RDF:![[Valid RSS]](http://validator.w3.org/feed/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Obamessiah, Not Yet Sworn In, Set to Rewrite “Imperfect Constitution.”
Posted by: Emperor Misha I9:48 am
(h/t LCs Deathknyte and cmblake6).
And if you didn’t see it coming in that interview from 2001 (that the Obamedia promptly ignored) in which he laments and wails about the “essential constraints” of the Constitution that government needs to “break free from” in order to redistribute wealth in a true, socialist fashion, then you’re more dense than a pulsar.
At least now he’s on the record:
“It was these ideals that led us to declare independence, and craft our constitution, producing documents that were imperfect but had within them, like our nation itself, the capacity to be made more perfect.
We are here today not simply to pay tribute to our first patriots but to take up the work that they began. [Emphases added -- Emp.M.]
Sure. Let’s throw out that old “imperfect” piece of trash and get on with rewriting one according to the principles set out in Das Kapital. It’s what the Founders would have wanted, after all, at least according to Constitutional Scholar and all-round ignorant lawn jockey jackass resident-select Jugears Hussein.
Try it, Buckwheat, just fucking TRY it. You won’t like the results, that we can promise you.
Oh, and did we mention that he said all of the above in Philadelphia as he makes his way on his Hail the Conquering Hero Comes Tour of 2009™, fawning, fainting and panty-creaming Obamalytes swooning on cue as he passes?
Somewhere in Hell, Leni Riefenstahl is laughing her arse off.
Entries (RSS)
Mother. FUCKER! Yeah, I’d posted on that one already Sire.
Ein Volk
Ein Reich
Ein jugears
Thank heavens the Constitution requires a three-quarter majority of states to change. Fortunately for us, the Founding Fathers saw BS like this coming and took steps to stop it.
Here’s another bit of fun for you. Apparently one of the inaugural speakers has ties to Hamas. Greeeeeat.
And by the way, DC is FRIGHTENING right now.
Had President Bush ever said such a thing or even hinted at toying with the constitution, it would be media denounced as one of the most villianous statements ever uttered by a president.
NOW can we impeach him?
Oh this is soooooo gonna get ugly…….He can attempt to modify the consitution is he wants… but it will take votes in congress….. and I will view any congressperson that votes to modify our constitution as an enemy … and treat them accordingly.
LC SkyeChild G.L.O.R., Imperial Grammar Hun sez:
Not for another couple days……
Can it be made any more clear who the “domestic enemy” is? Or, at least, who represents them?
Obama is the figurehead, the mouthpiece. It’s the king makers we need to remove and punish to an extreme that will make the wannabes think twice about trying it again.
And Troy… couldn’t agree more.
He better not mess with the constitution
Did you see that pepsi changed their lgo to match him? And that Honest T has a drink called Barack Forest cherry? What am I not seeing, or what am I seeing about this guy that my friend and coworkers do or don’t se? I feel as though i am going nuts, because I do not see him as anything but a politicion, and nothing special, and I feel like most of the country has been hypnotized, but that I escaped? WHAT IS GOING ON??? 
Will he “modify” it before he swears the oath to “protect & defend” it? Just askin’…
Then again, oaths don’t mean anything to Leftists, as long as the ends justify the means.
Bring it on, Obambi. There are a lot of us who actually remember and, more importantly, will carry out (and, just as importantly, have the capacity to) the oath that we swore to give our lives for.
Maybe it’s my pre-Socialist Era Public Education and College larnin’, but doesn’t there have to be the following process:
1. A Constitutional Convention is held to draft and ratify the various Amendments
2. Amendments to the Constitution are presented to Congress
3. Congress then holds hearings and votes the Amendments up or down
4. The ‘Several States’ must then put the Amendments to a vote of, gasps and horrors! the
ProletariatCitizens5. A 2/3 majority of the Several States is needed to make the Amendments part of the Constitution.
Now, if Harvard Educated (but never published) Lawyer (barely practiced) Barack H. Obama has another process in mind, he would take care to remember such action is tantamount to ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ or declaring war on the Citizenry (which is well armed).
Of course the Democrat
Party controlled Congress 
could short circuit the process, but they are really, really enjoying their automatic pay raises, marbled office buildings, public difference 
the accolades from the Dinosaur Media to risk their silky necks.
I pointed this one out today to a few friends, but I will share it here:
-Obama, 2001
-A representative from International ANSWER, being taped by a Protest
Warrior.
If history always repeats itself (and it does), and America is truly the heir apparent of the last world altering superpower (Hail Salad Dressing Dude!), then I think Barry and Company are truly capable setting the groundwork for the (Actual) American Empire.
Which begs the question, will the next four years be referred to in the history books as The Pax Obamarama?
NR Pax @:
What is “extremely weak” is the argument favoring a changed Constitution that tries to define and defend all lifestyles and arrangements. The beauty of the original document is it’s simplicity. The Obamazoids would attempt to fit all their far left leaning bozos into the mainstream via the “new” document.
Civil unrest is not out of the question.
You can’t make something “more perfect.” If it’s perfect, then there’s no room for improvement.
Has anyone seen/heard the commercial where he gives his (John) Kennedy-esque speech about joining his “service corps?”
I hope this doesn’t lead to forced anything.
I’ve got the feeling that I’m gonna have to have The Doc up the dosage of my BP med and start me on Xanax or Valium or something of the sort just to keep from stroking out in the next year…
MODERATION?!?!?! Never do anything in moderation… Go balls out or don’t go!!
Well, Obumfuck, you rotten sun of a syphilitic whore, there you have it. “Foreign and domestic”, bitch. Look it up. Not MY Commander In Chief.
I wonder of those self-styled lefties will laugh as the second civil war gets underway. Life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness. Nobody, and I mean nobody has the right to the fruits of my labors unless I say so! Fuck them! If the RINOS fold on this……………….
TerribleTroy sez:
Don’t count on it. Obama knows that to silence his critics all he needs to do is label them a racist or a bigot. And if he won’t do it his lackeys in the media will.
And we all know what a bunch of casterated sissies most politicians are, they will roll over for fear of having their names soiled!
I agree with one thing he said… and even then I don’t agree with the way I think he meant it.
Our Constitution is not a perfect document and honestly I think you will all agree with this.
HOWEVER, our Constitution IS the best damned thing going, perfect or not.
As for saying that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties… Negative liberties? What in the hell is a fricking negative liberty? The Constitution is meant to be a charter of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, and not an exhaustive list, either. It is meant to outline what rights are absolutely necessary to create a free society.
Why is it not exhaustive? Because there should be no limits placed upon the rights of the individual except for where those right infringe upon another individual. Saying that it should be quite easy to see that listing, in detail, each and every right that is implied through the Constitution is impossible.
Hence the Founders explicitly stated those rights that are absolutely necessary to maintain all others that are implied.
Can and should the Constitution ever be changed? Yes, it can, through the amendment process and only through the amendment process. Should it be changed? Depending upon the situation, if there is an implied right that needs to be stated explicitly in order to ensure that the population may maintain all other rights implied by the Constitution, then yes it should be.
The Constitution is not MEANT to outline the responsibilities of the government, it is meant to clearly demarcate the LIMIT of what government should be ALLOWED to do.
Now, instead of rambling further me thinks the best way to end this would be to summarize.
Government imposed laws, regulations, and “entitlements” can be declared unconstitutional. As in being in violation of the explicit and implicit rights of the individual.
However, no law, regulation, or “entitlement” can ever make the Constitution, or any individual right included therein either explicit or implicit, illegal.
I hope I made my beliefs clear with this. If anyone has any questions then just ask and I’ll try to clear up any confusion about what I think.
Pitchforks and Torches anyone?
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions… Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’ Julius was always an ambitious villain, but he is only one man.”
– Cicero
I could not say it any better myself.
What I think we need. In this order:
1. Location
2. People
3. Organization
4. Goals
5. Plan
6. Action
For a while now, there’ve been only two options for the future of this nation:
1) Continue on our present path; OR
2) War. Civil War.
Indeed, it now seems as if our government is absolutely INTENT upon provoking such a war.
When I first started worrying about these things seriously (oh, maybe 2 or 3 yrs ago), the possibility that things would get better, and that we could experience a return to First Principles within the current system, was still a viable possibility. I would say that that possibility disappeared utterly last year. Personally, I date it to the first of the Bailouts, not the Election of Teh One, but it hardly makes a difference now.
When I say “continue on our present path”, what I mean is that Socialism and Statism grow until they reach their fruition in a fully Totalitarian Communism (or its practical equivalent), with ~40% of “Americans”
cheering it on, ~50% apathetically ignoring their own surroundings, and ~10% of us screaming our impotent heads off and dying of sheer frustration or being sent to Gulags (with a snazzy new name) to be re-educated (also with a snazzy new name. “Obamafied”, maybe).
I will assume that those assembled here would prefer the evils of war to the evils of tyranny. That Rotts believe in liberty or death. Preferably, the death of those opposed to liberty. Therefore, option #1 above is right out.
Amazingly, a successful revolution could STILL not be begun yet. There are simply not enough Americans who would join/support the Constitutional side. It would be a total clusterfuck. And a bunch of infuriated individuals getting hauled off to jail after shooting at cops who come for their guns just ain’t gonna cut it.
So, what needs to happen for any revolution to become viable?
It seems to me that only one thing needs to happen: the 40%/50%/10% split described above needs to shift in our favor.
For this, Two things need to happen:
1) People must be convinced of the need to end our current system of government as practiced.
2) People must be convinced that the preferred alternative is a return to the Founding Principles of this Nation. That we must start over, from scratch.
In order for people to back a revolutionary opposition, they need to know that it is not simply engaged in ending the current system, but that there is something which, upon victory, will be better.
People will not back an opposition if it is simply AGAINST the current system, it must also be FOR something to replace it.
Easy enough, right? We all know this, and we know what the replacement should be: The Founding Principles.
Unfortunately, that’s a little too vague. The question will arise, “Our current system is ostensibly based on Constitutional Principles, but it is corrupt. What will prevent us from simply RE-Corrupting the Founding Principles again?”
We need to answer that question.
We need a single, UNIFIED statement of purpose. A single, UNIFIED goal.
For that, we need a SINGLE, UNIFIED opposition ORGANIZATION. This organization must, in time, become broader and larger, but maintain its UNITY and SINGLENESS of purpose.
To this end, we must first meet. We must gather together to discuss:
3. Organization
4. Goals
5. Plan
6. Action
So, we need the first two of the things I’m prescribing: 1) a location, and 2) people
This is all a long-winded way of saying that Rotts need to get together to hash out a plan. But I think it needs to be a bit more organized than a simple meet & greet with a barbecue and beer (tho that would be good as a sort of “after”-party). What I’m saying is that the back & forth of posting here or other internet communications are insufficient for our needs. Moreover, internet communication may not be the most discreet way of communicating some of the things we may wish to communicate. We need a time and a place to speak freely and openly.
This meeting would be to establish an organization, state a mission, choose acting officers, and produce some written product at the end. There should be a written agenda drafted prior to the meeting.
At this point, we should proceed as if the mission and objectives can be achieved without revolution, civil war, or any direct or non-legal means to put an end to the current system (Hell, maybe it still can). It must be presented as reform, irrespective of how the reform is to be achieved. It should stick to the end result desired, and simply ignore (for the time being) the realities of our current system which may make peaceable reform impossible.
I would recommend that people do homework, and come to such a meeting with notes, or even a prepared statement (even if there isn’t time to hear all statements). I would also recommend that the meeting take place over several days. Lastly, I’d recommend that the meeting should not be for learning purposes — that is, not a place to bring someone to win them over or to convince someone who’s not quite on-board (in other words, libs & moderates ain’t invited).
Certainly, I wouldn’t feel at all comfortable with a meeting held by any pre-established organization, think-tank, lobbying group, non-profit, for-profit, or anything else like it. Similarly I wouldn’t trust a meeting organized by someone already established as a conservative “personality”, a “noted thinker”, “author”, “radio-host”, etc.. — any such would no doubt be hijacked by said “personality” for his own purposes. No, the smaller it starts, the better.
Now, I know I’m not the most regular poster here. I don’t know any of you personally (but hopefully the meeting I suggest would change that). But this is the only source of individuals that I’ve found online who I feel truly understand the severity of the situation our nation finds itself in, AND who share my love of the U.S. Constitution and the Principles upon which it was founded. Even among my friends, there are only two or three who I think really get it, and only one who I would consider bringing to such a proposed meeting. I personally, wouldn’t know where else to begin. I wouldn’t trust that a meeting with other people would yield the results I hope for.
Personally, I couldn’t make such a meeting until mid-March at the earliest. And my financial situation might even make it impossible for me to attend, depending upon where it’s held. Nevertheless, I think such a meeting should still take place.
The evil inherent in the ambuiguity…what arrogance! Therin perhaps a fatal flaw in their reasoning. The Constitution was composed to prevent the excesses of government, to balance the powers of government against each other, as shown by history, not to sanction them! Yet a con con requires two thirds of both houses and three quarters of the states. I do not believe for one second they will get those votes. My fucking state would, but we may go bankrupt first. Yet the fact they would even try….. We do have an amendment process, of have they forgotten? Flawed, huh? Name one that has lasted longer or produced a more abundant society!
Name one!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Christ, that post jacked me right up, stepped outside to have a rare smoke, collecting my thoughts, the wife asking me what was wrong.
I showed her…….I am going to show a lot of people.
I’m just waiting for folks to start getting jailed or disappeared.
For the good of……God, how I despise those losers!!!!!
A cage, the promise of a gilded cage, rendering all complacent, content and enslaved. At what price, liberty! Thoe intellectual jackals seeking a dominion, their lackeys the media seeking control of the dissemination of news.
Critical thinking doesn’t appear to be a strong suit here.
How many times have the Republicans talked about changing the Constitution in the past eight years? Better yet, how many times has the Republicans simply ignored the Constitution in the past eight years — or just re-interpreted it to fit their needs and wants?
You idiots threw all of your support behind the mental midget president’s choice of John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but I will be MOST of you are unaware of last week’s opinion authored by him that FURTHER eroded the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
While Roberts and the four Conservative nutjobs on the Court agreed that the cops had indeed violated the defendant’s rights by using an expired warrant as an excuse to search the contents of the defendant’s trunk.
This decision again re-writes the exclusionary rule, which as the Court says, “serves to deter deliberate, reckless or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence. The error in this case does not rise to that level.” On the contrary, wrote Roberts, it was but a trifle, “the result of isolated negligence.”
Of course the error did rise to a fairly significant level — since it deprived the defendant of a freedom considered vital enough to be enshrined by the nation’s founders. The Constitution doesn’t say the government may not violate these rights except through isolated negligence. It says the government may not violate them, period.
Rights need constitutional protection because governments have a tendency to ignore them. But it takes more than a parchment dictate to force the authorities to do what they are supposed to do. It takes penalties that make violations painful to the violator.
That’s where the exclusionary rule comes in. Police face constant temptations to break the rules to nab villains and put them in jail. But this rule goes far to discourage them. Violate a criminal’s rights, and he may go unpunished.
The history on the exclusionary rule goes back to 1961 when the Court imposed the rule. Before that, cops paid little attention to the 4th Amendment because they had nothing to gain by respecting it. Only when they had to pay a price for overstepping did they develop a sudden interest in staying on the right side of the constitutional line — to the benefit of the innocent as well as the guilty. Wonder of wonders, police departments actually began training officers in how to comply with the 4th Amendment.
After the Supreme Court imposed the rule on states and cities in 1961, New York’s deputy police commissioner acknowledged as much. “Before this, nobody bothered to take out search warrants,” he said. “The feeling was, why bother?”
So spare me the outrage over some abstract thoughts of Obama’s while it is people on YOUR side of the aisle who have been pushing for changing Constitutions (and in a few states, quite successfully with the help of the the churches) or the out-and-out complete ignoring of the existing constitution and its provisions.
Yes, there are people on BOTH sides of the aisle who’d like to make some changes of the Constitution — to bring it up-to-date. As I recall, there were people right here on this site back in 2001 – 2003 who tried to make the argument that the Constitution was a guideline, not a “suicide pact.” The outgoing administration has been treating it like a roll of toilet paper for eight years, and suddenly you find “outrage” when someone dares to point out the fact that parts of it are flawed when applied to today’s day and age?
I notice the difference between what the RIGHT wants to change and what the LEFT wants to change are as different as night and day. In most cases, the RIGHT wants to take away or restrict rights (as long as the Second Amendment remains intact as-is). The LEFT wants to grant MORE rights. Most of us don’t have a problem with the Second Amendment as-is, contrary to the Republican talking points designed to keep y’all swarming like a bunch of mad hornets. (Most of us own guns too.)
It might surprise a lot of you that even the founding fathers found the Constitution to be “imperfect”. In a letter to Madison, Jefferson said,
Madison replied:
George Washington himself said:
The question is, do we have the support to change the Constitution? The one thing the founders did was to deliberately make it hard to do so without the support of the majority of PEOPLE in this country — and frankly, it doesn’t matter who is talking about changing what, I don’t see there is much of an appetite to actually make any changes at this time.
But contrary to what all of you publicly, and some of you privately say, there certainly isn’t a law — morally or otherwise — preventing people from talking about it.
Princess Natasha sez:
I think YOU may want to “look it up”. Like it or not, President Obama is going to be your Commander-in-Chief in less than 48 hours. The only way THAT is going to change is if you resign your commission.
The last time I looked, there wasn’t law (foreign or domestic) against proposing changes to the Constitution, nor were there laws that prevented 27 amendments from being added to the Constitution. Then there are the six currently unratified proposed amendments:
1. Congressional Apportionment Amendment — Proposed: September 25, 1789 — Still pending before state lawmakers (Apportionment of U.S. Representatives)
2. Titles of Nobility Amendment — Proposed: May 1, 1810 — Still pending before state lawmakers (Prohibition of titles of nobility)
3. Corwin Amendment — Proposed: March 2, 1861 — Technically still pending before state lawmakers, but rendered moot by the 13th Amendment (Preservation of slavery)
4. Child Labor Amendment — Proposed: June 2, 1924 — Still pending before state lawmakers (Congressional power to regulate child labor)
5. Equal Rights Amendment — Proposed: March 22, 1972 — Expired 1979 or 1982 (some scholars disagree — see main article). (Prohibition of inequality of men and women)
6. District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment — Proposed: August 22, 1978 — Expired 1986 (D.C. voting rights)
There are some who say that the 16th Amendment was never actually ratified.
Union card check, is that a new “right”?
Government owned health-care, is that a new “right”?
Fairness Doctrine. is that a new “right”?
And if you believe what you just wrote, you either are so stupid that you would believe anything the Magic Communist says, or you are a fellow traveler that will sell your family and friends to the gulag for your customary 40 pieces of silver.
I’m betting on the latter.
Trying to deflect from sultan jugears and his jolly mob of sycophants as usual. Keep worshiping your false god if it helps you. Don’t expect anyone else to do so.
Eyas @:
I think you left out something important, that should be on your bullet point list, and that’s intelligence
We should know first-hand and quickly (before it reaches the blogs and news) what they plan for our areas and what they are asking their followers to do.
So, I am going to send the stupid $30 minimum donation to barack, get the shirt
to get on the email / sms list so I can see exactly what they are trying to accomplish locally. To get even more information maybe I will get involved with the “local store-front offices” they are proposing, mostly so I can see exactly who the most dangerous people around me are.
I think I am going to have trouble acting like a leftist if I have to go to a meeting though
Changing the Constitution…say, isn’t that what millions of “Concerned conservatives” tried to do with that whole retarded gay marriage amendment thing?
The problem with the “rights” that the left want to grant ultimately end up screwing the general population…those who have to PAY for them.
I don’t especially care to pay for a welfare queen to pop out a bazillion kids, pay for someone’s abortion, someone else’s medical care, pay for another’s house, car, credit card, or school loan.
Where are MY rights to be able to decide how I want to spend/save MY money? I want the right to refuse to pay taxes. You gonna grant ME that, DJ?
Muzzy,
Until you get your own country’s government straightened out, stay the HELL out of OUR business.
He’s not my president, Deej. I didn;t vote for him.
You leftists established that rule over the past 8 years. I granted it to President Klintoon, even though I never voted for him, and even though I never voted either time for Senor Jorge Arbusto, but as of now? When Democrats have a go round of respecting the Pesident when he has an “R” after his name, then ya’ll can claim it.
Until then, we play in the bottom of the inning with the same rules ya’ll established in the top.
Second, re-read the decision. It’s no different than a similar 1995 decision allowing a difference between negligent or abusive police action as opposed to when police acted according to procedure.
Muzzy sez:
Want to repeal the 2nd amendment? Repeal it. Through the amendment process. You’re a sheeple asshole if you do, but have at it. Trying to end run it is treason.
Same as Jerry Moonbeam Brown with his antics in California. His duty is to enforce the laws and constitution of California, duly enacted by the will of the people. If he doesn’t LIKE proposition 8, fine, he still has a duty to enforce it until it gets repealed.
I don’t recall where any oath of office allows one to only go along with preserving and defending only the parts of the constitution one likes.
He DJ guy? Several things here.
>When your friends (or yourself) start feverishly scraping off their “Obama 08″ bumper stickers in anger and disgust, get back to me. When Obambi needs to toss someone, it won’t be moderate Dems, just the lefties. You saying/wishing otherwise won’t change it.
>My post, (#3) applies to everything you rambled about in yours.
> You seem fond of dredging the internet for your quotes and “original ideas” so here’s a loaner via Bill Shakespeare:
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: your noble son is mad
>You should say more in less space.
> You voted for that son.
L.C. SkyeChild G.L.O.R., Imperial Grammar Hun wrote:
The biggest problem with our Government was that the last guy we had running things had a great big boneriffic man-crush on the angry retard you guys had in charge for the last 8 years. Commander Fuck-up and Blair the Boy Blunder, that was those two.
Seeking to add an amendment banning gay marriage is a far cry from a constitutional convention. No, they are not the same.
I’d like to hear why DJ thinks everyone has the “right” to a college education, health care, housing, abortion, etc. at SOMEONE ELSE’S expense, why he and others of his kind feel they have the “right” to MY money.
Having taught at the college level, I personally don’t WANT a college education to be a right. College used to be, and should remain, a “privilege.” Already we have to teach remedial English to American students who are coming out of government indoctrination camps.
I can hear it now. They have the “right” to go to college. Next, they will want the “right” to take whatever courses they choose, the “right” to take whatever tests they desire, the “right” to an A, and the “right” to graduate.
…is continuing to let these stinking wogs in your country.
Muzzy sez:
From what I’ve been reading, your latest government leaves a LOT to be desired, as well. As the saying goes, Muzzy…get the log out of your own eye before you try to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
We gained our independence from you Brits a long time ago, Muzzy. You’ll find Americans aren’t especially tolerant of being preached to by the Brits.
L.C. SkyeChild G.L.O.R. wrote:
Actually, it’s still technically the same government. The Labour party is still in charge, but what’s happened is that Blair has stepped down and the former Chancellor, Gordon Brown, has taken over as Prime Minister. There have been a couple of other smaller changes but nothing important. Gordon Brown’s actually a pretty decent Prime Minister, it’s just that he’s getting a bad press because he’s had the misfortune to take over right in the middle of a major economic downturn. That, and the fact that he’s got less personal charisma than a broccoli floret. Also, he looks like a bizarre cross between Mr. Bean, and a trout trying to work out how to divide by zero.
Hey DJ, you’re a brainy kinda guy, mebbe you can answer this….
Why has Obama fought so long, hard and expensively to avoid proving that he is actually naturally born and therefor eligible to be the president, when all he has to do is just provide a simple birth certificate and make all the questions go away???
Hell, I had to get a certified copy of my birth certificate and a new Social Security card just to get a job driving a school bus. I got the B.C. from Tennessee in less than 72 hours. The S.S. card took a little longer thru the mail.
Obama is gonna be driving the ship of state and he hasn’t come up with one in over a year just to prove he meets a constitutionally mandated job qualification???
As it stands now, I am more eligible to the president than he is and can produce the proof of citizenship on demand.
BTW, note to fellow LCs… You are only allowed a limited number, I think it is SEVEN, S.S. cards in a lifetime. So if you’ve had a few replacements, take care of the one you have…..
Thanks, Forger. I keep ours locked in the gunsafe.
Maybe to keep you guys distracted with stupid bullshit?
YGBSM sez:
Indeed!
I had to show a birth certificate to get my fucking driver license, forty years ago. What is Obama hiding? I am very much looking forward to the lawsuits coming down the pike. It will get interesting. Just to watch with rapt fascination……not to mention a certain difficulty with the governor of Illinois and a Mr. Rezko.
LC SkyeChild G.L.O.R., Imperial Grammar Hun sez:
Oh, that explains the urine running down Muzzy’s leg at the mention of firearms.
Gonz,
They tried to meddle in our affairs 233 years ago, and we all know how THAT turned out. Here they are, STILL trying to meddle in our affairs. Slow learners, I guess.
Just Read Post, WTF OVER!! Ladies and gentlemen, now is the time to start an alternate communications network for resistance. Dont wait till the Obamedia cuts us off from our communication systems as we know it. The first step in an invasion is to jam all communication. You know this, I know this, so we need to stop relying on something that the Messiah will have, if not already, total control of soon. 1776 v2 is comming.
Eyas: You have reached the same conclusion I have. Agree on the alternate communication system as well.
That is the scariest quote i’ve heard this year …