Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

When a President Betrays His Country

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Desertdog, Aug 22, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Desertdog

    Desertdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,980
    Location:
    Ridgecrest Ca
    Disclaimer: I am just passing the message on.

    http://www.sierratimes.com/06/08/22/Jennifer.htm
    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.

    http://www.libertybelles.org

    jennifer@libertybelles.org
     
  2. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    10,896
    Location:
    Illinois
    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?
     
  3. Third_Rail

    Third_Rail Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,981
    Repubs have betrayed us as well.

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

    cbsbyte Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,978
    Location:
    Cradle of Liberty
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2006
  5. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    Clinton and Bush are step-brothers, aren't they? Didn't Bush the Elder adopt Billy? They all eat from the same trough.
     
  6. JBusch8899

    JBusch8899 member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    98
    Predicting this thread is going to be locked PDQ

    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.
     
  7. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    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.
     
  8. orangelo

    orangelo member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  9. Skeptic

    Skeptic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    Democratic Peoples Republik of MD
    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.
     
  10. Nitrogen

    Nitrogen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    Sachse, Texas
    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.
     
  11. orangelo

    orangelo member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  12. strambo

    strambo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,727
    Location:
    Oregon
    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:
     
  13. The Cavalry

    The Cavalry Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    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.
     
  14. ChestyP

    ChestyP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA
    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?
     
  15. Phetro

    Phetro Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Indiana
    Bush: bad.
    Clinton: worse.
    Clinton part 2, AKA Hillary: see Stalin.
     
  16. The Cavalry

    The Cavalry Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    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?
     
  17. MrTuffPaws

    MrTuffPaws Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    Az
    WHAT!?!?!?! Clinton Anti-gun????

    Old news.
     
  18. The Cavalry

    The Cavalry Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    "Clinton had far more sinister anti-gun intentions than we ever suspected" is the overall theme, I believe.
     
  19. saltydog

    saltydog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    391
    Location:
    From The Free State of Okla
    This is the problem we are all faced with today. That's the problem! :eek:
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    572
    Teddy Roosevelt (the last President to actually carry a concealed weapon while president)

    Barry Goldwater
     
  21. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    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.
     
  22. dracphelan

    dracphelan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    706
    Location:
    Garland, TX
    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:
     
  23. The-Fly

    The-Fly Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    897
    Location:
    Northern Colorado
    IBTL

    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.
     
  24. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,938
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    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?
     
  25. Jkwas

    Jkwas Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    600
    Location:
    Boca Raton Fl. "The Gunshine State"
    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:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page