Skip to content

Here is a deep thought re: Oregon, from FGS


And I will also quote my response there. Share this, spread this far and wide. It’s not the tool, it’s the user. By that same token, if good people are armed bad people get nowhere near as far:

I’m going back to school now. I got armed, I got trained, I carry daily…until I get to school. Then I can’t carry, because I’m not a criminal. Armed, I could stop a crime like this if it happened on my campus, as could many of my fellow students. Unarmed, I’m just as helpless as the students were in Oregon. How much simpler could it be??

+elektro3000 EXACTLY!!!!!! This is not about guns, it’s about control. If there were a person or few with guns to respond, they hear the first shot or two and one simply takes cover and waits.
  1. LadyRavenSDC permalink
    10/04/2015 01:46

    Reblogged this on LadyRaven's Whisky In A Jar – OH! and commented:
    “Lets stop calling these places “Gun Free Zones”. Obviously they are not.
    The more correct term is “Free Fire Zone”.
    On every one of them there is o impediment to a shooter getting anywhere from 4 to 15 minutes for uncontested weapons discharge in a target rich environment.”
    Vermont Woodchuck in comment section at American Digest

  2. 10/04/2015 10:46

    Absolutely spot on.

  3. poetopoet permalink
    10/04/2015 10:51

    Obama is a Black-Gun-Vampire, he never shows up himself anywhere unarmed, he is always very well armed and protected by his minions who suck the blood and guns out We the People, for they themselves are the only ones who can and well shot you dead and feast on you!

    So get down on your hands and knees to pray and surrender your guns, your hard fought freedoms to the control the Black-Gun-Vampire’s Empire, for We the People have no longer a Constitution, a Bill of Rights or the BALLS to shot them DEAD.

  4. poetopoet permalink
    10/04/2015 11:17

    This is not fiction; this is High Treason and “bye bye American Pie”!

    This is proof The END is near!

    “by Pamela Geller2 Oct 20153088

    On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the United Nations that her office would be working in several American cities to form what she called the Strong Cities Network (SCN), a law enforcement initiative that would encompass the globe.

    This amounts to nothing less than the overriding of American laws, up to and including the United States Constitution, in favor of United Nations laws that would henceforth be implemented in the United States itself – without any consultation of Congress at all.

    The United Nations is a sharia-compliant world body, and Obama, speaking there just days ago, insisted that “violent extremism” is not exclusive to Islam (which it is). Obama is redefining jihad terror to include everyone but the jihadists. So will the UN, driven largely by the sharia-enforcing Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the pro-Islamic post-American President Obama, use a “global police force” to crush counter-jihad forces?

    After all, with Obama knowingly aiding al-Qaeda forces in Syria, how likely is it that he will use his “global police force” against actual Islamic jihadists? I suspect that instead, this global police force will be used to impose the blasphemy laws under the sharia (Islamic law), and to silence all criticism of Islam for the President who proclaimed that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

    What is a global police force doing in our cities? This is exactly the abdication of American sovereignty that I warned about in my book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America. The Obama Department of Justice made it clear that it was exactly that when it distributed a press release last week announcing the “Launch of Strong Cities Network to Strengthen Community Resilience Against Violent Extremism.” In that press release, the DoJ complained that “while many cities and local authorities are developing innovative responses to address this challenge, no systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale.”

    So if the local and municipal effort to counter the euphemistic and disingenuous “violent extremism” is inadequate and hasn’t developed “systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale,” the feds – and the UN – have to step in. Thus the groundwork is being laid for federal and international interference down to the local level. “The Strong Cities Network,” Lynch declared, “will serve as a vital tool to strengthen capacity-building and improve collaboration” – i.e., local dependence on federal and international authorities.

    Lynch made the global (that is, United Nations) involvement clear when she added: “As we continue to counter a range of domestic and global terror threats, this innovative platform will enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world.”

    This internationalist character was brought to the fore by the fact that the Strong Cities Network was launched on September 29 not at the White House or the Department of Homeland Security, or at the FBI headquarters or anywhere else that might be fitting for a national project, but at the United Nations.

    Even more ominously, the DoJ press release says that the Strong Cities Network “will strengthen strategic planning and practices to address violent extremism in all its forms by fostering collaboration among cities, municipalities and other sub-national authorities.” Sub-national and international: the press release then quotes Governing Mayor Stian Berger Røsland of Oslo, Norway, a participant in the Strong Cities Network, saying: “To counter violent extremism we need determined action at all levels of governance. To succeed, we must coordinate our efforts and cooperate across borders. The Strong Cities Network will enable cities across the globe pool our resources, knowledge and best practices together and thus leave us standing stronger in the fight against one of the greatest threats to modern society.”

    But what is that greatest threat, exactly? Remember, the DoJ presser says that the SCN will “address violent extremism in all its forms.” It also says that it will aid initiatives that are working toward “building social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism.” “Building social cohesion” is a euphemism for keeping peace between non-Muslim and Muslim communities – mostly by making sure that non-Muslims don’t complain too loudly about, much less work against, rapidly expanding Muslim populations and the Islamization of their communities.

    The DoJ presser noted that at the launch of the Strong Cities Network, “welcoming remarks” would be offered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City. The involvement of New York City’s Marxist internationalist mayor is yet another warning sign.

    Assert American sovereignty and individual rights. Contact your representatives now. Exhort them to oppose SCN now. Exhort them to keep America free – while it still is.

    Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.”

  5. 10/04/2015 23:40


  6. 10/04/2015 23:41

    As we should.

  7. 10/06/2015 13:14

    If they try to do the whole gun confiscation routine, we wont have the worry bout the UN after that as they will be ejected by the victors when this thing finally comes to its ultimate fruition. Gun confiscation will provoke a civil war, or at the very least a coup.

    Im also not concerned about the UN with WWIII getting ready to kick off (relatively 5-10 yrs tops). Between the problem in the ME and the problem being allowed to overrun Europe (except Russia) the UN (and NATO for that matter) wont survive the event. Im playing with the thought where its Russia that will have to save Europe (Militarily) from what they’ve done to themselves

  8. poetopoet permalink
    10/06/2015 15:16

    At the cost of their countries Putin will do it, for they use to be called the U.S.S.R., and they will ask to be Union members again.

  9. 10/07/2015 02:42

    We will stay the United States, but we may end up a bit scattered.

  10. 10/07/2015 02:42

    By Jove, I think he’s got it.

  11. poetopoet permalink
    10/07/2015 04:28

    By Jove? How about by Trump?

    The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics=USSR, once based on Marxist socialism with 15 republics states at one time; surprisingly now with the EU=European Union 28 countries. The EU countries are far less free to decide their own fate than the now under USSR post Islamic-Muslim rule that the EU now demands of them through Muslim immigration takeover.

    The EU developed a central market through a social system of laws that all members must obey as member states, not countries, which abolished their own passport control of their 28 states defenses to whom, the EU?

    More like a PU, I state and expose as a dirty rotten trick, they actually deserve, for their free thinking with no consequences. The EU keeps the masses thinking they are free and protected by whom, is the question, not WW1 or WW2, fuck them all.

    Last call for Paul Mall (cancer) for the EU! The USA had a real Paul Revere, not a German Merkel type bitch or a lesbian bishop that head-line: “First lesbian bishop ever seeks removal of crucifixes to welcome Muslim ‘angels’” of the Swedish Church’s hierarchy, witch is the EU?

    Putin, as in the USSR can and will have them all eating out their fingers one by one, sooner or later, for he sent and shows Islamic country rulers how to stay in power with his feared Spetsnaz special forces into Syria to bail out Assad, that is more like how too stay in power, they do like a lot.

    So I say goodbye and good reddens to ISIS or ISIL and the first black bastard child president Obama, no shit brothers and sisters, stay free in America!

  12. 10/07/2015 09:40

    Do you remember reading about how long humanity put up with this pisslam bullshit before the first Crusade? Perhaps Putin is Henry II and our Trump will be Richard I?

  13. poetopoet permalink
    10/07/2015 10:44

    To long to wait.

  14. poetopoet permalink
    10/09/2015 13:12

    Impeach or just sho-t the first Black Bastard Child President?

    “U.S. officials conclude Iran deal violates federal law

    Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.

    At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”
    In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.

    Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.

    What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.
    Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.

    For example, the review act – sponsored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Foreign Relations Committee, and signed into law by President Obama in May – stated that “any measure of statutory sanctions relief” afforded to Iran under the terms of the nuclear deal may only be “taken consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action.” The continued presence of Iran on the State Department’s terror list means that “existing statutory requirements” that were set forth in ITRA, in 2012, have not been met for Iran to receive the sanctions relief spelled out in the JCPOA.

    As the Iran deal is an “executive agreement” and not a treaty – and has moreover received no vote of ratification from the Congress, explicit or symbolic – legal analysts inside and outside of the Obama administration have concluded that the JCPOA is vulnerable to challenge in the courts, where federal case law had held that U.S. statutes trump executive agreements in force of law.

    Administration sources told Fox News it is the intention of Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran’s foreign minister and five other world powers, that the re-opening of the “foreign sub” loophole by the JCPOA is to be construed as broadly as possible by lawyers for the State Department, the Treasury Department and other agencies involved in the deal’s implementation.

    But the apparent conflict between the re-opening of the loophole and existing U.S. law leaves the Obama administration with only two options going forward. The first option is to violate ITRA, and allow foreign subsidiaries to be treated differently than U.S. parent firms. The second option is to treat both categories the same, as ITRA mandated – but still violate the section of ITRA that required Iran’s removal from the State Department terror list as a pre-condition of any such licensing.

    It would also renege on the many promises of senior U.S. officials to keep the broad array of American sanctions on Iran in place. Chris Backemeyer, who served as Iran director for the National Security Council from 2012 to 2014 and is now the State Department’s deputy coordinator for sanctions policy, told POLITICO last month “there will be no real sanctions relief of our primary embargo….We are still going to have sanctions on Iran that prevent most Americans from…engaging in most commercial activities.”

    Likewise, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last month, Adam Szubin, the acting under secretary of Treasury for terrorism and financial crimes, described Iran as “the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism” and said existing U.S. sanctions on the regime “will continue to be enforced….U.S. investment in Iran will be prohibited across the board.”

    Nominated to succeed his predecessor at Treasury, Szubin appeared before the Senate Banking Committee for a confirmation hearing the day after his speech to the Washington Institute. At the hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) asked the nominee where the Obama administration finds the “legal underpinnings” for using the JCPOA to re-open the “foreign sub” loophole.

    Szubin said the foreign subsidiaries licensed to do business with Iran will have to meet “some very difficult conditions,” and he specifically cited ITRA, saying the 2012 law “contains the licensing authority that Treasury would anticipate using…to allow for certain categories of activity for those foreign subsidiaries.”

    Elsewhere, in documents obtained by Fox News, Szubin has maintained that a different passage of ITRA, Section 601, contains explicit reference to an earlier law – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, on the books since 1977 – and states that the president “may exercise all authorities” embedded in IEEPA, which includes licensing authority for the president.

    However, Section 601 is also explicit on the point that the president must use his authorities from IEEPA to “carry out” the terms and provisions of ITRA itself, including Section 218 – which mandated that, before this form of sanctions relief can be granted, Iran must be removed from the State Department’s terror list. Nothing in the Congressional Record indicates that, during debate and passage of ITRA, members of Congress intended for the chief executive to use Section 601 to overturn, rather than “carry out,” the key provisions of his own law.

    One administration lawyer contacted by Fox News said the re-opening of the loophole reflects circular logic with no valid legal foundation. “It would be Alice-in-Wonderland bootstrapping to say that [Section] 601 gives the president the authority to restore the foreign subsidiary loophole – the exact opposite of what the statute ordered,” said the attorney, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations over implementation of the Iran deal.

    At the State Department on Thursday, spokesman John Kirby told reporters Secretary Kerry is “confident” that the administration “has the authority to follow through on” the commitment to re-open the foreign subsidiary loophole.

    “Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president has broad authorities, which have been delegated to the secretary of the Treasury, to license activities under our various sanctions regimes, and the Iran sanctions program is no different,” Kirby said.

    Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the G.O.P. presidential candidate who is a Harvard-trained lawyer and ardent critic of the Iran deal, said the re-opening of the loophole fits a pattern of the Obama administration enforcing federal laws selectively.

    “It’s a problem that the president doesn’t have the ability wave a magic wand and make go away,” Cruz told Fox News in an interview. “Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn’t go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law.”

    A spokesman for the Senate Banking Committee could not offer any time frame as to when the committee will vote on Szubin’s nomination.

    James Rosen joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 1999. He currently serves as the chief Washington correspondent and hosts the online show “The Foxhole.””

  15. 10/09/2015 23:11

    Again, treason. Pure and simple.


  1. Here is a deep thought re: Oregon, from FGS | necltr

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: