When a President Betrays His Country


August 22, 2006, 12:28 PM
Disclaimer: I am just passing the message on.

When a President Betrays His Country
Jennifer Freeman

Recent papers released from the Clinton Presidential Library ( www.libertybelles.org/articles/clintongundocs.pdf ) reveal a well-orchestrated and clearly defined roadmap to impose severe restrictions on firearm owners, manufacturers, and dealers. Perhaps the most sinister is the deliberate attempt to financially cripple firearm manufacturers and dealers via class action lawsuits. In an effort to mimic the lawsuits levied against tobacco companies, the Clinton Administration appears to have had direct involvement in its support and furthering of such lawsuits. Of course, the major difference between tobacco and firearms is that firearms save an estimated 2.5 million lives year, whereas tobacco is not reported to save any lives whatsoever. Clearly the benefit of owning a firearm far outweighs any possible risk of owning one. A draft press release from the "Center to Prevent Handgun Violence" (a.k.a. "Brady Campaign", a.k.a. "Handgun Control") along with numerous talking points that appear to be right out of the "Brady Campaign" playbook are also included in the recently released documents. One might be inclined to wonder whether or not the "Brady Campaign" was working out of the President's office.
Mandatory licensing of gun owners, regular cross-checking of gun owners against the criminal databases, "smart gun" technology, a ban on private party transfers (a.k.a. "gun show loophole"), mandatory child safety locks, and a ban on the importation of semi-automatic magazines that hold more than ten rounds (a.k.a. "high capacity clips [sic]") are just a few of the highlights of the Clinton plan.

The proposal for mandatory firearm licensing required that the license be issued within 30 days. In other words, a woman wanting a firearm for protection against a stalker or disgruntled ex-boyfriend or husband would likely have to wait 30 days for her protection. That's no protection at all.

A centralized database would be necessary to meet the requirement of regular cross-checking of gun owners against the criminal databases. The government does not have a right to know the names and addresses of gun owners. This is a clear violation of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy. It would be unreasonable to expect the acknowledgement of any of our rights from those who wish to ban the Second Amendment. Disarmament is an integral step to dismantling all of our liberties. This is exactly why Americans need firearms and exactly why the government need not know who has them.

Although President Clinton is no longer in office, many of the same gun control tactics exist in various parts of the country and at the national level. And while you may not hear much about it in the media, gun control is alive and sick in America today. We must remain ever vigilant against the barrage of legislation, the media propaganda, and anti-gun sentiment in the public schools. Remember that they want to disarm you. Then ask yourself, "Why would they want to disarm me?"

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.



If you enjoyed reading about "When a President Betrays His Country" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
August 22, 2006, 12:40 PM
Is it any surprise to anyone that committed socialists like the Clintons would not make every effort to ban/restrict firearms as much as they thought they could get away with?

August 22, 2006, 01:04 PM
Repubs have betrayed us as well.

Bush (current prez) has stated that if the AWB were to hit his desk, he'd sign it.

August 22, 2006, 01:07 PM
Clinton was not perfect, and for the most part he was anti-gun. But he was a much better President than the current Commander in Chief who is trying to subvert ALL our rights.

August 22, 2006, 01:19 PM
Clinton and Bush are step-brothers, aren't they? Didn't Bush the Elder adopt Billy? They all eat from the same trough.

August 22, 2006, 01:19 PM
So I'd better make a snappy response.

At least Bush isn't the snake that Clinton is.

Bush stated he would sign the AWB (mean looking black gun cosmetic ban) if it reached his desk? Does anybody really think it was going to make it there?

The government has been going downhill since Mayberry v. Monroe. Civil rights have been freefalling since FDR and have been accelerating faster after FISA. The Patriot Act is an extension of FISA.

The government we tolorate is the government we get. Bush isn't the problem.....................we are.

Want to fix the problem but can't figure out how to get rid of the current politicians? Petition for a consitutional convention.

August 22, 2006, 01:29 PM
Yeah, Bush let you keep your guns--and you'll need 'em with 20 million illegal aliens coming across Bush's open border.

The American Presidency has turned into a sick joke.

August 22, 2006, 01:35 PM
Throw them all out I say. The Republicans are doing a terrible job. The Demorats are even worse.

40% of republicans voted in favor of the mexican guest criminal program. But 90% of demorats did too. The republicans voted for war, but the demorats voted for it before they voted against it.

So who do we have left to vote for?

We need a constitutional convention to install term limits for congressmen. So we don't end up with bloodsucking leeches like Strom Thurmond and the drunken murderer from boston festering and taking root for 30 odd years to contaminate the entire country for decades.

August 22, 2006, 01:36 PM
In before the lock...

Trying to subvert all of our other rights? I dont think so...

Mr. Clinton was, is and will always be anti-gun.

August 22, 2006, 01:36 PM
This will be an unpopular opinion, but i'll take Clinton over Bush ANY DAY.
For me, it's a numbers game. I'll take 9 rights over one. If it came to that, i'ld bury my rifles and a few handguns in the backyard and keep them unless something went down.

August 22, 2006, 01:39 PM
You think you had 9 rights under Klinton? how many do you think they let the Branch Davidians keep? Or Elian Gonzalez's extended family? How many rights do you think you would have if you had an 11 round magazine after sept 1994? How many rights did Vince Foster have?

Klinton did the same kind of NSA wiretapping under the Echelon project. The only difference is the socialist media didn't make a big deal of it like they are now.

August 22, 2006, 01:45 PM
Yes, Clinton deliberately subverted and attacked the Second Amendment...but he could be completely trusted to make sure the rest of the Bill of Rights was secure.:rolleyes: He was all for individual rights, why he was almost libertarian.:uhoh:

The Cavalry
August 22, 2006, 01:46 PM
I'll take neither one. I want another Reagan.

Clinton wouldn't send armored vehicles to Somalia because of the political implications. Clinton didn't hesitate to send armored vehicles to Waco to deal with Koresh and his band of zanies.

Were they a bigger threat than the Somalis, or did Clinton have some other agenda?

And then there were the heavily-armed Feds extracting little Elian from his relatives, in the name of keeping Fidel Castro happy.

In terms of the 2nd Amendment, Clinton was malignant and Bush is benign. He's signed PLCA so he gets some points, but hasn't put the BATF in its rightful place.

August 22, 2006, 01:53 PM
Reagan who signed the law banning manufacture and sale of new automatic weapons? A TRUE assault weapon ban. Or who supported the Brady Act after he left the presidency?

August 22, 2006, 01:56 PM
Bush: bad.
Clinton: worse.
Clinton part 2, AKA Hillary: see Stalin.

The Cavalry
August 22, 2006, 02:02 PM
OK, touche' on the Reagan pointer.

I wonder if we can make this actionable in terms of who is the ideal Presidential candidate or past example?

August 22, 2006, 02:04 PM
WHAT!?!?!?! Clinton Anti-gun????

Old news.

The Cavalry
August 22, 2006, 02:08 PM
"Clinton had far more sinister anti-gun intentions than we ever suspected" is the overall theme, I believe.

August 22, 2006, 03:49 PM
So who do we have left to vote for?

This is the problem we are all faced with today. That's the problem! :eek:

Malum Prohibitum
August 22, 2006, 04:00 PM
OK, touche' on the Reagan pointer.

I wonder if we can make this actionable in terms of who is the ideal Presidential candidate or past example?

Teddy Roosevelt (the last President to actually carry a concealed weapon while president)

Barry Goldwater

August 22, 2006, 04:26 PM
We need deep, broad systemic changes. SOON.

Clinton and Bush both follow orders from the same cabal as far as I'm concerned. And Bush is just LBJ redux:

September 30, 2005

Bush’s Blank Check

by Stephen Slivinski

Stephen Slivinski is director of budget studies at the Cato Institute.

Sounding like Yogi Berra, President Bush gave the best description of his administration’s overall fiscal philosophy last week. When asked on September 16 how much his grand program to rebuild the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina will cost, he answered, “It’s going to cost whatever it’s going to cost.”

And, boy, will it ever. The current estimate of the amount of taxpayer money needed to pay for Bush’s grand scheme range from $150 billion to $200 billion. And that’s on top of a $612 billion increase in the overall federal budget since he took office in 2001. Adding the $62 billion already appropriated for Katrina relief puts him in the same big-spending league as Lyndon Johnson.

The massive cost is just one of the distressing things about Bush’s plan. What’s also disconcerting is how it broadens the scope of the federal government’s response to natural disasters. By doing so he’s setting an expensive precedent.

Before Bush’s address to the nation from New Orleans’ Jackson Square, the federal government’s usual response to natural disasters was generally limited to four basic functions as laid out in the 1988 Stafford Act: helping clear debris, providing search-and-rescue assistance to states, providing assistance for displaced residents (mainly in the form of temporary housing assistance and traditional unemployment benefits), and rebuilding infrastructure such as roads and bridges.

Bush’s new response includes all of those elements--and a whole lot more. The president is planning to give each displaced worker $5,000 of taxpayer money for job training. He’s proposed $2 billion in tax “incentives” to bring businesses back to the area. Federal taxpayers will also pick up the tab for the education expenses of all students forced to relocate, whether they attended private or public school. Certainly the biggest part of the whole plan is the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast. But that doesn’t just mean the infrastructure the federal government has control over. It’s likely an assortment of other things too: from homes and businesses to shopping malls and parking lots.

Here’s the kicker: the president states that the federal government will pay a “great majority” of the bills. For all intents and purposes, Bush has given a blank check to elected officials in the states affected by the hurricane.

This is a departure from the intent of previous modern disaster relief efforts. The Stafford Act specifically calls for at least 25 percent of the bills to be paid for by states and localities. The idea that the state should bear at least a fraction of the cost is explicit in the legislation. Throughout the legislation, states are presumed to commit a “significant proportion” of the funding. Indeed, under certain circumstances the act allows the federal share to be as low as 25 percent.

The federal government can waive the cost-sharing requirement--which it has already done for the first $62 billion in spending. But doing so creates incentives for governors and mayors to lard their wish list with nonessential projects. If state government officials making the request aren’t footing the bill for any of it or a substantial portion of it, why not ask for federal taxpayers to fund every project their hearts desire?

Unfortunately, the president isn’t trying to slow down what is likely to become a taxpayer-financed shopping spree. He’s egging it on. On September 20, for instance, the president urged Mississippi officials to “think bold” when plotting what demands they are going to make of federal taxpayers.

The White House has used the Stafford Act as a defense of their grand design by saying they were obligated by law to provide all of this assistance. While that’s true of the obligations laid out in the Stafford Act, it is not true of a broader long-term economic recovery assistance of the sort the White House has proposed. As the Congressional Research Service points out in their analysis of the act, “[it] does not explicitly authorize the President to provide long-term recovery assistance to communities.”

Bush’s rebuilding plan actually expands the expected federal response to future disasters. What’s to keep state officials from expecting the same sort of treatment when their states are hit with the next hurricane, earthquake, tornado, or wildfire?

The president's blank check mentality has also emboldened members of Congress to expand their wish lists, too. Farm-state senators are planning to add crop subsidies to the next Katrina bill, and senators from northeastern states are hoping to expand the low-income heating assistance program for constituents who are affected by higher heating oil prices.

Bush is right. This relief effort is going to cost what it’s going to cost. And that’s exactly what taxpayers should be afraid of.

This article appeared in the Washington Times on September 28, 2005.

August 22, 2006, 04:59 PM
We need deep, broad systemic changes. SOON.

Forget it. As long as people have their bread and circuses (government checks and reality television) we are not going to see real change. The vast majority of people have grown to believe that the solution to most problems are more laws(=more government). :barf: More and more, people are indoctrinated (in the public school system) that a government that takes care of all your needs is the solution. :banghead:

August 22, 2006, 05:56 PM

that said.....

We havent had a good president in 50+ years. Basically just socialists or fascists in alternativing order. And I think they're getting worse as time goes on. Reagan was so-so at best. Bush the first was worse. Then Slick Willy. And our current tyrant, King George the II. If Queen Hillary the Hun Clinton gets the hot seat in 08, i'm loading up on mags, AR lowers, and ammo.

August 22, 2006, 07:17 PM
Why is there a Bush bash pile on, when the original post was exposing a Democrat conspiracy against gun owners? Seems like a handy diversion to me. I'm not buyin' it. If the thread gets locked, it will deserve it but not because of the original post.

Why couldn't that same conspiracy be revived under another Democrat administration?

August 22, 2006, 07:29 PM
Any President, Democrat or Republican that takes foreign gifts, or derives income from foreign interests, and acts in their interest instead of the American people is a traitor. :cuss:

Art Eatman
August 22, 2006, 07:33 PM
Locked on account of wandering in the Wilderness Of Bash, more'n anythin' else...


August 22, 2006, 07:33 PM
Why is there a Bush bash pile on, when the original post was exposing a Democrat conspiracy against gun owners?

Because Bush let everyone down so badly. We got what we expected from Clinton.

Bush has let us down so many times, its just hard to get over it. Campaign Finance Reform, supporting the AWB, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Medicare drug reform, Harriet Miers, the list just goes unbelievably on and on. Its like a bad dream.

If you enjoyed reading about "When a President Betrays His Country" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!