What “Fast and Furious” was really all about…

The Obamanation Administration engaged in an intentional program to provide itself with a justification to violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This program was called “Operation Fast and Furious” There have been many on the right who figured out exactly what was going on pretty much the moment US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered.

Well, what we knew was coming has arrived, and it is exactly what we knew it would be.

ATF to accept public comments prior to outlawing shotguns

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is taking a rare step of allowing public comments prior to issuing a decision on a study that could result in outlawing certain types of shotguns currently available to citizens.

Read that very carefully as it is of utmost importance. The ATF, the exact same agency in charge of “Operation Fast and Furious” is going to outlaw certain guns. Shotguns to be precise. It would seem that the Obamanation Administration, headed up by the supposed Constitutional Scholar Barack Obama haven’t bothered to read the United States Constitution.

Shall not be infringed.

in·fringe // //
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

v. tr.

To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

v. intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

[Latin īnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
in·fring’er n.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The progressive movement has been eroding this amendment since early on in the 20th century. Hiding their actions behind such vile and detestable terms as reasonable regulations and public safety.

The real truth is that the founding fathers left zero wiggle room regarding the regulation of firearms ownership. They made their thoughts on the subject absolutely crystal clear.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

History had to be revised by a progressive controlled educational system for these facts to be so ignored and watered down as to advance the notion the founding fathers found both insane and insulting, reasonable regulation and public safety.

Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best.

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

The second amendment is not a States Rights issue, nor does the Federal Government have any constitutional authority to regulate firearms ownership, the constitution makes this indisputably and incontrovertibly clear.

Yet Federal administration after administration and State after State have completely and totally violated the letter of the law as spelled out in no uncertain terms in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Furthermore, the FBI has documented and for the most part hidden their results which prove beyond any doubt that populated centers where individual gun ownership and right to carry laws exist have the very lowest assault, murder, and robbery levels in the entire country.

Federal and State gun regulations are not and never has been about providing public safety, they are and always have been about making stripping the constitutional rights away from citizens and increasing the governments control over individuals lives.

Ponder the words of the great and famous statesman Benjamin Franklin, consider where you fall in this great divide, are you on the side of the Founding Fathers of this Great Republic, or have you sided with the Progressive Movement, (and yes that really does mean communists) who are attempting to subvert the US Constitution?

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Choose you this day upon whose side you are on, I pray that the words of Sameul Adams are not spoken of you.
Sameul Adams:“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

I am left to ponder the painfully obvious, what part of “shall not be infringed” is it that these Marxist fascists do not understand? Part of me, I must confess believes that they understand completely what “Shall not be Infringed” means, but they just do not care. That pesky Second Amendment gets in the way of their planned coup and implementation of their Marxist Utopia. Before I go any further and you think that I might be over reacting or going overboard on what I am suggesting regarding the meaning and intentions of the Founding fathers regarding the Second Amendment let me quote David E. Young Constitutional scholar and recognized authority on Founding Era Second Amendment history.

The Meaning of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’

As a result of Second Amendment dispute, it has been suggested that to infringe relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive “reasonable” regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right. As an example, it has been claimed that a complete ban on certain types of firearms is a “reasonable” regulation and would not violate the “shall not be infringed” restrictive language. A contrary understanding is that infringe means to encroach upon or narrow the right in any way and that the purpose for the “shall not be infringed” language was to prevent regulation of the right.

An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb “infringe” was intended to be in the Founders’ view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.

James Madison’s Usage
The Second Amendment’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that “infringe” based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” [The Origin of the Second Amendment p.654] Assuming that Madison’s intention in preventing religious liberty from being “infringed” was to allow for considerable “reasonable” regulation by the federal government is illogical. In fact, it is clear that the intent of such language was to prevent any interference whatsoever by the government in such matters. The later change to “Congress shall make no laws” language buttresses this period understanding of “infringe” based protection.

Samuel Adams’ Usage
Another person who used “infringe” in bill of rights proposals for the Constitution was Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. He attempted to protect freedom of the press and religion with this proposal: “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience”. [OSA p.260] It is unthinkable that such usage by Adams indicated an intention to allow extensive reasonable regulations of freedom of the press and religious beliefs. Instead, such language was certainly intended as the strongest of limits upon government actions, just as in Madison’s case with his infringe based restrictive proposals to Congress regarding freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Congressional Amendments Committee Usage
There is other informative period Bill of Rights related use of “shall not be infringed” language often overlooked today due to gun control advocates’ historical arguments diverting away from the Second Amendment’s actual Bill of Rights history. The Committee of Eleven, to which Madison’s proposals were submitted by Congress, accepted his original use of “infringed” relative to freedom of religion as well as his “shall not be infringed” language relative to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Committee also added Madison’s original Second Amendment restrictive language (“shall not be infringed”) to other First Amendment rights – freedom of speech – freedom of the press – the right of peaceable assembly – the right to apply for redress of grievances. All of these, including Madison’s “inviolable” freedom of the press and his right of the people to speak, of which they “shall not be deprived or abridged” [OSA p.654], were re-stated by the Committee as rights that “shall not be infringed”. [OSA p.680] Once again, it does not appear that such period usage indicated the Committee members understood that religious beliefs could be subjected to extensive reasonable regulations, or that they used “shall not be infringed” with the intention that it would condone extensive and reasonable regulation of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of peaceable assembly, the right to apply for redress of grievances, or the right to keep and bear arms.

Unlike President Obama, David E Young is a genuine boni fide Constitutional Scholar, not a part-time guest lecturer. Please go read Professor Young’s entire article, it is extremely well written and impeccably sourced.

The ATF has absolutely no, as in ZERO legal authority to outlaw so much as a spitwad straw let alone shotguns that can accept a magazine or hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition. To say that this attempted action by the ATF is unconstitutional and completely illegal would be one of the biggest understatement of the century, and there have been a lot of understatements made in this fledgling century.

With the “Operation Fast and Furious” investigation going absolutely nowhere (one can only assume that Issa and Boehnor have intentionally buried it at this point) how can we not come to the conclusion that it is time to eliminate the ATF?? It has shown itself to be nothing less than a criminal organization bound and determined to subvert the Constitution of the United States of America.


The Fifth Column Treasonous Media starts to notice that they have fallen from Grace.

Once upon a time there was this mythical creature, the honest journalist, a creature of intelligence and integrity. A fearless warrior battling the forces of evil and corruption on all fronts.

Ya, and if you believe that, you probably also believe that Obama has lead us all out of the darkness and into the light. The truth, the real ugly unvarnished truth is that their never have been any unbiased objective journalists. Never in the entire history of the human race.

In 1974 one of the most profound revolutions in history began quietly with little notice by the vast majority of the world. For all intents and purposes it began in Menlo Park California. It was conceived of explicitly for the purpose of the facilitation academic and scientific research. It was, the birth of the internet. What it was and to this day remains, is a collection of searchable computer databases.

Back before the internet existed journalists and newspaper columnists had heavily armored fortresses from which to dictate their ideology from, they controlled what stories got told and which ideological slant each story was told from. And their positions were unassailable, unchallengeable.

It was not a joke when Mark Twain once remarked that it was a terribly bad idea to pick a fight with someone who bought ink by the barrel. A newspaper columnist for the New York Times in 1970 had a bully pulpit that consisted of 35 million paid subscriptions.

More importantly the average individual had little to no capacity to argue with or refute anything that was published in the New York Times in 1970. It was 100 percent up to the editor whether or not any opposing point of view was even recognized or not.

Journalist and columnists, the entire Fifth Column Treasonous Media for that matter, didn’t loose their power and authority because of the invention of the internet. They lost it because the internet gave average everyday individuals the opportunity to do exactly what the internet was originally designed to facilitate in the first place.

The internet gave people the chance to check the veracity of what the media was reporting. The media had been playing fast and loose with the truth, using their bully pulpit to propagandize events rather than provide unbiased information. They lost their position of social importance when everyday people found out they were being deceived and manipulated.

Once that happened the internet became a forum for discussion that the media no longer had the exclusive control over what stories or events the general public learned about or where a single ideological slant could be put out unchallenged. To be blunt, they fell from grace because they had become corrupted by their own arrogance, and that corruption was exposed when the average person could check the facts themselves.

Now these columnist and journalists are finally starting to understand that they are no longer the gatekeepers of information, that they no longer control the political or ideological narratives, that their propaganda isn’t just falling on deaf ears, but being met with outright unbridled ridicule. And I, as one of the smallest and least important bloggers on the face of the planet can not but help feel the delightful schadenfreude while watching them stumble around in the dark attempting in vain to comprehend how or why they fell from grace.

The US Constitution destroyed right before our very eyes, and we did nothing.

Bill Whittle has produced a new “Firewall” in which he say’s exactly what I have been screaming at the top of my metaphorical lungs for several years now. Bill, by the grace of God, has a far louder voice than I and several million more people watching his Firewall productions. Yet, with even Bill’s far greater audience the chances of anyone acting on what Bill has said remain very small.

America is perhaps terminally infected with “It can’t possible happen here” syndrome. Eyes wide shut, ears firmly plugged and singing La la la la I can’t hear you America travels down a path that leads to totalitarianism. Meanwhile the majority of Americans, when they hear anyone say that our entertainment industry, our Fourth Estate our educational system or our judicial and political systems have been infiltrated and subverted by Marxist’s pretending to be Socialist’s masquerading as Progressive Democrats and Republicans immediately retort with accusations of the individuals making such claims are whacked out conspiracy theorists.

But but but, it can’t possible happen here… Wake the hell up America, it not only can, it already has happened here. There is still time, but only just barely, to stop what is happening. Nobody is going to do it for you. Nobody is going to save this Republic if you yourself do not do it. But how do I, one single powerless faceless person lost in the multitude of Americans save the Republic you might ask (well, you might ask it if you wake up in time and realize that your Republic really is facing the greatest threat to it in American History).

It is actually quite simple. You get up off you lazy ass, turn American Idol or Dancing with the Stars off and get involved with your local, state and Federal politics. First you register to vote, and then cast your vote to throw the Marxist-in-Chief Barack InSane Obama out of office on his kiester. Then you cast your vote to throw every Democrat out of office and only vote for individuals who still believe that the United States Constitution should be protected and followed. You also do not take for granted or assume that just because a politician in office or running for office is a member of the GOP that he gives a rats ass about upholding the US Constitution, make them prove it. To Quote Ronald Reagan, “Trust but Verify”.

Second, if there is a local TEA Party in your town or city, go join it. If their isn’t, than start one. Write your congressman or senator and DEMAND, don’t ask or request, DEMAND that NDAA is repealed or challenged in court.

Most Importantly, wake the hell up and understand that the United States Constitution has been temporarily nullified and if you do not stand up now and do something about it, it will become a permanent nullification and you never will be able to do anything about it. It will be nobody’s fault but yours.

Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air also covers this, check out what Ed has to say…