A Tyrant in the House: Obama’s Systemic Weaponization of the Government Against Conservatives

by Diane Rufino, August 31, 2018

I borrowed the meme below from the #WalkAway guys. They are pretty awesome.  Plus, they have the best memes!!

SECOND AMENDMENT - Conservatives are more responsible with guns (WalkAway meme)

Anyway, I wanted to use this to make a point, in addition to the very powerful message this meme sends. It is true, the only threats of violence and acts of violence committed in the last 10 years, at least, has been by liberals and by progressive activists, by left-wing nut jobs, and by radical Islamists (embraced by Democrats). The only exception is Dylan Roof. , a self-professed white supremacist who many equate with the conservative side. (Note, it was not his original intent to shoot up a predominantly black church. He initially wanted to go on a shooting rampage at a local community college but when he scoped it out, he noticed there were too many armed security guards. Gun-free zones attract evil-intending shooters, no doubt about it).  Yet despite the propensity of liberals and liberal/progressive activists and those identifying with the Democratic Party and those with minds poisoned by hatred against conservatives to obtain guns for the purpose of harming innocent people, President Obama made the calculated and politically-motivated decision to have the Department of Homeland Security shift its focus away from radical Islamists and other extreme Muslim groups as potential threats of violence in the country to CONSERVATIVE groups and individuals, such as veterans, Christians (“those who still cling to their Guns and their Religion”), Second Amendment groups, Tea Party organizations, etc. According to Obama (and then DHS), such people and such groups are the most likely to radicalize and become violent.

Check it out for yourself:  COUNTERING RIGHTWING EXTREMISM — https://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf.

I guess Obama was asleep during the whole Black Lives Matter protest. Who can forget that infamous march in Dec. 2014, led by race hustler Al Sharpton (I will never honor him with the title “reverend”), where black protesters chanted: “What Do We Want?  — Dead Cops!”  “When Do We Want Them?  — NOW!”  After that, all the shootings and needless violence and killing of innocent cops ensued.  Where was Obama on that and then all the killing?  Where was the Department of Homeland Security on the Black Lives Matter protesters?  Which group of people was most likely to radicalize and become violent?

There was no honesty in what Obama did to conservatives. He targeted them needlessly for political purposes only. There was – and is – no honest comparison between conservatives and the Black Lives Matter movement when it comes to likelihood to become organized and violent.

Conservatives treasure their right to have and bear firearms for self-protection only (primarily). Other groups – liberal groups, progressive groups, BLM groups, Antifa – want guns to hurt people, to intimidate, to usher in a sense of fear, to silence speech and conduct.

Again, from what group are American’s freedoms and privileges under assault from?

That document, “Countering Rightwing Extremism” was implemented in April, just 2 months after Obama was inaugurated. DHS forced that policy on all state and local law enforcement agencies. Soon after, Obama’s IRS began harassing and targeting Tea Party groups and refusing to allow them to organize. If they couldn’t organize, they couldn’t collect money to engage in the election process and seek to advance their issues and their candidates.

So I ask you this: Was the IRS targeting all just an innocent mistake, without any political intent, as Obama told the American people?  Or was it just another policy to target, harass, silence, and vilify conservatives?

Having the benefit of hindsight, we now see the bigger picture:  First, Obama targeted conservatives for his own political purposes – to minimize the effect of Tea Party groups and other conservatives in the election of 2012, when he himself was running for a second term. You will remember that while he did win easily, in many states, his margin of victory was extraordinarily slim  And then there was the 2016 election…  With everything we know now – all the Deep State type efforts to take down Trump and to ensure that Hillary Clinton won the election (to continue the Obama-era policies) – we can conclude that one of Obama’s most important and consistent efforts was to target conservatives, minimize their political voice, create division to make it seem like conservatives were the bad guys, the racists, weaponize the government against them, and all for the purpose of ensuring that the government remain committed to his agenda (his progressive and global agenda) and remain in the hands of the Democratic Party.

Obama will go down in history as our most corrupt US president. He will be credited with the greatest level of citizen distrust in government – in its intelligence-gathering agencies, in its ability to administer justice fairly and evenly, in its ability to conduct itself within its legal/constitutional and ethical guidelines, and in its ability not to become a weapon against the American people.


Government Targeting Political Opponents (an American Story, thanks to Barack Obama)


MAXINE WATERS - protesters burn flag outside Waters' Office

by Diane Rufino, July 21, 2018

On Thursday, July 19, supporters of Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters showed up at her Los Angeles office and put on a very troubling and unpatriotic display. I suppose their conduct was either in line with their diminished intelligence, their natural tendency to thug-like, violent behavior, or the indoctrination of the Thug Queen herself, Maxine Waters. At one point in the video taken of that protest, one lady not only parroted the vile hatred that Waters has been spewing but she also sounded exactly like her. It was disturbingly unsettling.

Waters and her ilk are the lowest of the low, and should have no place in the kind of country that was established for close-knit communities predicated on the mutual respect for our country’s ideals, our collective desire to get along, and our intelligent duty to conduct ourselves as decent members of society and to support the Rule of Law.

Last week, the constitutionally conservative group known as Oath Keepers called on members to show up outside the controversial Congresswoman’s South Los Angeles office for a “protest against Maxine Waters’ incitement of terrorism, and a stand FOR ICE and the Border Patrol.”  Supporters of Waters (ie, the demonstrators) showed up with the intent of countering that protest, but police at the protest site told the Los Angeles Times that the group had notified authorities that it no longer planned to hold the demonstration, in order to keep the peace.

Rather than go back home, the Pro-Waters crowd, which numbered a few dozen and included union workers, church leaders, South Los Angeles residents and members of activist groups, many holding signs that read “Resist!,” proceeded to demonstrate and display the hatred that Rep. Waters so often uses her platform to encourage and incite. At one point, a pick-up truck drove by, and believing it to belong to a member of the Oath Keepers, the demonstrators gathered around it, opened the doors and terrorized the driver, and then snatched his American flag from the truck bed.  No doubt, they were offended by a real American, a conservative. They proceeded to stomp on the flag and then set it on fire. They chanted “Black Power” and shouted “America was never great” A few even yelled: “This is not the American flag, this is their flag.”

…….  Not exactly the kind-of crowd you look forward to enjoying a 4th of July picnic with.
MAXINE WATERS - protesters stopping pick up truck and stealing man's flag outside Waters' Office

Ever since the election of Donald Trump, an election he won fair and square, and against an avalanche of behind-the-scenes crooked dealings, alliances, pay-offs, abuses of power, government-DNC collusion, and a phony Russian scandal, Democrats and others on the left have become unhinged and have shown their opposition in ways that exceed those allowed by the First Amendment, that offend all rules of common decency, that frustrate the traditional university goals of robust intelligent debate, and that violate our civil and criminal laws.  We see the rhetoric of hate, we see threats of violence against conservatives and against Republican members of Congress and members of Trump’s administration, we see Republican state and federal leaders and members of Trump’s administration (and their families) being shouted and threatened out of restaurants, movie theaters, and ball games, we see violence against conservative speech by Antifa and hooded thugs on campuses, we’ve witnessed the intentional shooting of Republican Congressmen (last year’s Congressional softball game), we’ve learned of the arrest of at least one Antifa member who amassed a cache of bomb-making materials and guns and who had a Manifesto outlining his mission to kill conservatives, we hear the most vile of rants and name-calling from members of the Entertainment Industry against Trump and against conservatives, we hear talk-show hosts and actors call for the rape and sodomization of members of Trump’s family and administration, we watch in disbelief as Democratic leaders in Congress become increasingly unhinged and unpatriotic in their messages and in their conduct, and we see Black Lives Matter protestors, including the likes of Al Sharpton and other race-baitors and poverty pimps, calling for the slaughter of members of law enforcement.

We see a common thread….   All of these groups, all of these so-called people belonging to the Democratic Party.

What should happen ideally is that all of these types of people, including hoards of illegal immigrants and Middle-Eastern refugees, be moved into the communities and neighborhoods of Democratic legislators, Democratic politicians, Democratic Party leaders, activist judges, Hollywood actors and actresses, liberal talk-show hosts, and editors, producers, columnists, reporters, and commentators of the mainstream media. If these people want to empower such anti-social, violent, psychotic, unpatriotic, dis-believing, dependent, entitled, abhorrent, crazed, unstable, mentally-imbalanced, irresponsible, law-breaking, terrorist individuals, then at least they should know what it’s like to have them living among them.

Anyway, I digress from my main point which is that Obama targeted political opponents, using the full force of the federal government –  a government absolutely prohibited, under the Bill of Rights, from enacting any law or policy that infringes on one’s freedom of speech, freedom to the press (including every blogger and writer who “publishes” in any way information and commentary), right to own and bear firearms (“Shall Not Be Infringed!”), freedom of conscience, right of assembly, and freedom to be safe from unreasonable government searches and seizures (to be safe and secure in one’s home and in one’s private affairs; “to be king of one’s castle”).

Right after Barack Obama took office as president, in early April 2009, he had Attorney General Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security re-draft guidelines as to who the “real threat” to America is.  This was done without anyone paying any particular attention to it and was done while the country was still shielding their eyes, as if they were looking at the face of the new “messiah.”  According to President Obama, his advisors, and his administration in general, it was no longer radical Islam that posed the greatest threat to our country, but rather, the very people he made fun of in one of his appearances in Pennsylvania — those who “cling to their religion and their guns.”  The DHS document outlining this threat was titled “RIGHTWING EXTREMISM: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” and it was issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (within DHS).  You can read the entire document yourself at:  https//fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf.  In it, the Department of Homeland Security explains that people like Tea Party groups, white conservatives. Veterans, Christians, Second-amendment supporters, and the like pose a serious threat to the country (and, as mentioned, to Obama’s administration — as he is a black man). These “rightwing extremists,” the report says, are those who will produce white supremacists, will oppose Obama’s policies, will present opposition to his policies on immigration, and in general, will try to organize against him. Because they support the second amendment, the Obama administration labeled them as dangerous, likely to organize and use violence, and put them on the DHS watch list.

Can you even wrap your mind around the sanity of the federal government in deeming God-fearing, law-abiding, Constitution-loving, patriotic conservative Americans to be dangerous to the country, moreso than the likes of those who slaughtered 3000 innocent Americans on 9/11, who have kidnapped and beheaded several of our journalists and contractors, and who have planned and carried out the many attacks on our military personnel and citizens both here and abroad ???   I certainly can’t. A government that can even think of doing so is simply evil and unconstitutionally ambitious.

In embracing Obama’s policy and attempting to sell it to state and local law enforcement and to the country in general, Secretary Janet Napolitano issued the following press release on April 15, 2009, which was posted on the Department of Homeland Security website: “The primary mission of this department is to prevent terrorist attacks on our nation. The document on Right-Wing Extremism sent last week by this department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States. I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution.”  Turning the government against its law-abiding citizens is the very definition of tyranny.

We associate governments targeting, harassing, drumming up false charges, imprisoning, and killing political opponents with the likes of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, with Josef Stalin and the Communist Party, with Pol Pot (Cambodia) and the Communist Khmer Rouge Party, with Pinochet in Chile, with Mao Zedong in China, with Mehmet Talat Pasa in Armenia, with Idi Ami in Uganda, and with the leadership in countries like Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur.  We all know that the government rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them in internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor. With intimate knowledge of and sensitive information about Pearl Harbor having been obtained by Japanese spy, Takeo Yoshikawa, and transmitted ultimately to Admiral Yamamoto in Japan to finalize plans of the attack, the government could not trust Japanese-Americans to be loyal to the United States over Japan. The camps were dismantled after Japan’s defeat.  We also all know of the McCarthy era and the political movement to weed out Communists and Communist spies from positions of power and access to sensitive information, but that was arguably for reasons of true national security. The relationship between the United States and Russia has become adversarial and competitive for control and influence in the world….  It was an era of intense geopolitics. Every move by Russia (the Soviet Union) became a matter of freedom and tyranny… a matter of individuals being able to live freely or to be controlled by a regime of fear and violence. The two countries emerged as the worlds’ two greatest superpowers, with the ability of annihilating millions of people with their nuclear capability (Russia obtaining the technology thru its espionage activities in the US) and each viewed the other as the enemy and an absolute threat to national security.

No one would ever associate modern day United States with political persecution, yet that’s exactly what happened under the Obama administration. Barack Obama deemed anyone whose views were contrary to his and his administration or whose views and background, and potential, posed a risk to his political agenda as “security threats” to the United States, posing a likely threat of acts of domestic terrorism. Is this not mind-blowing or what??  Paranoid kings of England acted in this manner, paranoid emperors of Rome acted in this manner, Stalin and Hitler acted in this manner, and the list goes on…..  those who think differently pose a threat to those in power. Yes, conservatives think the right to have and bear arms is a right meant to be essentially free from government control (except for mental illness and a violent history). Conservatives believe government control of firearms and ammunition, and talk of confiscation are the hallmarks of a tyrant (like King James II and King George III of England),.  Yes, conservatives believe that a sovereign nation without border control, ie, control over immigration, is not sovereign but merely a temporary state ultimately doomed to mob control. Yes, conservatives believe in the vitality and importance of our very first amendment – the rights to religious liberty, speech, press, assembly, and petition. They believe that a person is endowed with the right to think freely and to think as dictated by his or her religious values, his degree of intelligence and understanding, and as his heart and gut instruct (the “right of conscience”) and that government has no place to coerce thought, speech, and conduct that violates that right of conscience.  Yes, conservatives believe that a woman may have freedom over her body and her fertility (her ability to bring forth new life), but they certainly don’t believe the right is absolute and  includes the right to kill a fully-developed, living child that for the unfortunate reason that nature dictates (not yet been born), it hasn’t yet been able to take its first breath outside the mother’s womb.  Yes, conservatives believe in a limited government. They believe in the government created by the Constitution, which by its terms and provisions is certainly one meant to be limited. They believe a free country means that its citizens are able to freely exercise their God-given rights without over-regulation and intrusion by the government.  They believe in the rights of the individual and not the collective, a distinction made very clear when our country and our government system were established. They believe that a government that forcibly takes from some in order to benefit others, and then relies on those “dependents” as a crucial voting block, is an unconstitutional government – one well on its way to being a socialist government. Yes, conservatives believe in personal responsibility, lower taxes, free markets, and unburdened property rights.  And yes, conservatives believe that federal court judges and Supreme Court justices are limited in their roles on the bench; they are limited by the words, meaning, intent, and historical context of the Constitution and by the plain meaning and legislative intent of federal laws. In other words, they must be strict constructionists, textualists, and originalists, for the Constitution is a statement of the people’s intention for their government, permanently documented and ratified by state conventions specifically organized for that purpose. The only way to change the terms of government and to “evolve” with times is to take advantage of the amendment process outlined in Article V.  Conservatives  are strongly opposed to the notion of a “living, breathing, document” which gives judges and justices full reign to mold and transform the Constitution as they see fit and which allows them to by-pass the democratic process where the people dictate how fast society “progresses.”

Democrats, and especially Obama, believe in the complete opposite. The difference between Obama and other Democratic presidents is that he deceptively, secretly, covertly put programs and policies in place to subdue the opposition (conservatives) and as we are learning now, to deprive them the office of the presidency, in order to move full speed on his progressive, liberal (un-American) policies.  Besides his blatant abuse of the IRS to target conservatives, his interference in investigation and potential prosecution of Hillary Clinton for her intentional abuse of national security procedures by using a personal unsecured email server for official emails, and his creation of a “fake” dossier and his illegal abuse of the FISA warrant policy to spy on the Trump campaign, Judicial Watch has just uncovered documents that show that President Obama attempted to institute gun control stealthily by going after ammunition instead of guns. (It has just filed suit in the district court in DC to compel the ATF to produce its records on the matter).  The first shots of the American Revolution, as most of are unaware, were fired not because of taxation but because King George instructed his man in Massachusetts, General Gage, to locate and destroy all the colonists’ ammunition. And as most are unaware, it was this despotic act that prompted one of my favorite founding fathers, Patrick Henry, to exclaim to the Virginia Convention that famous night on March 23, 1775 at St. John’s Church in Richmond:

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year?  Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?  Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?  Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.  There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!  Our chains are forged!  Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!  The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace.. But there is no peace. The war is actually begun!  The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!  Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?  Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

With that speech, he defended the resolutions he had submitted for Virginia to build and train its militia (one in every county), to be ready to fight the British.

It is one thing to think differently, politically, for that is how citizens advance their issues and concerns in government, but it is another thing to use the government against the people because they think differently. And it is also one thing to think compromise is necessary and always a good thing, when sometimes it’s the very way we erode important foundations.  As Richard Dawkins once said:  “When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”  If the colonists had accepted Britain’s treatment of them, if they had engaged in endless compromise with its leaders, then America would never have pushed for, and fought for, its independence. Compromise breeds complacency.

If we look back on how President Obama insidiously targeted conservatives, we should take note of how he identified certain traditional “American” values and views and tried to explain them away as being dangerous to the country.  Hitler and Goebbels would have been proud.

The assessment, “RIGHTWING EXTREMISM: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” is prefaced by the following “Key Findings” by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (DHS):

Key Findings:

(U//LES)  The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.  The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

— (U//LES)  Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.  Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

— (U//LES)  Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

(U//FOUO)  The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

— (U//FOUO)  During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

— (U//FOUO)  Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power.

(U//FOUO)  The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

It then explains:

(U)  Current Economic and Political Climate

(U//FOUO)  DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.  Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.  In addition, the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.

— (U)  A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009.  The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

(U)  Exploiting Economic Downturn

(U//FOUO)  Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.  Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.”  These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs.  DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

(U)  Historical Presidential Election

(U//LES)  Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool.  Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.  Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment.  From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

 — (U//LES)  Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.  In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded.

(U)  Revisiting the 1990s

 (U//FOUO)  Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members.  Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage.  During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sector.

(U)  Illegal Immigration

(U//FOUO)  Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages.  They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.

(U//FOUO)  Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.  Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

(U//FOUO)  DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence.  If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.

— (U//FOUO)  DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.

(U)  Legislative and Judicial Drivers

(U//FOUO)  Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises.  Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

— (U//FOUO)  During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws—such as the Brady Law that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of various types of assault rifles—and federal law enforcement’s handling of the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

The assessment also informs: “The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.  Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.”

Through the DHS and its directive (“Rightwing Extremism…..”), the Obama administration was almost “deputizing state and local law enforcement” to do the government’s bidding.  We truly weren’t a “free country” during those years.

Clearly, the “assessment” by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (DHS) was meant to identify the threat to OBAMA and to his administration and his agenda, rather than to the United States and to its security and its citizens.  The identification of Rightwing groups and individuals as potential “domestic terrorists” is predicated wholly and improperly on a difference of political opinion and political viewpoint. It is as clear a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of Free Speech and Freedom of Conscience as it gets.

Anyone who can connect dots can see that Obama used the full forces of the federal government to target, harass, discriminate against, and to neutralize Tea Party groups and other conservatives. It is why he used the IRS to block Tea Party groups from organizing (they were denied, exclusively, the ability to organize as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups for political purposes), to go out and harass and excessively audit them, and why he had Dinesh D’Souza thrown in jail.  With this in mind, it’s not hard to see why he did everything possible to divide the country into groups violently opposed to conservatives and then to use government agencies to work silently to make sure Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election and to make sure Trump did not. It’s why they are still fighting Trump (and the conservatives in general). It’s become violent.

So far, President Trump reversed that policy and put the focus back on radical Islamists. He has not turned the tables on Democrats and their venomous, vile, and violent ilk and put them under the microscope by Homeland Security. But maybe he should.  Democrats have become a dangerous and obstructive force in our country – spewing and inciting hatred, division, and violence. They care little for political discourse so it isn’t about free speech; rather, it’s about getting Donald Trump out of office in any conceivable way possible, even if it has to be by creating a false and fictitious charge or by bombarding the American audience with a false narrative. It’s strictly a power ploy, designed to make useful idiots out of useless ones (Democrat voters) for the purpose of denying political power to the legitimate party, the Republican Party (duly elected by the people, thru the Electoral System; a government “by the people”) and transferring it, by a political coup, to the Democratic Party elite.

Trump is far too honorable and responsible of a president to ever consider turning the government against its citizens because unlike Obama, who supposedly taught Constitutional Law and an “expert on the Constitution,” Trump has an uncanny understanding of it and a deep respect for it.  He also understands and respects that the government belongs to the people, through their collective judgement and their action at the ballot box, and not to the puppet masters of a Political Party.

Here is another example of an approach where compromise cannot be sought. One approach is clearly wrong.

We must never again allow an administration to forcibly, or even tacitly, silence the voice of political opposition.  We must ever remain vigilant.

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” President Harry Truman spoke these words on August 8, 1950 in a special message to Congress on the Internal Security of the US.

Liberty, and the US Constitution, must always be those gems worth fighting for.  Both belong to the people; both are the birthright of every American.



“Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” (An Assessment), Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), April 7, 2009 –  https://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Paulina Dedaj, “Maxine Waters Supporters Burn American Flag Outside California Rep’s Office,” FOX News, July 20, 2018.  Referenced at:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/19/counterprotesters-burn-american-flag-outside-office-maxine-waters.html

Carlos Granda, “Oath Keepers Calls Off Protest Outside Maxine Waters’ Los Angeles Office,” ABC7 News, July 20, 2018.  Referenced at:  http://abc7.com/politics/oath-keepers-calls-off-protest-at-maxine-waters-office/3789197/

“Statement by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on the Threat of Right-Wing Extremism,” Department of Homeland Security, April 15, 2009.  Referenced at:  https://www.dhs.gov/news/2009/04/15/secretary-napolitanos-statement-right-wing-extremism-threat

The Ongoing Effort to Remove Trump: A Coup d’etat is Brewing

Coup d etat

by Diane Rufino, May 21, 20 17

KEEP AN EYE on the POLITICAL COUP that is brewing. It is coordinated at many levels.

A coup d’etat is defined as an overthrow of government, and hence the state, by the illegal and overt seizure of power by the military or other elites within the state apparatus. James Downton explains: “Unlike the coup d’etat that sees a military or popular figure lead a minority resistance or majority force into power over the legitimate government, this coup d’etat is leaderless and exposes some of the deepest fissures in our system of government. This coup d’etat represents not the rule of one man or even many, but by the multitude of our elites.”

Ever since I shockingly watched as a news reporter pondered on air what would happen if both Donald Trump and Mike Pence were assassinated during the inauguration ceremony, and ever since I witnessed the Women’s March on January 21… And as I continue to observe how members of Congress have absolutely lost all semblance of obedience to the Constitution and respect for the Electoral College outcome as they attack Trump for every word and breath he has taken so far in office, as I disappointingly note how the liberal courts are doing their best to re-write the Constitution and federal laws duly enacted by prior administrations, and as I listen disbelievingly each day to the conjured, false narrative that the Russians interfered with the presidential election and that there was collusion between Putin and Trump and his team in order to rob Hillary of her victory, and as I read about the audacious repeated leaks from government in violation of our federal Espionage and other laws in order to frustrate and taint our new president, and I see college students act like uncivilized savages on their campuses when any conservative speaker dares to be invited, and as I listen dumbfounded to members of Congress call for Trump’s impeachment when no action has warranted this action, I know that we are in the midst of a coup d’etat. I’ve made this allegation for months now and I can’t help but notice how many are now saying the very same thing.

I’m still, to some extent, affected deeply by the dark depths to which the Trump-hating media went on that glorious inauguration day. Who can ever forget it?  During the inauguration events, CNN contributor Brian Todd had the audacity to openly brainstorm what would happen if President-elect Donald Trump and Vice-President-elect Mike Pence were assassinated.  (Who would be in charge if an attack hit the incoming president, vice-president, and Congressional leaders just as the transfer of power is underway?”)  Their conclusion? According to their diabolic, yet hypothetical scheme, it would be a member of the Obama cabinet who would be selected to take over as president. As Todd explained: “According to the Constitution, if the president and vice president are killed or incapacitated, next in line is the House Speaker, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate……  But what if something happened to them at the inauguration, too?”

He continued: “After that, it goes down the list of cabinet secretaries, starting with secretary of state. On the day of the inauguration, as a precaution, a cabinet secretary called the ‘designated presidential successor’ will not attend the inauguration, ready to step in if something happens. But it won’t be a Trump cabinet secretary, since none of them have been confirmed yet. It will be an Obama appointee.”

But Todd wasn’t the only one to mention a hypothetical assassination. Before his report, news anchor Wolf Blitzer led into the story by asking: “What if an incoming president and his immediate successors were wiped out on day one?”  As anyone can recall, tensions had never been higher than they were on election night, when ALL polls were proven wrong and Donald Trump was elected president, and in all the days after, even leading up to Inauguration Day. After all, that was what the Women’s March was all about and thousands upon thousands turned out for that. The remarks by Blitzer and Todd were highly reckless given the tension level and the frazzled, fragile psyche of many progressives who wouldn’t need any more than a suggestion to commit such an unspeakable act. How many “crazed lone gunmen” have assassinated our political figures in the past? How many have done so with less of a provocation? We are told that Jack Ruby silenced Lee Harvey Oswald in order to spare Jackie Kennedy the ordeal of seeing the man who murdered her husband go on trial.

And so, as Downton aptly describes it, this brewing coup d’etat “represents not the rule of one man or even many, but by the multitude of our elites.”  A full-on smear campaign is being coordinated at many levels, including by rogue officials remaining from the previous administration, by a group of exceedingly ignorant and partisan US politicians, by statist Republicans, and most brazenly, by the leftist media (ie, over 90% of the media). There is only one word to describe their conduct – other than “treasonous” and “rebellious” – and that is “deception.”  They are trying to deceive the American people of the worth of the man they elected. It is a smear campaign and nothing more. Downton explains it best: “The attack on Trump from within is coordinated and purposefully geared to make a lack of evidence seem like a mountain of evidence and be as damning as possible, although what it truly amounts to is a paper tiger. With the administrative state leaking and the partisans giving context, the media gins up a plot that declares Trump guilty of crimes of which there is no concrete evidence he committed. This is how you build the consensus behind a coup d’etat.”

We the People need to figure out a way to help conservatives ORGANIZE across the country so that if the government devolves according to the leftist plan and all hell breaks loose, we can put a plan in place to defend our rights under the Declaration (with respect to government) and to prevent the evil from taking hold. If government cannot function for the people who elected this president, then we don’t need government at all. It will have ceased to be a constitutional republic and will have officially become a political oligarchy, where a select group of political heavyweights run the country.

We have a dark group that is using the Democratic Party for their own purposes and a dark group within our government that continues to ignore us and work against us, that continues to subvert the useful ends of government, and that continues to want to un-do the legitimate and constitutional election of Donald Trump – a man who won the presidency against all odds and against a powerful machinery that did everything it could to prevent it from happening.  These dark forces have, as their ultimate goal, the undoing of the values and principles in our Declaration of Independence and rendering of our precious Constitution as nothing more than a piece of useless parchment paper, all in order to control absolutely “We the People.”

The Democratic Party, the progressive movement, the likes of George Soros, entrenched government elites, members of the Shadow Government saw the election of Hillary Clinton as the cement to consolidate power of the administrative state – the government that progressives have long hoped for. These groups of political elites and these multi-millionaires and billionaires, all believing that their kind have the right to power and the right to determine the future of this country view the rest of us as pawns, as mere putty in their hands who, with the right “incentives” will vote for their agenda and surrender in the process our precious liberties and our virtues. Virtues and principles and individual liberties, after all, must be surrendered for unelected individuals to assume total power.

For those of us who can recognize the precarious situation facing our country right now, we also have noticed the trend that has gotten us to this point… the massive growth of a “dependency” culture, the massive expansion of an “entitlement” mentality, the persistent division of individuals along race, culture, gender, and sexuality lines, the increasing attacks on morality and the laws of nature, and the increasing immigration of those who don’t have traditional “American values” as their primary reason for coming here. For decades, we have predicted these growing trends as an intentional design to erode our nation’s foundations.  “If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.”  [See James Downton’s article in The Federalist at http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/19/watching-slow-motion-coup-detat/ ]

If it looks like it, feels like it, smells like it, acts like it…   we call it what it is…… TYRANNY.

I can’t help but sense a similarity to the John F. Kennedy administration.  Kennedy vowed to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces.” The CIA could not allow this to happen and the next thing you know, Kennedy was removed. The assassination of JFK let to a complete reversal of policy, particularly in foreign policy and with the Vietnam War.  Many have termed the assassination (and a government conspiracy, as concluded by the Senate Select Committee on Assassination in 1979) “a coup d’etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings.” (partial quote taken from the movie JFK).  Trump has made it a point (indeed, a campaign pledge) to seek the dismantling of the administrative state.  While the CIA during Kennedy’s administration did not fight back publicly, the administrative state (the secret government) is clearly more than capable of fighting back and seizing additional power through leaks, fabrication, partisan loyalty, and incest with the media. The removal of Trump, according to their plans, can be accomplished by non-violent means. The American people, after all, are a one-issue people (abortion, gay rights, transgender rights, women’s rights, illegal rights, entitlement rights) and are therefore without principle or sense of civic duty. They are meek.  Conservatives may get angered, Democrats believe, but they quickly go back to their routines –  living their lives and working; they don’t have the time or the stomach for prolonged protest or resistance.

In short, the powers that be are determined – and capable – of ensuring their survival.  Since they couldn’t achieve that end through the election of Hillary Clinton, they are prepared to go the more insidious route – the coup d’etat.

If you are as concerned as I am and believe there is a sense of urgency to our current situation, I ask that you consider what we can do and what we MUST do. The witch-hunt against Trump is historic and the liberals will not rest until they over-throw the will of the people, effect a coup in this country and erect a government not of the people’s choosing and not concerned with their legitimate issues. Real patriots would not allow this to happen. We have to assess all that is happening, what the counter-efforts are, what the likelihood is that their evil measures will be effective, and again, what we can or SHOULD do.  “A good patriot must always be willing to defend his country, even against his government.”

“Is a government worth preserving when it lies to the people?  It’s become a dangerous country when you cannot trust anyone…. when you cannot tell the truth.  I say ‘Let justice be done, though the heavens fall’!”  [Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK]


James Downton, “We Are Witnessing a Slow-Motion Coup d’Etat,” The Federalist, May 19, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/19/watching-slow-motion-coup-detat/

“CNN Prophesizes Trump, Pence Getting Assassinated During Inauguration,” Sputnik News, January 19, 2017.   Referenced at:  https://sputniknews.com/us/201701191049784915-shoddy-cnn-reporting-trump-inauguration/

Unite in Freedom!

Freedom - eagle

by Diane Rufino, January 13, 2013

A message to the Tea Party, 9/12 groups, the Republican Liberty Caucus, Ron Paul supporters, and other Liberty-minded groups and individuals….  

In this article, I hope to convince grassroots conservatives to unite in the coming year to re-assert founding values and strengthen principles of Liberty and to reject the contorted view of the Constitution that President Barack Obama is pushing on the American people.

First, let’s view the results of the 2012 election, as much as it pains me to do so –

1).  Obama received a majority of the electoral votes –  332 to 206

2).  He won the popular vote: 50 – 48%

3).  Independents made up 29% of the vote this time, and Romney beat Obama by five points among those voters. This was an increase over 2008 when McCain didn’t capture any of the independent vote.

4).  Surprisingly, Mitt Romney received less votes in November than McCain got in 2008. Romney received 2-3 million less votes than McCain.  Romney lost the 2012 election not so much because he got fewer votes than Barack Obama but because he got fewer votes than John McCain in 2008.

5).  Obama received 60.6 million votes in 2012, almost 9 million less than he received in 2008. Again, if Romney could have had even a slightly better showing than McCain had in 2008, he would have won the presidency.

6).  Outside the South, President Obama defeated Romney 55 – 45%.  In the South (minus Virginia and Florida), Romney took the lead 60 – 40%.  As the Daily Beast put it: “Romney got elected president of the old confederacy.”

7).  Romney won North Carolina by 2% of the vote

8).  Obama only received 39% of the white vote – the worst showing among whites since Mondale. Yet outside the South, whites didn’t turn out as strongly for Romney either.  In fact, the share of votes cast by whites was at its lowest (at 72%) since 1992.

9).  Romney won among white voters by 20 percentage points.  That was up from John McCain’s edge of 12 percentage points in 2008.  Of all those who voted for Romney, 88% were white.

10).  Non-whites made up 28%  of the electorate, up a bit from 27% in 2008.  This group largely backed Obama: 71% of Hispanics (up 4 points from 2008) and 93% of blacks (down 3-4 points from 2008).

11).  Romney, on the other hand, received only 2% of the black vote and 29% of the Hispanic vote.

12).  Young voters were important to giving Obama his first term.  Voters under age 30 showed up again this time:  They represented 19% of all voters, one point higher than 2008.  But this time, they didn’t back Obama as strongly this time.  In 2008, they backed him 66%, but in November their support dropped by 6 points.

13).  Seniors backed Romney by 56 to 44%, mostly unchanged from 2008.

14).  Married women backed Obama by 11 points (down from 2008) while married women backed Romney by 7 points (a far better showing than McCain got).

15).  Men, in general, backed Romney (by 7 percentage points), but married men backed him by an even wider margin (almost 2-1).

16).  White Catholics went for Romney by a margin of 59-40%.

17).  Romney apparently didn’t fare as well as he could have among Mormon voters.  George W. Bush received more support from the Mormon community in 2004 than Romney did in November.

18).  While Romney won the presidential debates, the attention that Obama received in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, particularly with bloated NJ Governor Chris Christie, helped him in the polls in the days leading up to the election. (Never mind that the government has yet to provide any assistance to the victims). 42% of voters said Obama’s handling of the hurricane disaster influenced their vote in a positive way. The Benghazi scandal, on the other hand, which far exceeded any wrong-doing that Richard Nixon did in the Watergate affair, seemed to have no negative impact on voters.  4 Americans serving their country in a hostile part of the world notified the State Department that their lives were in danger from radical extremists and requested additional security, but were denied. Hilary Clinton watched in real time as Ambassador Chris Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were overcome by a terrorist assault on the US Consulate and a safe house.  An urgent request from the CIA for military back-up and air support during the attack was denied. US forces were told to stand down and 4 Americans were left to be slaughtered.

19).  Republicans lost 6 seats in the US House

20).  Republicans lost 3 seats in the US Senate

The fatal mistake that we made was in thinking that voter turn-out would be like that of 2010 when Republicans made historic gains in state government and in Washington DC.  The single cause of Romney’s defeat was the failure of Republicans and conservatives to get out the vote.  3 million Republican voters stayed home on Election Day.  If those Republicans had voted, Mitt Romney would have won the popular vote by 180,000.

Why did Republicans stay home?  The only conclusion is that they weren’t motivated by the Republican party’s election message.  They weren’t inspired by the Republican party.  They weren’t convinced that Mitt Romney was a better alternative than Barack Obama. They didn’t see a clear-cut difference between the candidates.

On the bright side, however, thirty (30) Republican state governors were elected.

On Saturday, January 5th, Pat McCrory was sworn in as the new Governor of my state of North Carolina.  The last time NC had a Republican governor was 24 years ago. And for the first time in 144 years, a Republican Governor will meet a Republican Legislative Majority.

The NC General Assembly picked up an additional nine Republican seats (for a total of 77 out of 120 seats) and an additional two Republican Senate seats (for a record total of 33 out of 50).

But unfortunately the NC GOP could not get an outstanding slate of conservative candidates elected to the NC Council of State.  Ed Goodwin, Mike Causey, John Tedesco, Mike Royal, and Debra Goldman all lost their races. How could that be?  Many, including the candidates themselves, believe that the failure of the state GOP to provide adequate funding to their campaigns, when it could have done so, was what cost them the victories.

So let’s look at where we are now that the 2012 election is over and what the challenges are ahead.

On Monday, January 20, Obama was sworn in again as President.  I could barely summon the fortitude to watch  the event. I’ve changed the diapers of my four children with no problem, and endured their episodes of projectile vomiting, but I couldn’t stomach to listen to this man.  Just like a mother knows from the sounds her infant makes what vile mess awaits her, that’s how I feel about Barack Obama. The notion of a socialist/Marxist, globalist as the President of the greatest republic in the world, premised on the greatest respect for individual liberty and property rights, offended me to the very core. The lessons of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia are playing out right now here in the United States.  An ignorant and uninformed electorate, sufficiently devoid of morals and personal responsibility, more concerned in classifying themselves as a particular ethnic or social group than unifying into one common culture, was swayed by the charisma and promises of “hope” by a demagogue. We’ve given this man great political power and now we wait to see what he will do with it.  It struck me how our country, in all its greatness and with its supposed dependence on the Rule of Law, is not insulated from the seeds of tyranny.

In his inauguration speech, Obama laid out his agenda in stark terms: More spending on the same failing big government programs and another push for his global warming agenda to drive up energy prices and take away more of our freedoms in their name of sustainability and wealth redistribution. More centralization of power and more centralized planning over people’s lives and property. We were treated once again to a lecture on Obama’s interpretation of the Constitution and the meaning of our founding principles. And once again he talked about the transformation of America to meet the needs of a new day.  It’s clear once again that he is willing to trample on the Constitution anytime it interferes with his ends.  We are seeing it right now with his gun control initiative.

We have many challenges ahead and I hope they will serve to make our resolve stronger and unite the many conservative groups on common goals. These challenges include the mounting fiscal showdown, the government’s outright declaration of war on the wealthy and its wealth distribution polices, the administration’s open support of a gay rights agenda, Obamacare and its implementation, the re-interpretation of our Constitution, and the rising storm against Gun Rights.

We already see the start of the same old fight.  House Republicans are insisting on spending cuts in exchange for agreeing to a 3-month deal to temporarily raise the debt ceiling. But President Obama has already warned that he will not negotiate. He wants the rich to pay and pay and pay so that he doesn’t have to make any cuts in government programs.  Only in America can the rich people – who pay 86% of all income taxes – be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

Welcome to 2013 where the gravest problem threatening the nation is spending, where our Democratic president refuses to make spending cuts, where the Democratic Senate lawlessly refuses to pass a budget, and where Democrats frustrate congressional GOP efforts to enact spending and entitlement reform, yet the public is conned into believing that Republicans are the problem. Almost all polls show that the American people blame Republicans for the fiscal mess (either because they refuse to give in or because they haven’t aren’t standing strong enough).

The question is whether the debt ceiling deal, the “No Budget, No Pay” bill that the US House passed and just recently the Senate, which will delay pay to members of the House or Senate if they don’t approve a budget by mid-April.  According to Section 2 of the bill, a payroll administrator would withhold Congress members’ pay after April 15, 2013, if one or both houses of Congress couldn’t agree on a fiscal year 2014 budget. The money will be held in an escrow account and given back to Congress members when a budget is passed or at the end of the current 113th Congress in January 1, 2015.  Of course the deal lacks any meat since the 27th Amendment, our most recent constitutional amendment, would most likely prevent the holding of Congress’ pay.  The 27th Amendment essentially prohibits a sitting Congress from adjusting its compensation.

Obamacare is moving forward. By November, the exchanges will be open and those without an employer health plan can start enrolling in the government scheme. And next year, the Individual Mandate kicks in. To fund this massive socialist entitlement plan, the government will deep further into our pockets.  This will be in addition to the “American Taxpayer Relief Act” which Congress recently passed to allow the expiration of the payroll tax cut to have more money taken out of people’s paychecks. (The mean increase, by the way, is $1,635).  Embedded in Obamacare are approximately 6 new taxes which will hit everyone, while 21 new taxes will hit the wealthy (mostly affecting small business owners).  Personal and real property will become less and less valuable to us and our children (perhaps even becoming a liability). Because poorer Americans will be exempt from the Individual Mandate and the insurance fee and the wealthy will have no problem paying the “penalty,” Obamacare will be the largest tax increase on the middle class in this country’s history. As Rand Paul said: “Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be “constitutional” does not make it so. The whole bill remains unconstitutional..”   The four Justices who dissented wrote: “The values that should have determined our decision today are caution, minimalism, the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers, and federalism.  But the Court’s majority undermined those values at every turn.  The decision creates overreaching taxing power and undermines state sovereignty. The adherence to those core values is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril.  Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth;  Instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.”

What the Court has done is to clear the way for  a very broad use of the tax power, even to the point of coercing people into doing what the government wants them to do and punishing them for their inactivity.  We think we have free will, as human beings, but according to the government, we may have to be burdened with taxes to enjoy that luxury. Under the precedent set by the healthcare decision, government can now impose pretty much any mandate of any kind.  It could force people to purchase broccoli or cars or other product.  It could force people to join a gym and exercise, take contraceptives, limit families to two children, or any other government initiative.  We must continue to fight this bill in every way we can.

The Obama administration has succeeded in updating the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which continues to include the offensive provisions which allows the President, and the Defense Department and Homeland Security personnel he surrounds himself with, to target American citizens as belligerents, thereby detaining them indefinitely, interrogating them, and stripping them of their constitutional (Bill of Rights) protections. He have already seen Obama’s willingness to use the NDAA against Americans.

Last August, a 26-year-old former marine and citizen of the state of Virginia, Brandon Raub, wrote the following posts on facebook: “The bill of rights is being systematically dismantled.”  ”Your leaders are planning to merge the United States into a one world banking system. They want to put computer chips in you. These men have evil hearts. They have tricked you into supporting corporate fascism. But there is hope. BUT WE MUST TAKE OUR REPUBLIC BACK.”  For those words, the government showed up at his home, arrested him, and committed him involuntarily and indefinitely to a mental hospital. The government made the decision to take his rights away. (Luckily, his mother and a sharp lawyer were able to fight the unlawful arrest). But having the mental institution on his record might prevent him from exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Also last year, the FAA, at the behest of Congress, made the decision to allow low-flying, unmanned drones to patrol the US skies to aid local law enforcement. By the end of the decade, there will be as many as 30,000 drones in our skies. Drone manufacturers are currently working on prototypes that would be equipped with fire power. These drones are so sophisticated that they will be able to read license plates, lettering on envelopes, faces, and at night, to detect activity through heat emission. Routine aerial surveillance would profoundly change the character of public life in America.  It is said that at any given time, every American is likely breaking between 3-8 laws each day — simply because there are so many laws that we can’t possibly know them all. The only reason we aren’t arrested or stopped or cited is because police themselves can’t keep up with all the laws and plus, resources are limited in most localities. But imagine with the extra tools to spy on citizens??  Remember, you can be denied a license to carry guns if you are convicted of breaking the law.

In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the benefit of children and society.  But the Obama Administration has disregarded this law and neglected its duty to defend DOMA in court.

In March, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in two crucial marriage cases: One involves the constitutionality of DOMA and the other involves the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which is California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The potential impact of these two cases on the future of marriage can be potentially be disastrous.  The question is whether we trust the Supreme Court to do the right thing?

Years ago, the government had an interest in the education and morality of its children to ensure the best America possible. I remember the days when every student stood to salute the flag, acknowledged God, and then got a good, solid education, based on the time-honored principles of competition and responsibility. I remember when the family was the most important structure in society. I remember when church bells rang throughout my town and everyone’s lives somehow centered around the church and its activities. Now the government proclaims that it has no business legislating morality. Now the government has an interest in our youth for the primary purpose of indoctrinating them with the mindset that traditional social policies are unfair and discriminatory and should be challenged.

In 2001, Congress passed No Child Left Behind and now we have different standards set for different students and education has never been so bad in the United States. If a child doesn’t get enough sleep, he qualifies for a disability.  If he doesn’t want to study hard, he qualifies for another disability. Children learn that in life, they all get to play by different rules.  Administrators don’t want to spend their energies disciplining children so they put the responsibility on the teachers so that valuable education time is spend managing problem children, at the expense of those who want to learn. Teachers don’t want to spend time disciplining, so they dumb down their lessons, requirements, assignments, and tests. Teachers and school administrators don’t want these troubled, bad students to keep returning so they move them along, often by setting lower standards so they can pass the classes. They use group assignments, often pairing smart students up with those who struggle. They share one grade.  But diversity and tolerance is promoted… which all too often seems to be the aim of the public school agenda. Academic excellence continues to yield in the name of fairness, diversity and social justice.

Currently, the Obama administration is bribing the states with federal dollars to implement his “Common Core” program, which is the administration’s radical make-over of our children’s public school core curriculum. Michele Malkin says the program should be called “Rotten to the Core.”  Grammar classes will be deemed irrelevant; literature classes will de-emphasize the classics because too many of the classic authors are white.  History lessons covering western civilization and our Founding Fathers will be attacked as being racist. With respect to the math reforms alone, Stanford University has concluded that the Common Core scheme would place American students two years behind their peers in other high-achieving countries.

Remember, America’s downfall began with the entitlement generation and it will continue with the proliferation of the “low-information voter.”  And that, of course, starts right in our schools and in our homes….. It starts with the no-knowledge student.   The same can also be said about the voter without morals and values.

Probably most offensive to us, as Americans, are the 23 Executive Orders that Obama signed into law on January 16 to regulate gun rights. We knew Obama was coming for our guns. The school shootings just provided him the opportunity.  We all know that psychopaths are attracted to schools precisely because they are gun-free zones and because they want to vent their anger in the most audacious way. We know that firearms are merely instruments. They don’t shoot themselves. It’s malevolent souls, like those who shoot helpless children in their classrooms, who are the problem, not the Second Amendment.

We don’t have a God-given right to the Second Amendment, but we do have a God-given to self-protection and self-preservation. And that’s what the Second Amendment is all about. It protects our right to Life, and by extension, Liberty and Property.  If we are denied the ability to protect those basic rights, then we are not truly free. The Second Amendment was not written to protect the rights of hunters, it was written to protect the rights of the hunted; whether those that are hunting us or our family are common criminals or a tyrannical government that no longer respects the Constitution, the Rule of Law, or our God-given rights as human beings.

Requiring Americans to register themselves and their firearms, have a photograph taken, have fingerprints on file, and submit to psychiatric evaluations when the government defines what classifications of free speech are considered dangerous is a prerequisite for government monitoring and then confiscation, which then is the prerequisite for subjugation and totalitarianism. In the extreme cases, it is a prerequisite for the extermination of political enemies.

Everyone concerned for their Second Amendment security should contact their state representatives, their County Commissioners, and their local Sheriff’s department (the enforcement agency closest to the individual) and inquire whether each intends to honor their oath to support and defend the US Constitution (and state constitution, which also contains a Bill of Rights).  Please urge your representatives and local officials to adopt resolutions which declare the intent to preserve and protect the rights to have and bear a firearm.  Resolutions are being adopted all over – from the state of Wyoming to Beaufort County in North Carolina.  Model resolutions are available from the NC Tenth Amendment Center. (http://www.northcarolina.tenthamendmentcenter.com)

We need to start treating abuses of the constitution as felonies.

The unconstitutional, fiscal, social, educational, moral, and criminal problems we suffer today are not the problem. They are the symptoms and the consequences of a people who have turned from God and become a society that encourages the “instant gratification” nature in many of us. It’s the American people who need fixing before we can hope to fix the country and our government.  A good and moral people require few laws and therefore a small government is possible. And a small government allows for the greatest exercise of freedom.  People who can’t control their conduct are one of the reasons we have an out-of-control government and a judiciary that thinks they need to deconstruct the Constitution in order to fashion new social norms for these types of people.

As Tea Partiers, we constantly refer back to the Constitution and our founding principles. It’s our respect for the Constitution and Founding Fathers that gave rise to our movement.  Governments are an extension of Natural Law – to address the social nature of man and to keep us in ordered societies and to protect our God-given rights. Constitutions, on the other hand, are not of divine origin. They are man-made instruments that restrain the government and prevent it from oppressing the people it is supposed to serve and protect. Laws restrain people but Constitutions restrain government.  Luckily for us, our Constitution was divinely-inspired.

The brilliance of our Constitution is the separation of government powers, each branch jealously guarding its sphere of authority, and the complex system of checks and balances, which includes the states (under the Tenth Amendment) and an engaged and vigilante electorate. Without these effective checks and balances, we would cease to have a constitutional republic. We would, in effect, have a democracy, the one thing our Founders wanted to avoid.  The rule of a constitutional majority would simply become the rule of the numerical majority – where the majority would be able to use the full resources of the federal government for its selfish purposes.  In times of stress, such as our economic depression and rising unemployment, the rule of the majority can easily become the rule of the mob – with the majority taking what it wants from the minority.  Again, this is precisely what our Founders struggled to avoid.  Freedom is God-given, but it is up to us, as men and women, to make sure it is secured from the evil tendencies of government.

The attacks on our freedoms and our property rights are a symptom of a deep problem – an unfortunate shift in the political wind and a calculated re-engineering of American society. Those in power get away with it because we let them.  And there are several reasons for this:
(a)  a fundamental disrespect for the Bible and our Constitution
(b)  a failure to stick to our traditional American values
(c)  a failure to hold our representatives to their oaths of office..  (we keep electing them);  and
(d)  a failure to find candidates to represent the party who are not afraid to ask the tough question: “What would Thomas Jefferson do?”

We are facing an unprecedented level of central planning over our lives, our fortunes, and our Pursuit of Happiness. What are our rights worth if the government regulates us so much that we can’t exercise them freely and safely?  What President Obama implied in his inaugural speech, as he so heavily relied on the memory of Abraham Lincoln, is that the pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of equality of result. Not the equality of opportunity, but the equality of result. He implied that would do what he could to use the government to make everybody more equal, in terms of their income and their life’s work. He didn’t talk about the rightful reward for effort, sacrifice, and achievement. He didn’t talk about the reward for success, which is the natural incentive and which keeps a civilization moving forward and becoming more successful.  It was an income-leveling speech… which signals the death of our John Locke foundation of government and the nation’s view of Natural Rights.

As columnist Keith Koffler wrote: “Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin trusted the people with a Republic. Liberals say the people can no longer be trusted alone with such things…..   Jefferson wanted to guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Obama wants to guarantee happiness. The former is the philosophy of capitalism. The latter is Socialism, which uses government to reduce freedom, not create it. This is not what the Founders intended.”

It was unthinkable to hear the leader of the United States, the nation founded on the recognition of man as an inherently free creature, and a former Harvard-educated constitutional lawyer, argue during his speech that America has evolved to the extent “our founding documents” no longer require us to “define liberty in exactly the same way.”  The truth is that Obama’s ideology contradicts the Constitution he is sworn to uphold and he is putting his ideology above the one thing that protects the freedom our Creator has endowed us with – the Constitution. Because of this president, we can expect the ideological divide to grow wider over the next four years and time-honored social foundations to be sufficiently eroded.  Put on your seat belts folks….   The carnage we can expect as a result of his divide-and-conquer policies and his policies of national transformation will be immense.

As if this all isn’t enough, the rumor that Obama might seek to repeal term limits for the Presidency so he can run again in 2016 is coming true.  On January 4, Democratic US House rep, Jose Serrano (NY), introduced a piece of legislation – Joint House Resolution 15 (H.J. Res. 15) – proposing “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”  It is currently referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

What is it about “tyrant” and “dictator” that is attractive to people? And why is the government trying so hard to make it a reality for this particular president?

But while the pendulum of political ideology swings back and forth, tipping right now at the far left, we have to wonder if the momentum will ever bring it back over to the right. History shows a recurrent movement back and forth  in our country, between idealistic big governmental activists and their conservative counterparts who oppose centralized government and believe that government is best when it governs least. These historical cycles have usually lasted for one generation, approximately 20 to 25 years.  It’s been 25 years since Ronald Reagan left office.  It’s been 25 years since we last enjoyed a president who actively sought to turn back “big government.”

Let’s hope there is a political equivalent of the laws of physics: “For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.” What goes around comes around.

What will the Republican Party offer in 2016?

I got a call from the GOP sometime before Christmas, asking for money. It was a call from a Washington DC number.  Still being in a funk over the results of the presidential election, I wasn’t in a donating mood. But the guy wouldn’t stop asking so I asked him what the GOP plans to do going forward to energize the conservative base?  This is what he told me  –
1).  It will have to support some kind of amnesty – to attract the Hispanic vote  (An analysis of the Hispanic community, however, shows that  Hispanic voters are not voting for Democrats because the Democratic party is for amnesty or for open borders. The reason they vote for Democrats is the same reason other groups vote for Democrats.. for the hand-outs).
2).  The GOP platform can continue to show its support of the Right to Life and the rights of the Unborn but it should not pursue policy to limit or take any abortion rights or funding from those who believe otherwise.
3).  The GOP platform can continue to show its moral disapproval of Gay Marriage but it should not pursue policy to deny rights to gays/lesbians.

In other words, the Republican Party intends to sell out its principles and abandon the hope of restoring moral principles to this once moral nation.  It is planning to pander to social groups.  What party does that remind you of?

The Democratic Party.

If the GOP doesn’t believe in the Rule of Law, if it believes there are special rights for special groups, and if it is willing to concede our founding principles for a more fair outcome, then it has ceased to be Republican party. It is just another liberal party and should waive the white flag of surrender. If you think it is acceptable that our choice in 2016 will be the party of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the party of unprincipled conservatives, then our country is lost. If you believe that we should resign ourselves to a culture  that lacks the moral courage to discourage envy and covetousness, then you have rejected the American ideal of “Equal Opportunity” in favor of the French model of “Equality of Outcome.”

We have to stand the course and fight as best we can issue by issue, at this point. If we still believe in the notion that we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people, then we have to put the power back in the foundation where it came from – us.  We the People.  That’s what the Declaration of Independence proudly proclaims.

We have 4 more years with a President who fundamentally stands for everything we oppose and who is as ambitious at transforming America as Kim Kardashian is at finding a husband…. or as ambitious as Chris Christie is at finding a donut shop.  Obama has made, perhaps, one too many a mistake by going after our Gun Rights. That might be the issue we can hope to build stronger coalitions against this administration. We HAVE to win more seats in the House and Senate in 2014, and we HAVE to figure out, once and for all, the winning strategy for 2016.  Or we may never see a Republican in the White House again.

If you believe, as the Republican Liberty Caucus believes and as many Tea Party groups believe, that with hard work and determination we can wrestle the GOP from the grips of those who would sell its soul and restore her, then I beg you to please take to heart what you will hear and learn here today.

Again, we have to get involved to make a difference.  The success or failure will rest with us…..   working together.


I.    Obama’s 23 Executive Orders to Regulate Gun Ownership:

1). Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.

2). Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.

3). Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system.

4). Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

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

6). Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

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

8). Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

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

10). Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11). Nominate an ATF director.

12). Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

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

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

15). Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16). Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17). Release a letter to healthcare providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18). Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19). Develop model emergency-response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20). Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21). Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within Affordable Care Act exchanges.

22). Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.

23). Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Reference:   http://www.newsmax.com/headline/obama-guns-executive-orders/2013/01/16/id/471689#ixzz2JgW48lwc  (“Obama’s Executive Orders to Address Gun Violence Reduction?)

Also see:  Scott Coffina, “Gun Control by Executive Order,” National Review Online, January 16, 2013.  Referenced at:  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337789/gun-control-executive-order-scott-coffina?pg=1

II.    Obama’s First Term by the Numbers 

At the beginning of January 2013, the RNC Research arm released a list of how much President Obama’s first four years cost in terms of deficits, regulations, stimulus spending, and the underemployed and unemployed individuals. The following are a few of those figures:

  • $25.4 Trillion: Projected federal debt in 2022 due to Obama’s binge spending (Office of Management and Budget, 7/27/12).
  • $16.4 Trillion: Current national debt (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/17/13).
  • $9.2 trillion: Amount Obama’s FY2013 budget would add to the debt through FY2022 (OMB, 7/27/12).
  • $5.8 Trillion: Added to the national debt since Obama took office (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/17/13).
  • $2.6 Trillion: True cost of ObamaCare once fully implemented (Office of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Report 1/6/11).
  • $1.75 Trillion: Annual cost of federal regulations (Small Business Administration, September 2010).
  • $1.18 Trillion: Total cost of Obama’s first stimulus with interest (CBO, 1/31/12).
  • $1.17 Trillion: American debt held by China (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/17/13).
  • $1.090 Trillion: Federal budget deficit for FY2012–Fourth Highest in U.S. History (CBO, 10/5/12).
  • $833 Billion: Price tag of Obama’s first failed stimulus (CBO, 8/23/12).
  • $820 Billion: Amount of taxes in ObamaCare (CBO 3/13/12).
  • $518 Billion: Amount of regulatory burden since Obama took office (American Action Forum, 1/14/13).
  • $447 Billion: Price tag of Obama’s second stimulus (The White House, 9/8/11).
  • $236.7 Billion: Amount of regulatory burden in 2012 (American Action Forum 1/14/13).
  • $188 Billion: Taxpayer funds for Fannie May and Freddie Mac (ProPublica, Accessed 10/10/12).
  • $28.5 Billion: Outstanding government investment bailouts of the auto industry (Treasury Department, 1/10/13).
  • $24.3 Billion: Amount government expects to lose on bailouts of auto industry (Treasury Department, 1/10/13).
  • $535 Million: Stimulus loan to the failed solar company Solyndra (The Oakland Tribune, 11/4/10).
  • 46.2 Million: Number of Americans receiving food stamps (Department of Agriculture, 1/4/13).
  • 22.7 Million: Americans unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for work (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/17/13).
  • 12.2 Million: Unemployed Americans (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/17/13).
  • 2.6 Million: Unemployed workers that have given up looking for work (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/17/13).
  • 757,000: Unemployed veterans (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/17/13).
  • 226,000: Unemployed post-9/11 era veterans (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/17/13).
  • 89,000: The number of stimulus checks sent to dead or incarcerated people (The Wall Street Journal, 10/7/10).
  • $53,224: Your share of the national debt (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/17/13).
  • $18,804: Increase in your share of the national debt since Obama took office (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/17/13).
  • 45,696: Pages of new rules added to the federal register during Obama’s first two years in office (Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2011).
  • $15,500: Annual cost per household from federal regulations (Small Business Administration, September 2010).
  • 61%: The amount by which new offshore leases for oil and natural gas drilling has declined under Obama (FactCheck.org, 10/19/12).
  • $3,065: Amount of increase of average cost of family health care premiums since Obama took office (The Kaiser Family Foundation, 2012).
  • 7.8%: The current unemployment rate, which is the same as when Obama took office (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/17/13).
  • Since Obama took office, the unemployment rate for women has increased from 6.9% to 7.8% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/4/13).
  • In December 2012, the unemployment rate for women spiked from 7.6% to 7.8% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/4/13).
  • Since Obama took office, the African American unemployment rate has increased from 12.7% to 14.0% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/4/13).
  • In December 2012, the African American unemployment rate increased from 13.2% to 14.0% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/4/13).

Reference:  Figures compiled by the Republican National Committee