evil in themselves" for so many years by the liberal side of this country.

Next thing I expect to see is that King Obama is going to try to force a law through Congress to forbid the teaching of martial arts, because anyone who wants to defend himself is a paranoid schizophrenic. After all, we live in a sane society with no criminal elements, right, so no one needs to be able to defend himself from criminals or the government or police?

So anyone wishing to purchase a gun is now going to have to go through a psychiatric evaluation first? When did psychiatrists get enough knowledge to actually be able to accurately diagnose someone?

This ties in very well with earlier points in this press release:

"4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."

So now, with the background checks already in place, we are going to have to be cleared by a psychiatrist as well?


[[Several Paragraphs Were REMOVED HERE from my FB post. I will try to recover or replace.]]

Or exercise his or her rights under the Second Amendment?

Or is this more government garden fertilizer, designed to force someone who wishes to own a gun to go under psychiatric care AND THE DRUGS THAT GO WITH IT? To "prevent" future incidents? Or, especially, to prevent government abuses and the negation of the Bill of Rights?

After the laws forbidding private ownership of guns, to be taken in sequence (already working on assault weapons or anything with a magazine of more than ten rounds, with handguns as the next item on the agenda), I expect to see King Obama forbidding private ownership of kitchen knives more than three inches in length, on the basis that they are "unsafe."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/#ixzz2JBlOC3Yg

Here is the next earlier:

Now we are again getting into REALLY SCARY STUFF, from the point of view of a citizen and a patriot.

This next one is so vague that it INVITES comments.

"13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

Let's take a look here: it all sounds so nice in a press release, but what does it really mean, coming from the mouth of a person who is already demonstrated to be committed to destroying the Bill of Rights?

First off, a review: the press release says "anti-gun violence plan." That means that the plan is "anti-gun," the way it is written. That means the originator is meaning to take away YOUR guns, despite the Second Amendment. He is already committed to taking away assault weapons, and magazines of more than ten rounds. Despite the language of the Second Amendment, already discussed.

The Fed has FBI and other SWAT teams, the National Guard, the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force. The nuclear arsenal is in the hands of a person who could not pass a background check to own a handgun. All of them are under the command of a Commander in Chief who will not release information relating to his eligibility for the office he has been elected to. And this person is talking about "maximizing" enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

What does this word "maximize" mean?

max·i·mize (from Dictionary.com)
1. to increase to the greatest possible amount or degree
2. to represent at the highest possible estimate;
3. to make the greatest or fullest use of

I don't think it is necessary to comment, but I am going to do so anyway.

1. to increase to the greatest possible amount or degree

What does this mean? it means to go as far as is possible, as much as you can get away with. THAT IS A LOT, WHEN YOU ARE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. It has literally no restrictions. He is sitting in the same place as King George III, at the beginning of the American Revolution, but without the logistical problems King George faced---3000 miles of transport plus on site supply. He, too, thought he could get away with anything due to his royal birth and position.

2. to represent at the highest possible estimate

Need I say more, in light of the last comment? Exactly what is the highest possible estimate, for the "person" who commands the greatest armed forces and the greatest arsenal on the planet? What does a private person look at, no matter what his resources?

3. to make the greatest or fullest use of

I am not going to say much more here, except that the resources of the entire Federal government and its armed forces could be levied against anyone who decided to oppose this person. It has happened before, during the Clinton administration: remember Ruby Ridge and remember the forces arrayed against the nut case in Waco, Texas. And Clinton was a wimp, which word I would NOT use against this person, because he has the backing of many forces inimical to the United States of America, which they view as the "Great Satan."

 Next earlier:

This is very interesting. Several of my posts had been removed from FB. My comments on King Obama's press release numbers 10, 11 and 12 were GONE. So were numbers 7 and 8. Why was this?

Is someone on FB censoring me, and abridging my free speech rights as guaranteed under the First Amendment? If so, at whose orders are they doing it?

I wrote the above in present tense, and then took a break and had a smoke while I considered whether to post it. When I came back, some of those posts had reappeared. This is becoming very strange. Perhaps I am being paranoid, and this is a FB phenomenon. But I don't believe in coincidences.

Next earlier existing post (note, I wrote these in sequence, so it was easy to see when something disappeared) :

#12 is still missing

"11. Nominate an ATF director."

Sounds innocuous, doesn't it? I think it is a given that the next ATF director, under King Obama, will have as his mission to make it impossible for Americans to own guns, no matter what he has to do to make it so.

The first step will be to make it illegal to own a clip of more than ten or twelve rounds. Even if you bought it years ago. Bureaucratic regulations will require American citizens to turn in large-capacity magazines.

This is how King Obama will circumvent the Constitution: this is not statutory law, which would have to be passed through congress, but bureaucratic law---very similar to IRS regulations, which have never been approved by Congress, and which are so irregular, so tied up in red tape, that NO ONE, not even the IRS itself, understands it.

That leaves it open to interpretation by individuals. This is the last thing we want in gun regulations.

The second step will be to require a Federal license to own a semi-auto weapon of any kind--handgun, rifle, shotgun. Sorry, but the writing is already on the wall. The King is ignoring, already, the Constitution. Ex post facto doesn't mean a thing any more, and neither does the second amendment.

King Obama wants to disarm the American public, so that his own agenda will be effectively unopposed.

Watch for it. jim

Next Earlier existing: Note that #10  and #11 are still missing

 Further comments, in sequence, regarding King Obama's decrees regarding gun ownership:

"9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. "

Looks good in print, but what does it actually mean? Nothing.

The criminals will always be able to obtain guns. They steal them, deal with criminal dealers, and obtain them by means which a normal citizen does not have.
This is simply spin-doctor crap, pardon the language.
In actual fact, it is a means of making it impossible for a private citizen to keep a gun, without prohibitively expensive means of securing it.
So you have a handgun and maybe a couple of deer rifles and a shotgun. Someone breaks into your house and steals them.
Now, according to this, you are liable for the actions taken with these pieces after they are stolen, unless you have an unbreakable gun safe (see #8 earlier).

I realize that this is not written into the statement by King Obama. But does anyone have any doubt as to the actual intent?

Next Earlier:  (#8 is still missing)

A new post: Spin doctor campaign. From King Obama's press release:

"7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

Who is willing to make a bet with me that this campaign will make it very apparent that no one should keep guns? I am betting (and I am not a gambling man) that the gist of this proposed spin-doctor campaign will be that it is "not responsible" for anyone to own and keep a gun who has a child in the home or anyone associated with them who is under medical care for psychological conditions, who has ever been arrested for anything, and which will put pressure on police to confiscate weapons from anyone who fulfills conditions as outlined in the campaign?

How many families out there are completely free of "black sheep," of troubled members, and of children?

Once again, King Obama will be trading a promise (which cannot be fulfilled) of security, for a basic right as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Except this time, he will be putting the pressure on----not through the law, which he cannot under the Constitution do, but through the press, which is much more powerful.

Think about it. jim

 Next Earlier Existing: (The second part of this is still missing)

I just noticed a discrepancy in the Fox headline.

I am not sure it is a discrepancy, even with Fox.

It says "anti-gun violence plan."

Note that it does not say "gun related violence plan." It says "anti-gun violence plan."

The way this is written, as read by an author and a person who uses the English language as a tool, is that the "plan" is anti-gun, and violent.

I leave it up to you to decide whether this is an error on the part of Fox news, or a message. Jim Goding

Next Earlier still exisiting:

I promised I would examine the Second Amendment and its language and its meaning. And a few other things.

First, the Second Amendment itself, as approved and adopted by the original thirteen colonies before they would accept the Constitution, and the legislatures and people of every state of the Union before its acceptance into the United States of America:

"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. "

I am not going to be a lawyer and examine any of the decisions made in courts, by fallible human judges, about this amendment since then. I am going to look at the amendment itself.

Let's start with the first phrase, "a well-regulated militia."

At the time of the American Revolution, a militia had several purposes. Among them were dealing with:
attacks by hostile Indian tribes
attacks by foreign powers (remember the French and Indian War)
attacks by bandits and highwaymen
dealing with other criminals,
as there were few actual police or other law enforcement
officers
dealing with encursions by the King's troops
who were by "executive order" from the King and his
delegated commanding officers, committing atrocities
upon our people
Revolution against the King,
who had abused his powers under the laws of England

Note that the militia had no function for hunting. The militia had the function of protecting the people directly against hostile outside forces, criminals, and dealing with a corrupt and tyrannical government, who came in and took what they wanted and punished who they wanted, without recourse to the law.

(See the third amendment: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. ")

Very similar to what we have today. At least in my opinion.
Except today, they at least take the trouble to cloak it in camouflage of the law and spin-doctor trash. Because they know that there are a few journalists and a few broadcast stations and the internet out there to make it public when thy go bad. This was not the case during the American Revolution, when this Amendment to the Constitution was originally adopted as a condition of adopting the Constitution itself.
The right to keep and bear arms had nothing to do with hunting. More about this later.
Enough about the militia, for the moment. Next phrase:

"being necessary to the security of a free state"

The security of a free state depends upon the ability of its people to defend themselves when the government goes bad. In the United States, this definitely includes when the elected officials violate their oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution.
Or when the people, in their infinite wisdom, have elected someone to highest office based on promises and purchased votes, despite questionable eligibility of citizenship, motives, and political alignment.
I can forgive most of the people who voted for the current president for that, because of their ignorance. Despite the fact I am not a Christian, I can forgive them: no one can act rationally based on lack of understood information and purposefully injected false information. The people who voted for Obama were ignorant of the Constitution, ignorant of the Bill of Rights, ignorant of the true motives because of lack of analyses on their own, and they accepted broadcast information as fact which may not have been true.

What I cannot forgive is that no one who had the power to do so forced the questions before the elections. I have to feel, despite the fact I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, that there were things that other people were hiding that forced them, otherwise, to accept this person's eligibility for office.

Back to the "security of a free state." That was not a side trail. It was part of the tracking involved.

In the current environment, private citizens simply do not have the power or the finances to arm themselves to oppose a tyrannical government, which the current one promises to become. It is already "infringing" upon the rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms. It is promising "security" as an exchange for these rights.
Unfortunately, "security" is not a promise it can keep.

With the policies of the current administration, the only arms left in the hands of the American public will be in the hands of criminals and terrorists. Criminals and terrorists can ALWAYS obtain guns and other weapons, of whatever kind they want. They have finances and untraceable contacts for obtaining weapons which are not available to the normal, law-abiding citizen.

Which means, under the current regime (a term unfortunately unfamiliar to Americans) creating a new class of criminals: anyone who wishes to defend his home, his property, his or her children, from attack by criminals or the government.
With the policies of the current administration, it will be next to impossible for a law-abiding citizen of the United States of America to obtain firearms for self-defense, or to defend herself or himself from the United States government or other criminal activity. See the text above: the Second Amendment, and my comments upon it.

Currently, the Obama administration is targeting "assault weapons," despite questionable motives and questionable "facts." For instance, no automatic weapons or "assault weapons" were actually used by the current criminals or nutcases so targeted by the tame press.
Yet these are the CURRENT targets of the administration. ((THERE ARE VERY QUESTIONABLE "facts" here. Look it up on the internet, try youtube.com; that is not my job; I have already looked, and this is NOT a research paper. LOOK FOR YOURSELF!))

Unfortunately those people's lawyers will sidestep the questions involved. That is their job.
There are other questionable "facts" as well, but that is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is to question the right of the Federal government to regulate (infringe) the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Next point: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

This is the point that has traditionally been contested by governments and liberal political parties. They have contested it in a myriad of ways.
They have been opposed in another myriad of ways, unfortunately, most of them incompetent. For instance, the NRA attempted to uphold the Second Amendment on the basis that colonists needed guns to hunt for their families.

Sorry for the language, but BULLSHIT. At this point I canceled my NRA membership, because they were obviously political incompetents. My mother had signed up and paid for lifetime, but she could not obtain a refund. My dad was already dead, but I am sure he was spinning in his grave, or more likely causing earthquakes where his ashes were scattered in the high Rockies.

This Amendment to the Constitution was written and accepted by the colonies because they FEARED THE POWER OF A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. Note the language of the ninth and tenth Amendments:

IX. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

X. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

More on this later, just THINK about it. That is enough of a discourse for tonight.
Right now, since I am still a working stiff, I have to sleep, so I can make a living.
ML Jim Goding


Next earlier existing (The second part of the last one, being written on a different day, only showed up for a few minutes. After that it was gone.):  

There are no further comments on the second amendment or the Bill of Rights still surviving on Facebook. Several of the comments I made have been deleted, and some of the ones above have been edited, not by me. My next post will be trying to restore what I wrote. Hopefuilly my new sites, and the ones I have come back to, will not have been deleted from the net while I sleep.

Jim

Jim Goding

Caesars Entertainment Corp. paid out $7.75 million in bonuses to key executives for their efforts in slicing more than $100 million in company costs. The largest payment was $1 million to Caesars Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Gary Loveman. See the story at http://www.lvrj.com/business/caesars-entertainment-pays-7-75-million-in-executive-bonuses-126410763.html

The $100 million in saving came at a cost of hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs lost and people out of work in the state of Nevada and elsewhere in the corporate giant's multi-state and international empire. Many of the jobs eliminated in Nevada and the United States were farmed out to other countries, including Pakistan, India and China, improving the balance sheet because payroll costs are so much less than in the United States.

The corporation, by hiring Pakistanis, Chinese and Indians, out of the country, do not have to pay for health insurance and other benefits, and only pay what would be considered substandard wages---often far below minimum wage in this country.

So while the Caesar's balance sheet has been improved, America and specifically the skilled people formerly employed in the gaming industry have taken the brunt of the blow. Nevada's highest-in-the-country unemployment rates tell the story.

And who is to say that the personnel involved are up to the standards, both in skills and in other ways, that AMERICANs would be. Many of the jobs farmed out to India and China were positions requiring gaming licenses if held in this country, especially in Nevada and New Jersey. Are these non-AMERICANs being held to the same standards? Nevada and New Jersey GCB, please take notice.

I have a solution, not just for the gaming industry. We should be putting AMERICANS to work, and one way to do that is to make it far less desirable to farm our own people's jobs out to other countries.

How about a state tax in Nevada and New Jersey on any gaming-industry job that gets farmed out to another country, including any position contracted by a gaming corporation? Tax the company an amount equal to the payroll and benefits for the same job if it were done by an AMERICAN, and use that money to benefit the AMERICANs thrown out of work by short-term corporate greed and the need to fund high executive bonuses.

And of course, this does not have to be restricted to the gaming industry. How about doing it for other manufacturing and service jobs, such as in the computer industry, which at one time was the fastest growing industry in this country? No longer: the work is now being done in China and India and Mexico, though the bulk of sales is still in the United States.

It is time for America to begin taking care of its own, and the way to do that is to keep AMERICANs in work, not farm our jobs out to others.]

Please look at the following reply to my blog, received in private email:

Proposition:

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits.

12 years only, one of the possible options below..

A. Two Six-year Senate terms

B. Six Two-year House terms

C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

Today's post concerns politics in general in this country, as it continues to evolve from what our founders intended.

As you may have guessed, if you read my other blogs, and my business site at casinosurveillancenews.com, I am at heart a true conservative---perhaps more conservative than the ones who label themselves such.

I am NOT "reasonable" about a number of things. That doesn't mean I "won't listen to reason." It means I simply do not accept that "business as usual" and "that's just the way they do things in Washington" are acceptable excuses to running the United States of America into bankruptcy, simply to ensure that the current politicians remain in office.

Today's blog concerns a potential solution to today's political troubles. For many years I have avoided, at all costs, any type of involvement in politics---local, state, or national.

However, from my perspective of a person who avoids politics, I have watched the country rapidly approaching the brink of disaster. We have elected a President and kept a Congress in office who seem to be intent on destroying the Untied States of America as we know it.

King Obama was elected on a platform of "CHANGE." He did not specify the changes needed, but a few things he said involved stopping "business as usual" in Washington. Yet his moves, over the last two years, involve nothing more than "business as usual"---- implementing changes without consulting Congress, ramming bills through Congress using the political machinery of his party, trading votes, hiding measures within bills that would be politically disastrous for opponents to vote down---in other words, doing business in Washington DC in exactly the same way it has been done for generations: "You scratch my back, and I won't tell anyone what I know about you."

King Obama's policies are on the verge of bankrupting the country---and its people, except for those too rich to feel the pain of increased taxes on a personal level. We are extending government benefits to an incredible variety of non-producers, and the cost is to be born not by those who can afford it, but by those, like you and me in the middle class, who have always funded government operations.

Currently I am making more money, on a gross-income level, than both of my parents put together ever made in their lives. I don't have expensive habits.

(I have no medical expenses to speak of myself, though my wife has a few. My stereo is an antique, bought at discount at a time when I had disposable income. My TV was free, and until I moved away from Las Vegas to an apartment near Philadelphia, I didn't have cable. Now my cable is included in my internet access costs, without which my business can't survive. I can't afford to go fishing, and had to put my other so-called hobbies---every one of which used to produce more than enough to pay for themselves---on hold, because they can no longer produce enough income to support them, because no-one has the money to buy.)

Yet next year's taxes, with both increases in tax and new inclusions in taxable income, may very well bankrupt me, and will certainly make it impossible for me to be as productive in my business and personal life as I have been over the past two decades. And yet my level of personal and business debt is very low by comparison to the reported "norm," or average, in income level comparable to mine. I truly feel sorry for people who are trying to raise children in today's economy.

Well, Your Majesty, King Obama, you wanted CHANGE, and the people who elected you wanted CHANGE.

How is this for CHANGE, and a cessation of BUSINESS AS USUAL in Washington?

The only way to create real CHANGE in Washington is for a one-time only complete changeover of the political incumbents in Washington.

(The British do this every time they have an election. However, I prefer our own system, which gives us an opportunity every two years to get rid of deadbeats, ineffectives, and those who are not responding to their constituents.)

Let's just do it. In the next election, and the one after that,

VOTE OUT EVERY SINGLE INCUMBENT who is up for election. Do it in the primaries, if you are registered to a party.

In the 2012 election, vote in an amendment prohibiting a person from holding office for more than two succeeding terms. If his or her constituents want him or her back after a four-or-six year layoff, well and good. But no more than two succeeding terms in office. Let the politicians feel what it's like to get laid off.

Do a background check, and publish the results, on every single candidate for office. Force them to publish the entire results of a background check, paid for at the expense of their opponents, on their own website. Require that it be distributed in print to every person in their district.

Listen, I had to produce documentation to prove my identity, the fact I was the person I was claiming to be, that I was born in the United States at the place and time I listed----just to GET A JOB n the gaming industry in Pennsylvania. I am talking about a government-certified birth certificate or other documentation that required that.

Please watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded

If this link doesn't work, then you must realize that the video was removed from the internet by order of the President or his lackeys. I have tested it, and it works at the time this is posted.

But King Obama has not produced documentation even to prove he is a natural-born citizen, as required by the Constitution. Since he took office, he has even appointed a Supreme Court Justice who was willing to dismiss the lawsuit requiring evidence that he meet the requirements for office as set out in the Constitution. Do you see a discrepancy here?

A Representative should have to be out of office for at least two years before running for the Senate. A Senator or Representative should have to be replaced by his electorate, or end his two terms in office, BEFORE running for president. (Just think about the two years we pay these people for handling the business of the country when in fact they are spending the majority of their time and attention out on the campaign trail, trying to ensure they get re-elected.)

Keep the ten-year cap on a President's term in office. But add, in the off-year elections (such as 2010, 2014, 2018) a necessity for the President to be confirmed in office. This would not end the term if he or she did not pass, but simply make it impossible to run for re-election in the regular Presidential race if the electorate is not happy after the first two years. Prohibit ANY money being spent on campaign messages regarding this particular vote.

This could save us from the generally lazy nature of the electorate: note how often incumbents get re-elected, both in Congress and the Presidency, simply because they have to choose between an evil they know and an evil they don't know. Simply word the question on the off-year ballot something like "Are you satisfied with the performance of the President since his inauguration?" A simple majority vote of NO would disqualify the President from running for re-election.

A general cleanup would also be necessary: get rid of some of the benefits that politicians currently have. Do you realize that, once a person serves a single term in office in the House or Senate, they have free medical care for the rest of their lives? It doesn't matter if they get voted out after a single term as ineffective or destructive or simply unresponsive to their constituents: they still have this benefit, as well as many others.

Restrict the people who get elected into office to the same retirement benefits as their constituents. That means that Representatives and Senators and Presidents and judges on federal benches go on Social Security and Medicare when they retire, just like the rest of us who qualify (having spent our working careers paying into the system), with NO ADDED BENEFITS of any kind. (Note: they should be restricted to the benefits they have paid for, just like the rest of the working public. No benefits above the level they have paid for.)

These people should realize that when they vote in bills that will bankrupt the system, it will have an effect on them, and on their families, just like the rest of us.

Perhaps this will stop adding people to the OUTFLOW who have never contributed to the funds to begin with. The public welfare benefits are supposed to be for those who are unable, for physical or mental disability reasons, to provide for themselves. I don't mind welfare for those who are truly unable to provide---such as the physically disabled, those who are unable after service to this country to provide for themselves, or those born unable.

However, I truly object to providing, from my hard-earned income, for those who are simply too lazy to work, or who flock over the borders of this country simply because they can tap into MY INCOME.

I worked hard for my experience, worked hard to train myself, and don't feel I should provide an income that can be, in fact, better than mine, for those who have never worked or contributed to the funds they are tapping, simply so that they can vote some corn-and-circuses politician into office.

(For understanding of the term, look into the history of the republic of Rome, just before it became an Empire, with an Emperor. And yes, there IS a reason I call the current President "king obama." As a student of history, I see a lot of parallels between these decades at the beginning of the twenty-first century and the end of the republic of Rome, the beginning of the Roman Empire, which ended in fire and blood and a Dark Ages that lasted for a thousand years.)

Let this be a beginning. I am not able, due to the need to provide for my family, to put much time into this. There are professionals in the game of politics who could refine these ideas into workable forms, acceptable by the electorate. I DON"T CARE IF THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE BY THE POLITICIANS, AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU. The politicians are supposed to be serving us, and looking out for OUR INTERESTS, not their own.

If a two-term limit is unacceptable by the politicians, fire them. That is the purpose of the ballot.

You have the power. Use it.

Jim Goding

I am, myself, a very religious person. I am also an American.

One of the most valuable things about America is that a person is free to practice any religion he chooses, whether it is an organized religion or personal beliefs between an individual and his Creator--or any other way he or she wishes to express it--so long as it is not harmful to others.

One of the founding principles of this country is that the State does not control religion. Neither does religion control the state.

With a bit of experience (several years of experience with several different organized religions), I can say that I do not care to participate in any organized religion, because from my point of view, all of them are simply political organizations attempting to impose their views on everyone else.

However, I would like you to look at the following two blogs. We have elected a President who is perhaps a bit too "understanding" of a religion whose precepts include that non-believers can be slaughtered (as happened throughout southern Europe and the Middle East during the period from 1200 AD until about 1500 AD, and again several times throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries).

Perhaps ONE OF the most valuable things about the United States is that a person in this country is free to practice his own religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, this means that it is possible for a particular religion, when too well established, could take over the entire country and, by following its own precepts, forbid the practice of any other religion. That is what is happening now.

I am willing for anyone to be able to practice their own religious beliefs, except in one circumstance: when those religious beliefs involve COMPELLING others to adopt that religion on pain of death, or promoting that religion through killing other people, or otherwise forcing others into religious beliefs other than their own.

Please see the following two entries: one is a speech from a respected person in the Netherlands. The other is excerpts from speeches from our current President.

I admit, right here, that I have only seen these excerpts, not the full speeches. However, I believe that this number of points brought by our current President are indicative of a religious bias that is far beyond anything he should be saying or promoting, as the President of a country that guarantees freedom of religious belief and practice as a part of its Constitution.

Some of what he says is very true, but it has little to do, in fact, with the RELIGION of Islam. The CULTURE preserved learning during the Dark Ages in Europe: the people who developed many of these ideas were persecuted in Islam in exactly the same way that learned men were persecuted by the Catholic Church.

Please remember, some of the tenets of certain sects of Islam include the right of Muslims to compel others to adopt the beliefs on pain of death.

Please view the following two blogs.

Thank you for your attention. Jim

This was forwarded to me from one of my valued elders.

Please take the time to read this and understand what is written here.



America as the Last Man Standing

Frightening.... a must read, for we are a certain part of this danger.

America as the Last Man Standing

[]
Geert Wilders is a Dutch Member of Parliament

Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing.

You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear, 'whore, whore.' Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything.

So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.

Please take the time to read and understand what is written here. Please send it to every free person that you know, it is so very important.

All of the above is true, not an internet rumor: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wilders.asp
Geert Wilders is a Dutch Member of Parliament

If you have any doubts about the purpose for which His Majesty King Obama got elected to the Presidency and office of Commander in Chief of the US military, please watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28