While you weren't looking, Obama moves forward on guns

EXAMINER.COM 4 Hours Ago
While you weren't looking, Obama moves forward on guns
by Anthony Martin

During the 1990s former President Bill Clinton developed the practice of creating multiple distractions while engaging in other activity behind the scenes, under the table, or in this case, in a White House closet. Known as "wagging the dog," Clinton used the practice to cover his Oval Office affair with Monica Lewinsky, plus a number of other more important issues that he considered to be unpalatable to the public.

Obama is not only masterful at the use of the distraction tactic, but he has taken it to a new level of perfection, utilizing the Alinksy philosophy of bombarding the public with so much jaw-dropping news at once so as to insure they are not paying attention to the real tyranny going on behind the scenes.

While the American electorate was distracted and therefore not looking, Obama has been busy moving forward on his anti-gun agenda in various ways.

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is nearing completion, and Obama directed his new Secretary of State, Hanoi Jane crony John Kerry, who is also known among conservative politicos as "Lurch" due to his resemblance of the character on the old Adams Family TV series, to help shape the treaty and then give it full U.S. approval.

The treaty will regulate guns in the United States. It mandates a national registry of guns and gun owners, among other clear violations of the U.S. Constitution. Although the treaty will have a very difficult time gaining the approval of the U.S. Senate, the very fact that the administration is in favor of it speaks volumes and indicates the inherent, persistent danger this administration poses for individual liberty.

Further, Obama has initiated a multimillion dollar ad campaign to "promote gun safety," which is merely a euphemism for his plan for gun control and gun bans. It is no accident that the gun ban bill on which the Senate will vote is called the gun safety act. This misnomer is designed to fool the intellectually challenged and "low information voter" into ignoring the fact that the bill bans over 150 different types of firearms, including handguns. It also limits the number of bullets a citizen can place in the magazine.

Although the bill is sure to fail in the Senate, Obama hopes that his ad campaign will be an effective long term strategy for shifting popular opinion to favor more gun control.

Obama will also spend multimillions on a new federal "study" on the causes of "gun violence," which gun rights activists say is nothing more than a scheme to bolster his gun control and gun ban initiatives with the gravitas of a "scientific study" that is sure to be heavily biased in favor of the administration and gun control proponents.

But the most disturbing, perhaps, of all of Obama's covert operations is the use of executive authority to beef up the nation's background check system in order to find out more information about gun owners and their firearms, and to prevent the "mentally ill" from getting guns.

The Hill, capitol hill's newspaper of record, made a shocking statement in the text of its news report on this issue that claims Obama has the authority to "change gun laws" by executive action. But nowhere in the Constitution or in 200 years of court precedent is a president empowered to make or change law. That responsibility lies exclusively with the legislative branch, the Congress. The fact that The Hill would insert such an outrageously erroneous assertion in a news story is only more prove that Obama has the mainstream media in his hip pocket.

And what, exactly, do patriots, conservatives, libertarians, and gun rights activists think about this push to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms?

Bob Wright stated it best in an email he sent to Mike Vanderboegh:

Any man who seeks to deny essential liberty to another without cause is an evil son of a b**ch {redacted}. He cannot be a “Good Man”. It is irrelevant if his family likes him or if he is kind to animals, sends his mother in-law flowers or makes the trains run on time. It is irrelevant if you served with him or if he has done brave things in the past. No amount of desire to “protect” or to “secure” or “prevent” will improve him. Declarations of his desire to apply “common sense” and be “reasonable” cannot redeem him. His desire to deny essential liberty to one, based on the actions of others, reveals the monster that abides in the soul of that man. If he seeks this, stating that the loss of liberty is necessary for the health of the society, he is the philosophical twin of every tyrant and mass murdering butcher in history. If American society is to survive, the decent, honest citizens must band together to drive these evil people from our society. They must suppress their innate "live and let live" philosophy and face the unpleasant fact that the man who seeks to deny an individual or a society those essential liberties is a potential killer whose bloody solutions will be incrementally revealed as he gains power. -- Bob Wright, email to Mike Vanderboegh, 28 March 2013

In short, anyone who actively seeks to deny individual liberties to another without due process of law cannot be considered "a good man." Such a person is held firmly in the grip of pure evil.

NOTICE. You may enjoy my blog and its ongoing series, "Musings After Midnight." The following are a few examples:

My latest blog entry in the series, Musings After Midnight, is now available at The Liberty Sphere. It's titled, "I get a vote, you get a vote, all God's children get a vote! That's right, Mr. President, and that includes gun rights activists!"

You may also like "'I Shall Not Be Moved:' the bold declaration of patriots who have no intention of obeying unconstitutional laws."

Also check out: "I'll see you in the war -- Civil War II: Notes on the coming calamity to restore the Constitution."

Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries.