I didn’t write this, but I agree. -Jen Kuznicki

An Open Letter to President Barrack Hussein Obama

Gun Control

An American Patriot | December 22, 2012

 

Mr. President; when we, as American citizens, confidently believe we are profoundly safe, perhaps we’ll discuss surrendering some of our firearms.  When there’s no fear of US government-armed drug cartels and illegal aliens crossing the border to kidnap, rape, and murder citizens, we’ll take that anomaly under advisement.  When our communities are completely safe from terrorists, the mentally-deranged, drug users and dealers, other criminals, and when all those teetering chemically-managed citizens have implanted mechanisms to deliver proper dosages, perhaps we’ll give up one of our shotguns. 

 

When we can be confident in the election process and the government is under our strict control and fully compliant with the Constitution, perhaps we’ll think about the proposition of giving up one or two of our multiple-round magazines.  When threats of restricting our right to keep and bear arms are no longer even a passing-thought, we may be inclined to buy and stock less ammunition. 

 

You see President Obama; many of us don’t trust you.  You may have the power to influence America’s mentally handicapped, low information, and ignorant citizens, but the rest of America cringes every time you open your inept and condescending mouth.  Too many Americans still remember what happens when evil people convince an entire society to surrender their firearms1 2.  We also know what happens when bad people invoke a political revolution3 by persuading citizens that their ideologies have their best interest in mind because too many other citizens have more than they do4 5 6.  

 

Also Mr. Obama, although we have the utmost respect and confidence in our military, you and your minions have been socially engineering the military and increasing the authority among those who exhibit a loyalty to you over the Constitution, which also has us concerned.  While many of us had worked and fought side-by-side with individuals who may have been homosexual or had an innate admiration for the President at the time, we served without knowing or caring who or what they were – we were simply compatriots assigned to do our duty.  

 

While on that topic, just an FYI; an oath has no expiration date.  Those who have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic remain on stand-by to serve their country once again whenever necessary – we remember your Director of Homeland Security referred to these patriotic oath-keepers7 as domestic terrorists.  Be advised Mr. Obama, law enforcement officers, including those that are assigned to protect you, have also taken that oath. 

 

Mr. President, you are not above the Constitution and any attempts you make toward revising or suspending it will not be tolerated; you will be escorted off of our property and maybe even arrested for treason.  You see Mr. Obama, no one has the authority to supersede any of the words clearly written in the Constitution.  Even some justices on the US Supreme Court had jeopardized their authority by confusing public use with public purpose8; it’s only because of a timid and incompetent Congress that those illiterate Justices making that interpretation weren’t formerly impeached.    

 

You see Mr. President, since you don’t seem to grasp the Constitution and our way of doing things here in the United States of America, I’ll offer you a little insight.  Anyone who has been entrusted to hold a public office, who through direct or indirect means, attempts to subjugate the Constitution effectively nullifies their position and authority provided by the Constitution. 

 

Additionally, any person attempting to squelch the Constitution essentially proclaims themselves emancipated as a citizen of the United States.  Keep in-mind, the act of sedition9 does not have to involve someone outside of government; it can include you and any other public official attempting to undermine the government’s authority, which is strictly regulated by the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

A quick civics lesson Mr. President; the federal government gets their authority to exist from the States.  Counties/parishes, townships, and cities get their authority to exist from the State as well.  The State, on-the-other hand, gets their authority to exist from the citizens. It’s the citizens, Mr. President, who hold the authority in a republic such as ours – you are merely their lead public servant.  

 

Evidently still unknown by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals10 and those in your Party is the fact that if the citizens say-so by referendum, it is to be so, as long as there is no direct disagreement with the Constitution of the United States of America.  Since you clearly prefer to maintain your allegiance to the Communist Manifesto11 instead of the Constitution, and it is quite apparent several members within our judicial and legislative branches have also signed-on to not only overstep their authority, but have directly facilitated the decline and overthrow of the republic12, it remains our duty as citizens to remain well-armed and vigilant.  And unlike the last four-years of the Clinton Administration, during these next four-years you serve the citizens of this nation, you will be held accountable.     

 

Mr. President, please let me point-out that there should be only one union you should concern yourself with, that’s our Union13.  And by judging your actions the citizens of this Union don’t have any choice but to remain determined to protect this nation from your ilk.  Not you or one of your appointees has been willing to fully explain Fast and Furious14 where you provided assault weapons to drug cartels.  You have also misled the citizens regarding the Benghazi massacre15 where you and your appointees evidently couldn’t tell the difference between a protest rally and a terrorist attack. 

 

Should those attending peaceful TEA Party rallies be concerned that you’ll mistake the rally for a terrorist attack and be targeted by one of your rogue drones?  After all, it’s pretty obvious there isn’t one competent person to be found in your Administration, yet you were somehow reelected.     

 

Your unprecedented inclination to supersede the authority of Congress with your Executive Orders16 also has patriotic Americans concerned.  We’re getting the feeling you just don’t trust us.  In all honesty, that’s probably a pretty good paranoia to have for someone with a treasonous heart; do you have a treasonous heart Mr. President? 

 

We also noticed you have no interest in curbing the uncontrolled spending17.  You and Congress have not even taken the simple step of stopping the spending Social Security Trust Fund18 monies and replacing them with useless IOUs.  You do realize if the SSTF taxes were deposited19 and only used to give citizens their retirement checks, they could be living very well just off the interest?20 

 

Of course you don’t; you’re mathematically challenged, which is probably why you don’t understand that when you spend more than you take in you can actually go broke – but maybe you do know, but just don’t care.  After all, it’s not your debt; it’s ours.   

 

By-the-way, you don’t seem to have any problems with robbing Medicare to pay for Obamacare at the demise of medical services and patient care21.  Not paying fair-market value for medical services, which causes doctors and medical service organizations to refuse Medicare and Medicaid patients is not a formula to help create health care affordability; quite contrarily.  But then again, we have to revert back to your inability to comprehend basic math and evidentiary lack of understanding on the costs associated with doing business.  Oh, and one of the most expensive aspects of doing business in the medical field is tied directly to lawyers reaping percentages, not hourly fees.  Aren’t you a lawyer Mr. President? 

 

That leads me to another question Mr. President; when you sought the Office of President, didn’t it dawn on you that one of the most important aspects of the job was that of a top-level manager? 22 We have to wonder if you ran because you thought you would do a fantastic job managing the nation or you ran just to fulfill some perverted ambitions influenced by your father’s dreams.23

 

Finally Mr. President, you keep talking about taxing the wealthy people, those who are like you.  Should we be asking where you’ve been getting all that money that puts in you an income tax bracket equal to those who have actually worked hard for a living and invested wisely? 

 

It’s just a curiosity since you’re not a math wizard and quite frankly incapable of managing money. How did you and your wife go from making just over $250,000 in 2000 through 2004 24 to making over a million every year after that as a state senator, US Senator, and US President? 

 

In conclusion Mr. President, we are not convinced that the answer to all the violence occurring under your watch requires disarming law-abiding citizens.  Words mean something to people; words which speak of hope, change, and even the suggestion we can move forward, only to learn all those words are merely empty campaign slogans trembles the spider senses. 

 

It has become more about your actions and inactions than your speeches.  A person like you who is able to say a lot without effectively saying anything and doing even less is disturbing.  When we stand witness to all that has happened under your watch, which is exactly the opposite of your slogans, we realize you’re the residual result of being multiple steps higher on the Peter Principle scale.25

 

No Mr. President, we’re not willing to give up our firearms and ammunition just yet.  Maybe when the real God comes back to earth we’ll talk.

Tagged with:
 

5 Responses to An Open Letter to President Obama on Gun Control

  1. TRF says:

    Amen. Very well said.

  2. task says:

    The Second Amendment should have been the First Amendment or better still should have been embraced within the main body of our Constitution because without that individual right the entire Constitution along with all other Amendments could cease to exist.

    Suppose our Republic should change and deny, in both subtle and violent ways, our precious individual liberty? Suppose under the pretext of preserving our Republic we are called upon to give up freedom of speech and of the press and the right to assemble? When our Republic has changed its nature what difference does it matter that its name remains the same? Once upon a time we had a wonderful relationship with Great Britain that lasted two hundred years and gave us a feeling of security; the relationship had many advantages and many reasons to recommend it as beneficial. Yet that country eventually sought to abuse her power and extorted both property and liberty. This was our first civil war and its undertaking meant misery, invasion, death and anarchy. Yet we prevailed because of our armed citizenry.

    As much as our Constitution exalted liberty the concept of democracy, championed by the most intelligent citizens, politicians and our religious leaders, worked only among people of equal stature. In reality the document they created still allowed slavery to persist for another seventy-five years. I have never championed democracy when it comes to liberty because it is often polluted with prejudices, envy, jealousy and misconceptions regarding unalienable rights and oftentimes guarantees submission to majority rule fostered by demigods and despots. However had the Second Amendment been available to slaves, had they been permitted to be armed, I suspect we would not have had a civil war or at best one that would not threaten our Union nor create six hundred thousand deaths. Southern aristocracy was resplendent with thousands of despots and potential tyrants so as to maintain their cultivated property. They would never permit armed slaves because they knew they would eventually cease to be slaves.

    An armed citizenry has always been the enemy of despotism. Today a cunning hypocritical political class beleaguers that concept yet they can neither guarantee that they can protect you from criminals nor guarantee that they will not themselves become the most feared of all criminals.

    After hurricane Katrina who could protect you from marauding criminals after the police had abandoned New Orleans? During the Rodney King riots the absence of the civil society left many with no protection to safeguard their lives and property. And in gun free zones all across America those in the most peril are those that are forced to be unarmed. In all these instances the advantages of a large capacity clip or magazine holding many bullets would easily be apparent to anyone in such a predicament.

    To say we need to detect those that are mentally ill so to prevent them from doing harm is exactly what Adam Lanza’s mother attempted to do when she decided to have him committed. It is a good idea but flies in the face of the Fort Hood massacre where multiculturalism, political correctness and islamophobia allowed a previously well recognized deranged killer to take the lives of thirteen unarmed individuals and wound another nineteen under the misnomer of “workplace violence”. He specifically killed military personal and deliberately ignored the civilians. He did not use a rifle; he used only one pistol, the FN Five-seven that has a capacity of 20 plus one rounds and is often used by law enforcement. There is no proof that Lanza could not have achieved the same result with any weapon considering the pathetic helplessness of little children in such a confined area.

    Ultimately there is no substitute for a well-armed citizenry based on the nature of man. Those that would be first to deny this because they put themselves forward as knowing what is best are the same people that are entrusted with power which could insure that they become the worst tyrants of all. The cost of their proposed protection is the very loss of the liberty that we need most to ensure that we are guaranteed to permit us to protect ourselves. With that understood the only certainty that the future holds is that there always will be those that despise our Constitution and they will use every opportunity they can to make sure that we can do nothing about what they would most certainly do given the opportunity.

  3. task says:

    Check out this video regarding the Australian gun ban: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh4oHK8Dgck

  4. task says:

    Why do we have a Second Amendment? The Founders knew, from their own experiences, that World events would, far too often, deem it imperative.

    In their own words: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williamns010213