Obamacare Is A Government Coup

The FRAUD OBAMACARE IS TREASON

Obamacare (3.18.2010)

THE FRAUD

New Health Bill: Even More Tax Increases

More Than $560 Billion In Taxes On Medicare Patients, Private Health Insurance Plans, Medical Device Manufacturers, Small Businesses, And Much More…


SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “Yes, We’ve Had To Raise Some Taxes And Fees To Pay For This Bill.” (CSPAN’s Washington Journal, 12/22/09)


MORE THAN $200 BILLION IN TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS AND SMALL BUSINESSES
“Medicare Hospital Insurance Tax … 210.2 [Billion Dollars].” JCT: “Broaden Medicare Hospital Insurance Tax Base for High-Income Taxpayers – additional surtax of 0.9% on earned income in excess of $200,000/$250,000 (unindexed) [1], and 3.8% surtax on investment income for taxpayers with AGI in excess of $200,000/$250,000 (unindexed)… 2010-2019… 210.2 [Billion Dollars].” (“Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 4872, The “Reconciliation Act Of 2010,” In Combination With The Revenue Effects Of H.R. 3590, The “Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act (‘PPACA’),” As Passed By The Senate,” Joint Committee On Taxation, P.2, 3/18/10)

MORE THAN $50 BILLION IN TAXES ON EMPLOYERS
“Penalty Payments By Employers… 2010-2019… -52 [Billion Dollars].” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10, P.8)

MORE THAN $30 BILLION IN TAXES ON PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS
Tax On Private Health Insurance Plans: “32.0 [Billion Dollars].” JCT: “I. Revenue Provisions 1. 40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500 (subject to adjustment for unexpected increase in medical costs prior to effective date) and increased thresholds of $1,650/$3,450 for over age 55 retirees or certain high-risk professions, both indexed for inflation by CPI-U plus 1%; adjustment based on age and gender profile of employees; vision and dental excluded from excise tax; levied at insurer level; employer aggregates and issues information return for insurers indicating amount subject to the excise tax; nondeductible… 2010-2019… 32.0 [Billion Dollars].” (“Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 4872, The “Reconciliation Act Of 2010,” In Combination With The Revenue Effects Of H.R. 3590, The “Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act (‘PPACA’),” As Passed By The Senate,” Joint Committee On Taxation, P.1, 3/18/10)

NEARLY $20 BILLION IN TAXES ON UNINSURED AMERICANS
“Penalty Payments By Uninsured Individuals… 2010-2019… -17 [Billion Dollars].” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10, P.8)

$20 BILLION IN TAXES ON MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURERS
“Excise Tax On Manufacturers And Importers Of Certain Medical Devices… 20.0 [Billion Dollars].” JCT: “Impose 2.9% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices… 2010-2019… 20.0 [Billion Dollars].” (“Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 4872, The “Reconciliation Act Of 2010,” In Combination With The Revenue Effects Of H.R. 3590, The “Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act (‘PPACA’),” As Passed By The Senate,” Joint Committee On Taxation, P.2, 3/18/10)

AND MORE…

New Health Bill: Even More Medicare Cuts

More Than $520 Billion Cut From Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Hospice, Home Health Programs, Medicare Advantage, And Much More…

MORE THAN $150 BILLION IN CUTS TO HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES, AND HOSPICE
“Ensuring Medicare Sustainability… -156.6 [Billion Dollars].” “TITLE III—Improving The Quality And Efficiency Of Health Care; Subtitle E—Ensuring Medicare Sustainability; 3401 Revision Of Certain Market Basket Updates And Incorporation Of Services Productivity Improvements Into Market Basket Updates That Do Not Already Incorporate Such Improvements (Effect Of Productivity Adjustment For Home Health Included In Estimate For Section 3131)… 2010-2019… -156.6 [Billion Dollars].” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10, P.14)

MORE THAN $200 BILLION IN CUTS TO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE
“Medicare Advantage Payments… -131.9 [Billion Dollars].” “TITLE III—Improving The Quality And Efficiency Of Health Care; Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Part C; Medicare Advantage Payments… 2010-2019… -131.9 [Billion Dollars].” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Pelosi, 3/18/10, P. 13)

“Medicare Advantage Interactions… -70.4 [Billion Dollars].” “Interactions; Medicare Advantage Interactions… 2010-2019… -70.4 [Billion Dollars].” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Pelosi, 3/18/10, P. 18)

NEARLY $40 BILLION IN CUTS TO HOME HEALTH CARE
“Home Health Care… -39.7 [Billion Dollars].” “TITLE III—Improving The Quality And Efficiency Of Health Care; Subtitle B—Improving Medicare For Patients And Providers; Part III – Improving Payment Accuracy; 3131 Payment Adjustments For Home Health Care (Includes Effect Of Section 3401)… 2010-2019… -39.7 [Billion Dollars].” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10, P.13)

MORE THAN $20 BILLION IN REDUCED “MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO HOSPITALS THAT SERVE A LARGE NUMBER OF LOW-INCOME PATIENTS”
“Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments… -22.1 [Billion Dollars].” “TITLE III—Improving The Quality And Efficiency Of Health Care; Subtitle B—Improving Medicare For Patients And Providers; Part III—Improving Payment Accuracy; 3133 Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments… 2010-2019… -22.1 [Billion Dollars].” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10, P.13)

• “Reducing Medicaid and Medicare payments to hospitals that serve a large number of low-income patients, known as disproportionate share (DSH) hospitals…” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Harry Reid, 11/18/09, P. 10)

New Health Bill: Old Deals Out, New Deals In

DAVID AXELROD: “The President Does Believe That State-Only Carve-Outs Should Not Be In The Bill.” (“White House Seems to Have New Policy On ‘Special Deals’ in Health Care Reform Bill,” ABC News, 3/15/10)

BISMARCK BANK JOB

“The Health Care Budget Reconciliation Bill Appears To Have A Special Carve-Out For One Of Its Most Ardent Critics — Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). Though The Measure Would Broadly Eliminate Government Subsidies To Banks That Offer Student Loans, The Bank Of North Dakota Will Continue To Receive Federal Assistance For Its Student Loan Program.” (“Conrad Appears To Get Special Carve-Out In Reconciliation Bill,” Roll Call, 3/18/10)

ROCKY TOP VOTE SWAP

Full Medicaid Disproportionate Share Payment (DSH) For Tennessee. “EXTENSION OF DSH ALLOTMENT.—Section 1923(f)(6)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(f)(6)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(v) ALLOTMENT FOR 2D, 3RD, AND 4TH QUARTERS OF FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013.—Notwithstanding the table set forth in paragraph (2): ‘‘(I) 2D, 3RD, AND 4TH QUARTERS OF FISCAL YEAR 2012.—In the case of a State that has a DSH allotment of $0 for the 2d, 3rd, and 4th quarters of fiscal year 2012, the DSH allotment shall be $47,200,000 for such quarters. ‘‘(II) FISCAL YEAR 2013.—In the case of a State that has a DSH allotment of $0 for fiscal year 2013, the DSH allotment shall be $53,100,000 for such fiscal year.’’” (“Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 4872,” 3/18/2010, P. 67)

LOUISIANA PURCHASE
“Obama’s New Health Care Proposal Keeps Louisiana Medicaid Provision.” (“Obama’s New Health Care Proposal Keeps Louisiana Medicaid Provision,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, 2/22/10)

“Obama’s Plan Is Silent On Two Other High-Profile Legislative Deals In The Senate Bill. The First Provision Sends $300 Million In Additional Medicaid Funding To Louisiana And Was Widely Viewed As A Sweetener To Win Moderate Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s Vote Last Fall.” (“Deals Remain In Obama’s Plan,” Politico, 2/22/10)

“…There Are Controversial Special Provisions Of The Senate Health Reform Bill That President Obama Leaves Untouched. First Up, The ‘Louisiana Purchase.’ … [Sen. Mary] Landrieu Said In A Speech On The Senate Floor Feb. 4th That Critics Should ‘Shut Their Mouth.’” (“White House Cuts Special Help For Nebraska, But Other Deals Remain In Reform Bill,” ABC News, 2/22/10)

• “And Reid Already Has Established A Dangerous Precedent, By Dangling $300 Million In Medicaid Funding For Louisiana To Win Landrieu’s Support For Bringing The Bill To The Senate Floor. Months Earlier, Reid Had Carved Out His Own Medicaid Exemption For Nevada. One addition he made to the Senate bill, an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for high earners, has raised concerns with Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine). Snowe, the only Republican who has been at least somewhat supportive of Democratic reform efforts, cited its potential to harm small businesses.” (“Reid’s Recipe For Getting Health-Care Deal Done,” The Washington Post, 12/4/09)

U-CON
“There Is Also Not Specific Mention In The President’s List Of Fix-It, Of A Special Proposal Aimed At A Connecticut Research Hospital, But Open To Other Hospitals… So Those Provisions Apparently Still Remain.” (“White House Cuts Special Help For Nebraska, But Other Deals Remain In Reform Bill,” ABC News, 2/22/10)

• $100,000,000 For “Health Care Facility” “At A Public Research University In The United States That Contains A State’s Sole Public Academic Medical And Dental School.” “(a) APPROPRIATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2011, to be used for debt service on, or direct construction or renovation of, a health care facility that provides research, inpatient tertiary care, or outpatient clinical services. Such facility shall be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States that contains a State’s sole public academic medical and dental school.” (Manager’s Amendment To H.R. 3590, Pg. 328)

MONTANA
“The Secretary Shall Establish A Pilot Program In Accordance With This Subsection To Provide Innovative Approaches To Furnishing Comprehensive, Coordinated, And Cost-Effective Care Under This Title To Individuals Described In Paragraph … [An Individual] Is An Environmental Exposure Affected Individual Described In Subsection (E)(2) Who Resides In Or Around The Geographic Area Subject To An Emergency Declaration Made As Of June 17, 2009.” ‘‘(A) PRIMARY PILOT PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a pilot program in accordance with this subsection to provide innovative approaches to furnishing comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective care under this title to individuals described in paragraph (2)(A). … ‘‘(2) INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED.—For purposes of paragraph (1), an individual described in this paragraph is an individual who enrolls in part B, submits to the Secretary an application to participate in the applicable pilot program under this subsection, and— ‘‘(A) is an environmental exposure affected individual described in subsection (e)(2) who resides in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.” (Manager’s Amendment To H.R. 3590, Pg. 195-196)

• “On June 17, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Issued A Public Health Emergency (PHE) Finding At The Libby Asbestos Superfund Site In Northwest Montana. Over The Past Several Years, Hundreds Of Cases Of Asbestos-Related Disease Have Been Documented In The Communities Of Libby And Nearby Troy.” (EPA Website, Accessed 12/19/09)
“Another Provision The President Has Asked Reid To Consider Removing Was Promoted By Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) On Behalf Of Residents Of Libby, Mont.” (“Obama Presses Reid To Cut Special Deals From Health Bill,” Politico, 3/11/10)

VN:F [1.8.4_1055]



The district of criminals has presented this document. It is a warrant for your arrest. The US government has decided through congress, the grand jury, to indict all Americans and pronounce the sentence of SLAVERY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT via obamacare.

If this so called health bill is signed into an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law by the fraud obama it should not be thought of as a valid US law.

It should be ignored by the American public and every possible effort made to stop it from being implemented in any way.

Also obama and anyone who voted for this unconstitutional law should be put on trial for TREASON and sentenced as a traitor.

This is not law but a government takeover or coup.

We as Americans must now fight for our freedoms or loose them all.

May GOD help us all.

The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule.

"obamacare" violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office. Obama and anyone else who has voted for obamacare are TRAITORS!


Jeffrey T. Kuhner

The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.

Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.

This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.

Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.

The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.

OTHER TWT STORIES:
• Democrats make final reform push
• Health-vote ally Nelson to get a new hospital for Nebraska
• Obama backs plan to legalize illegals
• Poll finds stubborn suspicion of census


Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.

Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.

Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.

Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.

Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.

The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.

It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.

It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from noon until 3 p.m.

The States Can Stop Obama

I believe in the near future the federal government under the authority of the FRAUD obama will execute federal incursions that are unconstitutional. Obama and congress as of today Mar 19, 2010 are trying to ram obamacare through the congress and ignoring the procedures set forth in the US Constitution. If obamacare is signed into "law" by the FRAUD obama many states have allready declared they will sue the federal government because it violates the US Constitution.

Tyranny will be enforecd by US Marshalls and their deputies. Americans need to be aware when the feds act outside their proscribed constitutional authority, it is the State’s job to disallow such behavior, even when the Feds grant themselves authority outside their Constitutional limits, such as a U.S. Marshall performing with power of a county Sheriff.

In Mack v US, Scalia states: “The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected by incursion by the other.” So who protects the citizen from federal incursions? State and local officials!

In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that "States are not subject to federal direction."

The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing "supreme" is the constitution itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities.

Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that "Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other."

So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare "incursion."


To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The point to remember here is; where do we define the "sphere" of the federal government? That's right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People.

So where does health care belong?

The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress.

It is NOT their responsiblity and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.

The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions." (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell national healthcare proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!

(In other words Mr President you can go to hell!) Story Reports

It is rather obvious that nationalized healthcare definitely qualifies as a "federal regulatory program."

Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are misdirected. Such actions are "pie in the sky" dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways.

However, in our system of "dual sovereignty," the States can do it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate.

Doing so is what States' Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.

The states Can Stop Obama

The President Of The United States Nor Any Govenment Agency CAN TELL A COUNTY SHERIFF WHAT TO DO!

“Sheriffs have the authority, the power, and the duty to be the ultimate check and balance for the American citizenry in your county and to defend them against all local and federal criminals.”

(Also remember your last line of defense is yourself. Own a weapon. Your local sheriff can't be sued if they arrive to late to help you.)

The feds only have three law enforcement responsibilities granted to them by art.1 section 8 of the Constitution.

REMEMBER

Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are misdirected. Such actions are "pie in the sky" dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways.However, in our system of "dual sovereignty," the States can do it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate.

Find out what your state is doing to protect you from obama.

Find out what your local representatvie thinks about states rights.

Find out if officals in your state will stop the FRAUD obama before its to late.

The republications can force an up or down vote. 20% is all that is required to make the house require an up or down vote

CALL CONGRESS NOW!

YOUR FREEDOM IS AT STAKE!

STOP OBAMCARE NOW!

CALL 877-762-8762
CALL 202-224-3121
CALL 202-225-3121

CODE RED NRCC's List of Targeted Congressmen


FOCUS Wilson (D-OH)

CAO (R-LA)

Altmire (D-PA)


Dial: 877-762-8762 or 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121

Article 1 section 5 overrules what Congress is trying to do to force obamacare through.

The republications can force an up or down vote. 20% is all that is required to make the house require an up or down vote. All it takes is 1/5 of the house.

Tell your republican congress man to enforce the Constitution!

Obama's first draft of his revised gettysburg address 2013

There are actually five (or more) versions of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

There are 10 (or more) versions of Obama's revised gettysburg address.

This is the first draft of obama's revised gettysburg address in 2013.

Two score and 1 year ago our brothers brought forth in chicago, the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals, conceived in deception, and dedicated to the proposition that all brothers are not equal.

Now we must continue to engage in a great reparations war, deceiving the nation, that was illegitimately conceived an so dedicated to the destruction of the black man.

We have come here to disgrace a portion of that field, as the final resting place for those that gave their lives that a nation might die. Because we are communists, it is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this but because the "jig would be up", we cannot truly reveal our communist agenda and disgrace this hallow ground.

The deceived men, living and dead, who struggled for freedom, have died in vain.

A military tribunal would convey a summary judgement here if the public knew the real truth of my goals as president.

It is rather for us, and fellow traitors, to continue to be dedicated here to the unfinished work of destroying the last full measure of the Constitution- That we here highly resolve that these dead died in vain - that this community, under obama, shall continue a new birth of slavery and that government of the brothers, by the brothers, for the brothers, shall not perish from the hood.

.......................................................................................
.......................................................................................
.......................................................................................
There are actually five (or more) versions of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This is the version that appears on the Lincoln Monument in Washington, D. C. and contains the words "under God." This term appears to be the most notable difference among the five versions. According to popular accounts Lincoln spoke those words.

Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863. In his speech, he honored the soldiers that had died in the Battle of Gettysburg.

At the dedication of the National Cemetery in Gettysburg President Lincoln delivers a two-minute speech. Immediately following the speech he calls it a "flat failure." The speech is known today as the Gettysburg Address

The Gettysburg Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

.........................................................................................

By 2013 there may well be Civil War II going on in this country. God help us as we are already in a debt spiral even before this despotic "health care reform" bill. Obama will NOT be president in 2013. If he is still around he will be dictator.

A liar, crook, anti-American, anti-Christian, atni-military, biggoted, righteous, communist sheep in a wolf's costume! IMPEACH this imposter.

Obama disgraces this country, the Consitution and those who died fighting for our freedoms. I cannot think of a greater insult. He takes our rights away, plays dirty, hides in the darkness behind closed doors. He apologizes for America!

Why should "Obama" give a speech at Gettysburg? He's nobody. Barry Seotoro is not President, he's a squatter living in our White House. He is destroying the country, not mending it.

"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky

Obama's mentor

Obama is a complete and total liar about everything in his "healthcare bill"

In the United States of America, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is what protects the People from an oppressive and tryannical government. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, when a government becomes tyrannical, it is time for the People to alter or abolish it.

Those who will not uphold their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" should be voted out and replaced with responsible individuals who will protect the rights of Free People. Those in congress and obama who violated their oath of office should be removed from office for treason because of the unconstitutional "health care" bill that inslaves the population.

Obama is a complete and total liar about everything in his "healthcare bill". This alone is justification for removing him from office.


Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy.

Obama is an illegitimate president therefore he is a tyrannical president.

Obama Is A No Record Communist

If you describe a government or organization as tyrannical, you mean that it acts without considering the wishes of its people. Obama is also a tyrannical president because he ignores the fact a majority of Americans DO NOT want "national health care".

At this time there is only one reason obama has not declared himself dictator for life. Its the fact a majority of Americans own guns and know how to defend themselves.

Americans must be prepared to defend themselves against "domestic enemies" that would enslave them.
........................................................................................

Oath of office for Congress

The current oath was enacted in 1884:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Note: "I will 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".

Supporting and defending the US Constitution means obeying the Constitution. Allegiance to the US Constitution is a true and faithful obedience of the US Constitution.

Congress under the direction of obama have violated and ignored their oath of office to support and defend the US Constituion.

Obama and members of Congress who choose to force "national health care" on the people of the US should be removed from office for TREASON.

We the people should ignore and not obey the unconstitutional law of "national health care".

Americans should rebel against this unconstitutional law, the traitors in congress and obama, who have moved to pass not only and unconstituional law but have also used unconstituional rules to pass the "law" in the first place.
Story Reports

The US Constitution and the 10th Amendment prohibits government from making a law mandating we buy health insurance.

Universal Healthcare will impose an individual mandate on all working Americans. By doing this, they are sanctioning slavery on the American People.

On 09/09/09, President Obama addressed the Congress and the nation, stating that individuals would be required to purchase healthcare. Anyone who does not will be fined up to $1,900, thrown in prison, and fined an additional $25,000.

This is a perfect example of government tyranny, and is more properly termed, "fascism."

In any program designed to help others, there is always an option to withdraw or not participate.

In the case of healthcare, a tax is placed on the right to LIFE itself.

A person who cannot opt out is not free, He or she is nothing but a slave.

Socialist programs like Social Security, Medicare, and the Draft all result in slavery or involuntary servitude. The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery.

Excerpts included from:

Broadus For Congress Fighting For Freedom
Excellent commentary
.........................................................................................

The psychology of tyranny

Perhaps one of the things that most distinguishes those with a fascist mentality from most other persons is how they react in situations that engender feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. Both kinds of people will tend to seek to increase their power, that is, their control over the outcome of events, but those with a fascist mindset tend to overestimate the amount of influence over outcomes that it is possible to attain. This leads to behavior that often brings them to positions of leadership or authority, especially if most other persons in their society tend to underestimate the influence over outcomes they can attain, and are inclined to yield to those who project confidence in what they can do and promise more than anyone can deliver.

This process is aided by a common susceptibility which might be called the rooster syndrome, from the old saying, "They give credit to the rooster crowing for the rising of the sun." It arises from the tendency of people guided more by hope or fear than intelligence to overestimate the power of their leaders and attribute to them outcomes, either good or bad, to which the leaders contributed little if anything, and perhaps even acted to prevent or reduce. This comes from the inability of most persons to understand complex dynamic systems and their long-term behavior, which leads people to attribute effects to proximate preceding events instead of actual long-term causes.

The emergence of tyranny therefore begins with challenges to a group, develops into general feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, and falls into a pattern in which some individuals assume the role of "father" to the others, who willingly submit to becoming dependent "children" of such persons if only they are reassured that a more favorable outcome will be realized. This pattern of co-dependency is pathological, and generally results in decisionmaking of poor quality that makes the situation even worse, but, because the pattern is pathological, instead of abandoning it, the co-dependents repeat their inappropriate behavior to produce a vicious spiral that, if not interrupted, can lead to total breakdown of the group and the worst of the available outcomes.

(Obama has the fascist mindset and seeks to increase his power through various unconstitutional laws. Obama overstates and overestimates his ability to do anything. Obama promises more than he can deliver. In fact obama has delivered nothing and is an illegitimate president therefore he is a tyrannical president.) Story Reports

In psychiatry, this syndrome is often discussed as an "authoritarian personality disorder". In common parlance, as being a "control freak".

........................................................................................

President Obama is not worried -- and doesn't think Americans should worry -- about the "procedural" debate over whether House Democratic leaders should go ahead with a plan to approve health care reform without a traditional vote, he told Fox News on Wednesday.

(In other words he doesn't care how the "obamacare" bill is rammed through congress. He says Americans should not be concerned about how congress works. This is clear and plain evidence obama is a COMMUNIST. Obama wants America to just believe he knows what he is doing. Obama has a track record of TOTAL FAILURE and he believes Americans should just let him take over as dictator. Obama is telling you to not worry or be concerned about what the US government is doing via your elected officals. Only a traitor would says something like this. It is amazing to me. It would seem obama believes Ameicans are idiots.) Story Reports

Obama is a liar, a total fraud. Obama is an imposter who cannot prove he is a US citizen. America has elected a tyrant. A domestic enemy. A traitor to America.

Deeming a bill passed is a deminted democrate way of forcing America into a police state

Deeming is a deminted democrate way of forcing America into a police state.

By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer

An obscure parliamentary maneuver favored by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suddenly ignited Tuesday as the latest tinder in the year-long partisan strife over reshaping the nation's health-care system, triggering debate over the strategy's legitimacy and political wisdom.

Republicans condemned Pelosi's idea -- in which House members would make a final decision on broad health-care changes without voting directly on the Senate version of the bill -- as an abuse of the legislative process.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called it "the ultimate in Washington power grabs." Pelosi shot back: "I didn't hear any of that ferocity when the Republicans used this, perhaps, hundreds of times."

Off Capitol Hill, parliamentary experts of both parties said the tactic has been used with increasing frequency in recent years by Democrats and Republicans alike, usually earlier in the legislative process. And political analysts wrangled over whether the use of the "self-executing rule," also known as a "deem and pass," would further antagonize an electorate whose enthusiasm for Democrats has dimmed in the past year.

Legal scholars disagreed about whether it would be a constitutional way to pass the legislation. Yet even critics said they doubt that the procedure would put the measure at risk of being struck down by the courts.

"I feel pretty confident it is unconstitutional," said Michael W. McConnell, director of Stanford Law School's Constitutional Law Center and a former appellate judge appointed by President George W. Bush. "What a court would do about it is a murkier problem."

The debate centers on a parliamentary technique that is a variant on the "rule" that the House adopts for every bill that comes to a floor vote. Rules define the ground rules for the vote, including amendments, length of the debate and other terms. Under a self-executing rule, the House essentially agrees that a vote on one measure is tantamount to, or "deemed" as, deciding on something related.

In this instance, the self-executing rule would say that the Senate's version of health-care legislation would be deemed approved if House members adopt a set of changes to that bill. The Senate then would have to approve the changes, but the original bill could go directly to President Obama to be signed into law.

Pelosi has said the process would make it easier to secure the votes needed to push health-care changes across the legislative finish line. At a time when relations within Congress are frayed, it would enable House Democrats not to be on record directly as supporting the Senate measure. House Republicans are unified against the bill.

Although the speaker has embraced the idea, a decision on whether to use a self-executing rule will not be made until the House Rules Committee convenes later this week, probably on Thursday.

Republicans sought to block Democrats' path. Rep. Parker Griffith (R-Ala.), who switched political parties in December, plans to introduce a resolution that would compel the Democrats to conduct a regular vote. Outside the Capitol, hundreds of conservative activists affiliated with the "tea party" movement gathered to protest the health-care legislation. They seized on the parliamentary method, with demonstrators shouting "treason."

At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs sidestepped the question of whether Obama supports the "deeming" approach. The president called on Congress last week to move forward with an "up-or-down vote" to redesign the health-care system. Gibbs told reporters Tuesday: "You're going to know where people are on health-care reform, and where they are on the president's proposal on health-care reform."

Close watchers of the debate were divided about whether the parliamentary strategy would influence public sentiment about the legislation -- or its Democratic supporters.

Robert L. Laszewski, a consultant who follows the politics of health care, predicted that the effect would be negligible, because Americans' views on the subject have solidified. Democrats "are pushing through Obamacare," he said. "You either like it or not. . . . There's not a lot of subtlety. Either people really want this to happen, or they think it's incredible arrogance. I don't think there's anybody in the middle on this."

On the other hand, Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan political analyst, said the current stage of the debate is a rare instance in which the public is focused on the process of legislating. "Voters are aware it's been pulling teeth," he said, adding that some Americans think Congress's Democratic leaders had "to give away the store to get even Democrats to pass it" and, more recently, resorted to a "reconciliation" procedure that requires fewer Senate votes to pass.

"From there, we've leapt to a totally different planet with this deeming," Rothenberg said. "I feel like I've fallen through the rabbit hole: 'Oh, they are going to not pass the bill and just pretend they passed the bill.' "

Parliamentary specialists said there is ample precedent for self-executing rules. Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution said congressional leaders of both parties are using the procedure more frequently, with 36 instances under the last Republican-led House, in 2005-06, and 49 during the immediate past session, when Democrats were in control.

Donald Wolfensberger, a former Republican staff director of the House Rules Committee who now directs the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, said this use of such a rule would be unusual, though not unprecedented, because it would send part of what the House would be voting on -- the bill already approved by the Senate -- directly to the president.

Wolfensberger said self-executing rules often have been employed at an earlier stage, rather than for final passage of a bill. He said he knows of four instances when a measure that was deemed to have been passed went directly to the White House. The first, in 1933 during the Great Depression, involved Senate amendments to legislation pertaining to the United States' creditworthiness. The tactic was employed twice in the 1990s, by Democrats on a bill involving the Family Medical Leave Act, and by Republicans on a measure involving a line-item veto. Most recently, it was used a few weeks ago, when the House voted on both an increase in the debt ceiling and a pay-as-you-go budget provision.

Stanford's McConnell said that such a procedure would be unconstitutional in this case because, in passing both the Senate legislation and the changes in the reconciliation package in a single stroke, "no one bill will then have been passed by both the House and the Senate" because the Senate still would have to approve the changes added by the House.

Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor who is a former Democratic House counsel and has written extensively about House procedure, disagreed, saying: "This is so familiar a House procedure. . . . I don't know anything in the Constitution that prevents the House from holding one vote for two bills. . . . Why would it make a difference?"

Staff writers Paul Kane, Lori Montgomery, Sandhya Somashekhar and Michael D. Shear contributed to this report.

Obama ties American's self esteem with his propaganda of stealth communist ideals

A handful of ex-Googlers have joined the administration in various roles.

The most visible appointee is Google's former head of global public policy, Andrew McLaughlin, who was named deputy chief technology officer in June. McLaughlin's appointment raised eyebrows -- in his previous role McLaughlin championed Google's policy goals. Now he'll be in a position to shape policy that affects Google's rivals.

AT&T doesn't like the idea of new regulations mandating unfettered access to the Internet, and recent comments from the Obama administration that connected the issue to censorship in China have really gotten under its skin.

The telecom giant responded forcefully this week to remarks by White House deputy chief technology officer Andrew McLaughlin, who said that free speech and network neutrality are "intrinsically linked."

Net neutrality rules are being crafted by federal regulators that would restrict Internet service providers such as AT&T from blocking or prioritizing content on the Web.

(What this means is obama is about to limit access to internet traffic by filitering content out. Obama is trying to control the internet because it is the source for news that is not censored by the "state run media".) Story Reports

In an entry published on the Post Tech Blog and in comments at a telecom policy conference last week, McLaughlin compared censorship in China -- where President Obama's recent comments on open Internet values were blocked from Chinese Web sites -- to the need for net neutrality rules so as to prevent corporations from acting as gatekeepers of information and speech.

"If it bothers you that the China government does it, it should bother you when your cable company does it," McLaughlin said at the policy conference. The administration has made net neutrality a cornerstone of its technology agenda.

Those comments did not sit well with AT&T's chief lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, who issued an angry response. He said it was "ill-considered and inflammatory" to connect censorship in China to the practices of American ISPs, whom he said do not threaten free speech.

(This so called free speech crisis is a manufactured crisis obama will use to further his communist agenda.) Story Reports

"It is deeply disturbing when someone in a position of authority, like Mr. McLaughlin, is so intent on advancing his argument for regulation that he equates the outright censorship decisions of a communist government to the network congestion decisions of an American ISP. There is no valid comparison, and it's frankly an affront to suggest otherwise," Cicconi ot ATT said.

The Computer and Communication Industry Association, a trade group representing some of the biggest companies in the telecom and high-tech industries, criticized Cicconi's comments and agreed with the link McLaughlin made between net neutrality and free speech.

"The juxtaposition of these free speech issues -- Internet censorship and net neutrality -- pulls away the layer of confusion about net neutrality that opponents have hidden behind for years," said Ed Black, chief executive of CCIA. "Unrestricted, the Internet may be mankind's greatest tool ever to promote individual freedom. We ought to do everything we can to protect that possibility -- and if we aren't careful it can become a tool to censor, surveil and manage captive audiences."

(This is EXACTLY what obama wants to do with the internet. Use it as a tool to censor, surveil and manage captive audiences." These captive audiences can then be managed by obama using not only the state run media but also a state run internet media.) Story Reports

Hitler did the same then when promoting natzi propaganda. He completely controlled all the media. Hitler had weekly radio talks also to promote his natzi agenda. Hitler also installed "national health care" to control the population before becoming dictator.
.........................................................................................
When shaping their approach to combating actual, perceived and made up threats, the obama administration tapped the Terror/Crisis management theory (TMT), first proposed by Sheldon Solomon, Tom Pyszczynski, and Jeff Greenberg, suggests that people adhere to cultural worldviews and beliefs in order to suppress death and mortality-related thoughts. TMT suggests that people combat the terror of their mortality with the same cognitive abilities that cause this terror to arise, by developing death-denying cultural belief systems.

More importantly, TMT suggests that individuals must feel that they are significant contributors to this worldview and derive their sense of self-esteem according to whether or not they meet culturally determined standards. If the standard defined by the establishment and promoted by the media is based on an all-encompassing struggle and war with imminent loss of life, it is obvious why the "War on Terror", or "obamacare or "global warming" statements were so easily sold to the large majority of the American people.

(Culturally determined standards. I think this is why thousands of tree huggers work so hard to protect their mother earth. Its like a high for them when they succeed in "saving" the planet from a crisis that does not exist. A manufactured crisis used to control weak minded people in the population. A form of "environmental hypnotism" or "obamaism".

When I was in the military a large group was asked to go into an auditorium to see how hypnotism works. I thought this was odd on a military base while on duty. The hypnotist ask all to clasp their hands and suggested that after 15 seconds we would not be able to unclasp our hands. Some could not unclasp their hands after 15 seconds and sat there with their hands clasp trying to pull them apart.

These individuals were "weak" minded and susceptible to hypnotic suggestion. Obama seeks out these same type of individuals through his propaganda of "change" to "clasp" obamacare for instance.

Some people accept obama's clamor for change and "clasp their hands". They are then "locked" into a fantasy world of "global warming", "obamacare" etc. and crisis after manufucatured crisis. These people are then used by obama like clones to disperse his communist stealth agenda.

Obama ties American's self esteem with his propaganda of stealth communist ideals. This is brain washing or mind control using the "state run media.) Story Reports

Obama is a traitor who is a communist destroying America.

Pelosi says wait until obamacare is passed to find out what is in the obamacare bill

........................................................................................

Congress does not know what is in the "obamacare" house and senate bills before they vote on them. This is crazy. Its a blank check to the communist obama.
......................................................................................
Pelosi who is in bed with obama says America must allow congress to pass the obamacare first then we can find out what is in the bill. Obamacare is a communist power grab. It is nothing else. Do you believe her? Just trust the government right?
Pelosi says wait until obamacare is passed to find out what is in the obamacare bill.
......................................................................................

"Nancy Pelosi pushed Obamacare today during her speech to the 2010 legislative conference of the National Association of Counties. She told the group, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

America has gone down the rabbit hole and found pelosi, obama, reed and other freaks.

How to defend yourself according to the US Constitution

Title 10 US Code, Section 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

What Is The Militia

As defined by our founding fathers, the militia is defined as "the whole people". It is every able-bodied citizen who is not disqualified by crimminal conviction or mental defect, except those few persons who hold public office, such as judges, legislators, etc etc.

The state national guard and the national guard of the United States are not the same thing.

The National Guard may be called up for active duty by state governors or territorial adjutant general to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes

With the consent of state governors, members or units of state National Guard may be appointed or deployed as federally recognized armed force members in active or inactive service.

State National Guard may also be called up for federal service, with the consent of state governors, to repel invasion or suppress rebellion. It can enforce federal laws if the United States or any of its states or territories are invaded or are in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, or if there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the federal government.

Many states also maintain their own State Defense Forces. These forces are federally recognized militia but not as an armed force service. Because of this, they are separate from the National Guard and are not meant to be federalized. They serve the state exclusively, especially when the National Guard is deployed or otherwise unavailable.

......................................................................................
NOTE THIS
......................................................................................

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109-364

Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States will now be able to take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent.

In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard.

Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard

Over objections from all 50 governors, Congress in October tweaked the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to empower the hand of the president in future stateside emergencies. In a letter to Congress, the governors called the change "a dramatic expansion of federal authority during natural disasters that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National Guard and interfere with states' ability to respond to natural disasters within their borders."

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids U.S. troops from being deployed on American soil for law enforcement. The one exception is provided by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which lets the president use the military only for the purpose of putting down rebellions or enforcing constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so. Under that law, the president can declare an insurrection and call in the armed forces. The act has been invoked only a handful of times in the past 50 years, including in 1957 to desegregate schools and in 1992 during riots in south central Los Angeles after the acquittal of police accused of beating Rodney King.

(What if the federal government itself is not inforcing or obeying the rules of the US Constitution?)

Congress changed the Insurrection Act to list "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident" as conditions under which the president can deploy U.S. armed forces and federalize state Guard troops if he determines that "authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order."

(The state national guard is under the complete control of the federal government it seems.)

Mark Smith, spokesperson for the Louisiana Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, said local and state emergency responders know what their communities need during a crisis better than officials in Washington.
"The president should not be able to step in and take control of the National Guard without a governor's consent. The Guard belongs to the states, has always belonged to the states and should remain a function of the states," Smith said.

Washington power grab

Fifty-one governors recently sent a letter to Congress opposing Section 511 of the House-passed bill because it would usurp the authority of governors to command the National Guard in response to a "serious natural or manmade disaster." Since then, governors also have become concerned with the Senate's proposal to expand the President's authority to intervene in a state under the Insurrection Act (Section 1042) and proposals to federalize disaster response through the use of reserve forces. Each of these proposals represents a dramatic expansion of federal authority during natural disasters that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National Guard and interfere with states' ability to respond to natural disasters within their borders.

In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard.

The National Defense Authorization Act 2008 Pub.L. 110-181

Repeals provisions in section 1076 in Pub.L. 109-364 but still enables the President to call up the National Guard of the United States for active federal military service during Congressionally sanctioned national emergency or war. Places the National Guard Bureau directly under the Department of Defense as a joint activity. Promoted the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from a three-star to a four-star general.

A propaganda video for the US National Guard states:

that the FIRST duty of an American soldier is to achieve the mission dictated by military leadership, NOT the defense of the US Constitution. Brain-washing soldiers to place the mission first, that is, “just follow orders” given by der Fuehrer (“the leader” in German) rather than being responsible for obeying the Constitution and laws of war dramatizes the US shift into fascism.

Nazi German soldiers had such an oath:

“I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be prepared, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath.”

Who controls the state national guard?

Do you know now?

This is why a militia consisting of the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia is needed.

US citizens not under the control of obama and the federal government.

The purpose in forming this well regulated militia is to insure our preparedness should we ever be forced to take up arms in the defense of our GOD given Rights and Liberties, our Republic, our State, and our Constitutions; to deter those enemies, both foreign and domestic, who would abrogate them.

Congress and obama are abrogating our rights every day.

If obamacare is passed through illegal methods such as deeming the legislation passed in the US house the domestic enemies will become clearer.

Our freedoms are being signed away by executive order and congress being "paid off" by obama.

What is the 2nd ammendment for?

Second Amendment--Bearing Arms

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.

"necessary to the security of a free State"

It is the right of a citizen to protect himself against the federal government!

The right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is the right of the people, not the States. The very text of the Constitution distinguishes between "the people", "persons" and "States". See, art. I., Sec. 2; art. I, Sec. 3; art. II, Sec. 1. The Tenth Amendment distinguishes between "the people" and "the States" by providing that, "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."

The states' rights reading [of the Second Amendment] puts great weight on the word "militia," but this word appears only in the Amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," not the "states." As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical and when the Constitution means "states," it says so. Thus, as noted above, "the people" at the core of the Second Amendment are the same "people" at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment, namely Citizens.

[The Second Amendment] looks to an ultimate reliance on the common citizen who has a right to keep and bear arms rather than only to some standing army, or only to some other politically separated, defined, and detached armed cadre, as an essential source of security of a free state. In relating these propositions within one amendment, moreover, it does not disparage, much less does it subordinate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." To the contrary, it expressly embraces that right and indeed it erects the very scaffolding of a free state upon that guarantee. It derives its definition of a well-regulated Militia in just this way for a "free State:" The Militia to be well regulated is a Militia to be drawn from just such people (i.e. people with a right to keep and bear arms) rather than from some other source (i.e. from people without rights to keep and bear arms).

If the Second Amendment guaranteed only the right of States to maintain militias, the Supreme Court could easily have disposed of Second Amendment claims in Cruikshank, Presser, Miller v. Texas, and United States v. Miller by holding that individual citizens to not have standing to assert such a claim. Instead, the Court has consistently treated the right to keep and bear arms as a right of individuals, regardless of their affiliation with any organized militia.

If an American citizen wants to form a militia they have this right as an individual citizen. Remember the right to bear a gun is a Constitutional right. The right to join a militia to protect ones rights is also a Constitutional right.


Obama is organizing America for his own dire purposes.

Americans have the right to defend themselves against obama and a police state.

Any questions?

WHAT TO DO IF THE POLICE COME TO
CONFISCATE YOUR MILITIA WEAPONS

What do you do when the police show up on your doorstep demanding the surrender of your militia weapons? In responding, bear in mind that you have two important rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police want to search your house without your consent, they need a warrant. Warrants may only be issued upon a showing of probable cause, supported by an affidavit. The facts contained in the affidavit must do more than support a mere suspicion. The test is whether the information in the affidavit would justify a person of prudence and caution in believing that an offense is being committed, e.g. that "prohibited" weapons can be found on your premises. The requirement of probable cause for the issuance of warrants is one of your most precious constitutional protections.

NEVER GIVE THE AUTHORITIES YOUR CONSENT TO SEARCH YOUR HOUSE, YOUR CAR, YOUR PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR ANY OTHER PREMISES UNDER YOUR CONTROL.

Consent dispenses with the necessity of probable cause. While lacking probable cause, if the police conduct a search with your consent and seize evidence for use against you in court, your lawyer will not be able to suppress it on the basis that the search was warrantless.

The Fifth Amendment protects you against giving evidence against yourself, i.e., your right to remain silent. Just as you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself in a criminal trial, neither can you be compelled to answer a policeman's questions about that AR-15 you bought a couple of years ago and never surrendered. Don't be bashful about invoking this right. It's always better to remain silent and appear guilty than to open your mouth and prove it.

At the outset of any contact with the police, ask them if they have a warrant to search your premises, or a warrant for your arrest. Without one or the other, don't let them inside your front door. If they have neither, politely request that they leave and gently close the door. If you have an attorney, keep one of his cards in your wallet. Give it to the officer in charge and request that all inquiries be made through your counsel. Remember, the police wouldn't be at your doorstep if you were not the target of a criminal investigation. You have no obligation whatsoever to cooperate with people who intend to unlawfully confiscate your property and put you in jail. They can't arrest you for keeping your mouth shut and going about your business.

The police may still persist in trying to question you, or ask your consent to "take a look around". Again, if you have an attorney, give the officer in charge one of his or her cards and request that all inquiries be made through your counsel. Above all, remember that you have the right to break off this conversation. Do so immediately.

In some instances where the police lack a search warrant, they will tell you that it's a simple matter for them to obtain one and they "just want to save everybody a lot of time". This is hogwash. Politely tell them to go get one, and close the door. If they suggest that it will "go a lot easier on you" should you give them your consent to search, tell them to call your lawyer, and close the door.

In the event the police do in fact have a warrant either to arrest you or to search your premises, do not offer any resistance. You will have other battles to fight (presumably with the weapons you have hidden) and you want to be alive and kicking when the time comes. If you are a member of the militia and we don't want to lose you or your weapon. You also don't want to do anything to endanger your family or deprive them of a home. Don't be foolish and engage the authorities in a firefight that you have no chance of winning.

On the other hand, you are not obliged to do anything to make the officers' job easier, such as giving them the combination to your gun safe. You have the right to remain silent and should take advantage of it. That may cause the authorities to forcibly open your safe, with resultant damage. But let them work at their task. After all, it's their search warrant. Politely request to see a copy of any warrants, and above all, remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. Tell the officers that you do not want to say anything or answer any questions -- and that you want to talk to an attorney immediately. If you already have a lawyer, request permission to telephone him or her. If you have been taken into custody, the police are obliged to cease and desist from interrogation once you have asserted your right to remain silent and requested the assistance of legal counsel.

Your spouse and children will be natural targets of interrogation for the authorities. Do they know where your firearms are hidden? Although Maryland law generally prohibits your spouse from testifying against you in a criminal trial, that will be of no help of he or she breaks down under questioning and the authorities know where to retrieve your guns. Never forget that your objective is to safeguard your weapons and ammunition for the defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

If you or a family members are subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury or other judicial or governmental body, get an attorney immediately. Legal counsel can be very helpful, either in trying to quash the subpoena or helping to invoke one's rights against self-incrimination.

Never, under any circumstances, should you lie to the authorities. Simply exercise your right to remain silent. Don't try to snow them with phony bills of sale that can easily be checked out and used to impeach your credibility in court should you decide to testify. Above all, don't file a false police report that your guns were lost or stolen. Making a false report to a police officer that results in an investigation being undertaken is a criminal offense in Maryland. Remember, you are not a criminal. Your ultimate goal is to defend the Constitution.

Likewise, don't fall for any of the authorities' lies. Police love to play "Mutt & Jeff" (also known as "Good Cop - Bad Cop"). One officer comes across as a real hardcase, telling you about all the jail time you're looking at. After a few minutes of this, his partner takes you aside, offers you a cigarette, and in a friendly tone tells you that he "only wants to help you". He only wants to help you confess. Tell Mr. Nice Guy you want to talk with a lawyer. Another police tactic is to tell you that a friend of yours has confessed and given them a statement implicating you for all kinds of things. They're just trying to rattle your cage and make you blurt something out. Keep your mouth shut and let your attorney handle the police. If they really have such a statement, your counsel will be able to discover it. [Author’s note: In 1990 it was still legal to smoke in public buildings.]

If the authorities have a warrant to search your home, they might imply (sometimes none too subtlely) that if you do not come across with that they're looking for they will tear the place apart. Don't give in. Just keep your mouth shut. If you hand over your "prohibited" weapons, you've just given them all the evidence they need to put you in prison. Even if you fall for this scare tactic, the police may still trash your house. Although this is the rare exception, not the rule, such conduct is not unheard of.

In the event you are on the receiving end of a search warrant, do not be pressured into signing any inventories of property seized without first consulting with an attorney. There might be something on that list that is prohibited according to some obscure regulation that you've never heard of. Also be sure that you or some family member receive an itemized list of any property seized. Under Maryland law the police are obliged to sign one and leave it at the premises from which the property is taken. If it is subsequently determined that the authorities took anything that was not within the scope of their warrant, your attorney should motion the court for its prompt return.

Remember, the battle to defend our liberties has already begun - and you are one of the Constitution's foot soldiers.

Confiscation Probably Will Not Come Out Of The Blue

Efforts to confiscate military pattern semi-automatic weapons must have some legal basis, e.g., passage of a statute requiring their registration or simply making possession unlawful. Barring some catastrophe which results in the imposition of martial law, this is not going to occur overnight or without public debate. This is your window of opportunity to select a place away from your principal residence in which to store your weapon, ammo, and spare parts and, if you have not already done so, to legally obtain spare parts, tools, and extra ammunition. Unfortunately, by this time these items may be much more expensive if they are available at any price.

What Kind Of Militia Weapon To Have

If, within the next 30 years, ordinary Americans are subjected to life under an oppressive regime, its conscripts will likely be carrying some variant of the M16 chambered in 5.56 mm (.223 Remington). If you have an AR-15 type rifle or carbine your weapon can chamber ammunition from government stockpiles and, if you happen to relieve a statist conscript of his (or her) rifle, you will already have some familiarity with that weapon. An AR-15 also will have the same visual appearance and a “sound signature” similar to that used by the statist conscripts, except that it will not have a full automatic or burst option. If you are somehow spotted while armed, the silhouette of your AR-15 will not reveal you as a member of the resistance. That of an AKS, SKS, M1, or M1 Carbine definitely would. The location of hostile forces can also be pinpointed through the sound of their weapons, making sound signature something to consider. The next time you are at the range listen to the difference between an AR-15 and an AKS and you will know exactly what I am talking about.

Spare Parts & Gunsmithing Tools

If the day ever arrives when police officers clad like ninjas demand the surrender of people’s militia weapons you had better be prepared to do your own gun smithing. Those of you who already have a militia weapon should determine what parts might possibly break or wear out over the next 30 years, and purchase some spares. Parts for the M1, M1 Carbine, AR-15, and AKS can be purchased at any good gun show without any forms being filled out or any background checks being conducted.. The only part of a firearm that is required to bear a serial number and which generates paperwork upon sale is a pistol’s frame or the receiver of a rifle or shotgun. While you’re buying spare parts, get the TM for your weapon and any special tools you may need to repair it. These can often be purchased from the same people who sold you the parts. There are also VHS tapes showing how to perform most repairs that will ever be required for most military pattern semi-automatic weapons. These usually cost about $20 to $30 and actually seeing the work performed can be of great assistance. The money you spend now will keep your militia weapons functioning should the time come when it is no longer safe to use the services of a gunsmith, or if they have been ordered “out of business.” As noted above, don’t wait until the last minute to acquire these items. Pay for everything in cash so as not to create a paper trail back to you. Make sure no receipts bear your name. This also applies to any purchases of ammunition.

Ammunition

When kept dry and stored at room temperature modern fixed ammunition has a long shelf-life. One of the benefits of trading with the People’s Republic of China is that they make pretty decent ammo which can be had at a very reasonable price. It’s not match quality, but unless your militia rifle is going to be a Remington 700 in .308 with a HS Precision Stock and Leupold Ultra optics the Chinese ammo will do just fine. If you have any qualms about buying something produced by slave labor, plenty of ammunition (both new mfg. and surplus) is available from Argentina, Israel, and Europe. Try to buy in case lots. It will save you a lot of money and you will have ammunition from the same production lot, which means that once your weapon is zeroed you will have more consistent accuracy. The best place to find case lots is at a gun show. A case of Chinese made 5.56 mm will contain approximately 1,600 rounds. I would recommend that you keep at least 2,000 rounds in reserve for that rainy day we all hope will never come. If, however, it becomes necessary for ordinary people to take up arms in defense of the Constitution you want to have extra ammo on hand for distribution to other members of the resistance who, unlike you, either didn’t plan ahead or had their stockpile confiscated by statist conscripts.

Avoid Unnecessary Paperwork

Unlike cancelled checks or credit card receipts, cash does not create a paper trail that will be around forever and, ten years from now, alert the ninjas to the fact that you once bought an AR15 or another weapon that has since been prohibited.

Depending upon where you live, it may still be possible for you to legally purchase a firearm from another private person without having to fill out any forms that may someday bring the authorities to your door. Spend a few bucks and find out from an attorney if there are any laws in your state requiring that private transfers be accompanied by any background check or other paperwork. It’s not against the law to ask for legal advice to keep from breaking the law. And if you are not asking for advice to further a criminal act, the attorney-client privilege applies. Pay for this advice in cash. WHENEVER IT IS LEGAL FOR YOU TO PURCHASE FIREARMS FOR CASH IN A PRIVATE SALE WITHOUT ANY PAPERWORK BEING RETAINED BY THE SELLER OR FILED WITH AUTHORITIES, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS. It’s worth paying a premium for a gun that can be lawfully acquired without generating records that may someday direct the authorities to your door.

If you take any legal, non-papered, firearm to a gunsmith arrange to deliver it when he opens and pick it up before he closes. This way, federal regulations will not require that it be logged into his books, as it would be if he kept in the shop overnight. Your state may have its own regulations that say otherwise, so be sure to determine this ahead of time. Pay for all work in cash and ask that no receipt with your name or address be created since the gunsmith’s carbon copy might later be used to target your weapon for confiscation. This is especially important if you legally acquired your militia weapon in a private transfer or by inheritance and there is no record of you being its lawful owner.

If you list a firearm on a rider to your homeowner’s policy, the insurance company has a record of it. Records like this can be subpoenaed by the gun police checking to see who owns what. Protecting your militia weapon against confiscation by the government is, in my opinion, more important than getting reimbursed for its loss if your house burns down.

“From My Cold Dead Fingers”

There is a big difference between resistance in defense of our Constitution and committing suicide. I advocate the former. Since my essay was first published more than 10 years ago, I have heard from several people who think it’s unpatriotic not to offer physical resistance should the authorities try to seize their guns. One anonymous soul sent me a letter chiding me for being a “pussy”. He even enclosed the classic bumper sticker declaring, “THEY CAN HAVE MY GUN WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS”. I hope my anonymous correspondent is reading this because, my friend, that is exactly where the guys in the ninja suits will retrieve your gun after they kill you. Want to slug it out with the police from your home? They will simply secure the perimeter and call for backup. Don’t be surprised if, after a couple of minutes, an armored vehicle rumbles up the street and right onto your front lawn. Do yourself and your family a big favor and avoid any violent confrontations with the authorities.

Liberals Are Useful For Something

Ever mindful of how some gunnies feel about the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), I would nonetheless recommend readers to its web page at www.aclu.org. From the section on “criminal justice” you can print out a pocket-sized “Bust Card” full of advice on how to handle yourself during confrontations with the gendarmes. Granted, people at the ACLU are rabidly anti-gun. But they do know a thing or two about dealing with people who can arrest you. The Bust Card is very well done, so take advantage of it. Keep one in your wallet right next to the your attorney’s business card. (And remember, be polite.)

“Loose Lips Sink Ships”

Do your neighbors, fishing buddies, and in-laws really need to know that you have a military pattern semi-automatic rifle, spare parts, gun smithing tools, and thousands of rounds of ammunition? If the time comes when exercising your Constitutional rights is verboten would any of them rat you out because they are anti-gun, have a grudge against you, or if they get in trouble themselves? Play it safe. Only a person with a genuine need to know and who can be counted on to keep his (or her) mouth shut should be made aware of what firearms you have and where they are.

What Have You Done Lately To Defend Your Gun Rights?

Efforts to chip away at the Bill of Rights can be defeated if enough people get out of their chairs and get involved in the political process. In 1997, an anti-gun wish list (Initiative 676) was on the ballot in Washington State. Despite being well-funded and enjoying considerable media support, I-676 went down to defeat by a margin of 71% to 29% because thousands of gunnies got organized politically and fought back. The purpose of my article and this supplement is not to lecture people about civics. Since you have bothered to read this you are obviously literate, and capable of figuring out how you can pitch in to the cause. The time and money you contribute will be well worth it if we can stop our enemies politically and ordinary people never have to take up arms in defense of our Constitution.

The more you know about how to protect yourself against anybody the better.

It up to you to defend yourself again an individual or group of individuals.

You are your own last line of defence.

2nd Amendment Information

Obama is a communist who can be caught using dung bate

.........................................................................................
Obamacare also comes in the form of killing fishing.

Communists, the green earth movment and obama are one and the same. Obama is the mouthpiece for agenda 21.

WWF is a commuinst front organization. The obama administration is infested with these people

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND (WWF)

*
Radical environmentalist organization dedicated to "saving endangered species, protecting endangered habitats, and addressing global threats such as toxic pollution, over-fishing and climate change."
*
Supports Kyoto accord

WWF supports the Kyoto accord and the global warming hypothesis on which it is based. The organization also emphasizes "sustainable growth," a theory whose goals invariably come with a demand for population control, a euphemism for abortion-on-demand.

UN agenda 21 exposed>The green agenda exposed
.........................................................................................
The Obama administration has ended public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is "fluid" and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn't issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.

Fishing industry insiders, who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force, had grown concerned that the public input would not be taken into account.

(The environemtal communists have been negotiating with the fishing industry. The public has not been taken into account. Its the same thing as obama not listening to the majority of Americans who DON"T want obamacare to force them into gov heal care. Our government has been taken over by communists who will stop at nothing to force their goals on America. Americans must fight back or lose their freedom.) Story Reports

Forcing Americans To Obey The UN Agenda Of Destruction Of America

"When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big-game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario," said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.

"Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard-working American families and small businesses are being ignored.

(This is more evidence obama's goal is to destroy the economy. He uses our own laws and agencys against Americans to further his communist goals. Obama is ignoring Americans because he is destroying the economy on purpose. He is using NOAA now to kill fishing in the US. It is all tied togeather with UN Agenda 21.) Story Reports

Forcing Americans To Obey The UN Agenda Of Destruction of America

"In spite of what we hear daily in the press about the President's concern for jobs and the economy and contrary to what he stated in the June order creating this process, we have seen no evidence from NOAA or the task force that recreational fishing and related jobs are receiving any priority."

Unless more anglers speak up to their Congressional representatives so their input will be considered, it appears the task force will issue a final report for "marine spatial planning" by late March. President Barack Obama then could possibly issue an Executive Order to implement its recommendations.

Led by NOAA's Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling. As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled "Transition Green" shortly after Obama was elected in 2008.

What has happened since suggests that the task force has been in lockstep with that position paper, according to Morlock.

In late summer, just after the administration created the task force, these groups produced "Recommendations for the Adoption and Implementation of an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy." This document makes repeated references to "overfishing," but doesn't reference recreational angling, its importance, and its benefits, both to participants and the resource.

Additionally, some of these same organizations have revealed their anti-fishing bias with their attempts to ban tackle containing lead in the United States and Canada.

Also, recreational angling and commercial fishing have been lumped together as harmful to the resource, despite protests by the angling industry.

Morlock's evidence of collusion -- the green groups began clamoring for an Executive Order to implement the task force's recommendations even before the public comment period ended in February.

On Feb. 12, the New York Times reported on that "President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities."

(Obama can't get global warming passed in congress so he is legislating through executive orders. Obama is a traitor to this nation. He should be removed from office. Most people can produce a birth certificate as easy as producting a birth certificate. Obama can't produce a valid birth certificate and wants to strip Americans of their right to fish.) Story Reports

Morlock fears that "what we're seeing coming at us is an attempted dismantling of the science-based fish and wildlife model that has served us so well. There's no basis in science for the agendas of these groups who are trying to push the public out of being able to fish and recreate.

"Conflicts (user) are overstated and problems are manufactured. It's all just an excuse to put us off the water."

In the wake of the task force's framework document, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF) and its partners in the U.S. Recreational Fishing & Boating Coalition again voiced their concerns to the administration.

"Some of the potential policy implications of this interim framework have the potential to be a real threat to recreational anglers who not only contribute billions of dollars to the economy and millions of dollars in tax revenues to support fisheries conservation, but who are also the backbone of the American fish and wildlife conservation ethic," said CSF President Jeff Crane.

(Obama is destroying another industry on purpose. The fishing industry. The freedom to fish in America. Billions of dollars to the economy will be lost. This is plain evidence obama is destroying the economy using UN agenda 21. Obama is not just an environmental communist he is also a sick individual, a narcisst, the enemy within.) Story Reports

Morlock, a member of the CSF board, added, "There are over one million jobs in America supported coast to coast by recreational fishing. The task force has not included any accountability requirements in their reports for evaluating or mitigating how the new policies they are drafting will impact the fishing industry or related economies.

"Given that the scope of this process appears to include a new set of policies for all coastal and inland waters of the United States, the omission of economic considerations is inexcusable."

This is not the only access issue threatening the public's right to fish, but it definitely is the most serious, according to Chris Horton, national conservation director for BASS.

"With what's being created, the same principles could apply inland as apply to the oceans," he said. "Under the guise of 'marine spatial planning' entire watersheds could be shut down, even 2,000 miles up a river drainage from the ocean.

"Every angler needs to be aware because if it's not happening in your backyard today or tomorrow, it will be eventually.

(Obama is one bottom feeder that needs to be caught and reeled in. Obama can be caught using dung bate. Obama loves BS. Barry can't resist dung bate. Obama's name is BO.) Story Reports