This past week has confirmed to me that Donald Trump is unsuited to lead this country. Yes, there are people that would flame me for that statement, but bear with me.
Donald Trump has definitely tapped into the disgust that Americans have for their elected representatives, and the apparent failure of the representatives to lead and respect the Constitution. Instead, the representatives seem to be wedded to their party’s ideological mindset, and “business as usual.” This is extremely apparent in his various speeches leading up to this past week’s debate, of which he was a no-show.
Instead, giving the reason that he did not want to be subjected to questions from one of the moderators (of which he has a public tiff with), he was across town raising money for veterans. Good reason, bad decision…
By bowing out of the debate for what I would consider to be a very childish reason does not show a maturity that I would expect of a leader that has the responsibilities of leading this country. Trump is loud, obnoxious, and has a great deal to say about a great number of things, especially when he is campaigning. But running away from a confrontation with a person that he has a beef with?
Let’s just throw in his political affiliations he has had in the past just to muddy the waters a bit, his past views on various issues before he started running for President, and I have to come to this conclusion:
I just do not see Trump as presidential material.
Yes, he is a successful businessman. Yes, he’s poking his fingers in the political pundit’s eyes. Yes, he makes speeches that electrify the crowds. He says what we want to hear. But I just do not see where Trump in the White House is good for the country.
With that being said, if Donald Trump is the Republican nomination for President, then I will vote for him – what the Democrats are proposing on their platform will continue to damage this country.
God help us all.
Watching Hillary Clinton, aka “The Hildabeast,” over the past few months as she campaigns for the nation’s highest office, and more revelations of her email server’s contents & hacking leaves me with a sense of déjà vu. It just piles on to the history of this person’s lack of character from her days as an attorney fired from the Watergate scandal for engaging “in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules” (Jerry Zeifman) to the present day. It leaves one wondering how a person that has been involved with so many scandals, surrounded by so much controversy, and over so many dead bodies (literally) still has the chutzpah to seek the Presidency. I’m surmising that she has as much ego and megalomania as the person currently residing in the White House.
The déjà vu comes from this post from the Hildabeast’s last run at the White House in the 2008 Election, and this article that I’ve lost the link & reference to:
Lest we forget . . .
When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.
Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle was: She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for ‘lying under oath’ to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.
Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, China, and artwork she had stolen.
What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type low-life mess?
Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next. But to her loyal fans – “what difference does it make?”
Electing Hillary Clinton president would be like granting Satan absolution and giving him the keys to heaven!
What is so disturbing is the blind loyalty of her supporters. If her supporters looked back at the history of the Hildabeast, and the accounts that have leaked out about her personality, what rational person would ever back her unless there is blackmail and the promise of untold power and riches? However, Hillary’s track record of rewarding supporters is less the stellar. Destruction, prison, and death seem to be the rewards for being associated with this person.
The Democratic Party has a problem. If Hillary withdraws (unlikely) or is indicted & imprisoned (more likely), the Democrats do not have a viable candidate, no matter what the Bernie Sanders crowd thinks. If they tap Joe Biden as their candidate, then Sanders will most likely sue as he has put large amounts of time, energy, and money into his campaign while Biden hasn’t done anything to this point in time. O’Malley isn’t even in the picture. This will put the Democrats into a very bad position, and in more chaos than what they have been currently experiencing.
But if Hillary is nominated, one of the first ads that I would consistently run as a Republican candidate would be a version of the “3AM” add from 2008. Hillary has a past, not a good one, and the Republicans need to shed the light on every one of her misdeeds and missteps.
I shudder to think of a Hillary presidency…
Lately, I’ve been running across articles that express exactly what I’ve been thinking. The following is a Letter to the Editor to the Boston Globe, and is eerily parallel to an experience that I had in a restaurant a couple of months ago. Just replace “train” with “restaurant” and you’ll understand.
And for the record, I wouldn’t be wearing a Patriots hat…
TO THE man I sat next to on my way in to Boston:
When I boarded the commuter rail, you were already in the midst of a spirited phone conversation and didn’t seem to care about how loud you were talking. You were talking with someone about the Paris train attack and the growing epidemic of gun violence in America.
You spoke about the “murderous NRA” and “bloodthirsty gun nuts” who were causing our schools to “run red with blood.” You spoke profanely of the Republicans who opposed President Obama’s call for “sensible gun control,” and you lamented the number of “inbred redneck politicians” who have “infiltrated Capitol Hill.”
I found myself amazed at the irony of the situation. While you were spewing your venom, I sat quietly next to you with my National Rifle Association membership card in my wallet and my 9mm pistol in its holster. You were only 12 inches away from my legally owned semiautomatic pistol. I suppose I didn’t look like the “bloodthirsty gun nut” you thought I should be. It apparently didn’t register to you that I could so cleverly disguise myself by wearing a fleece coat, Patriots hat, and khakis.
So, to the angry liberal who sat next to me on the commuter rail: I don’t hate you. I don’t have any ill feelings toward you. I don’t wish to do you harm. And I don’t regret sitting next to you. On the contrary; I feel bad for you. It must hurt carrying that much hate inside of you.
You obviously have strong opinions about this hot topic. So, let me say this as plainly as I can: If a bad guy with a gun had decided to walk onto that train and start shooting people, I would have been prepared and able to use my gun to defend my own life and the lives of everyone else on that train, including yours. Although you may hate me, a gun owner, I would risk my life for you.
Opinions and ideologies make a pretty thin shield against the bullets of a madman. Your liberal self-righteousness and ignorance may have made you feel superior and comfortable, but during that 40-minute train ride to Boston, my gun kept you safe.
Unabashedly borrowed from Conservative Tribune.
Only weeks after leaving office on Jan. 20, 2017, former President Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Troy the Plumber to come out and fix it.
Troy drives to Obama’s new house, which is located in a very exclusive, gated community near Chicago where all the residents have a net income of way more than $250,000 per year.
Troy arrives and takes his tools into the house. He is led to the guest bathroom that contains the leaky pipe under the sink. Troy assesses the problem and tells Obama that it’s an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes. Obama asks Troy how much it will cost. Troy checks his rate chart and says, “$9,500.”
“What?! $9,500?!” Obama asks, stunned, “But you said it’s an easy repair. Michelle will whip me if I pay a plumber that much!”
Troy says, “Yes, but what I do is charge those who make more than $250,000 per year a much higher amount so I can fix the plumbing of poorer people for free. This has always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied the Democrat Congress, who passed this philosophy into law. Now all plumbers must do business this way. It’s known as the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act of 2014’. I’m surprised you haven’t heard of it.”
In spite of that, Obama tells Troy there’s no way he’s paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Troy leaves. Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book calling for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses in the area have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Troy’s price, Obama does nothing and the leak goes un-repaired for several more days. A week later the leak is so bad Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink.
Michelle is not happy as she has Oprah and guests arriving the next morning. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there’s a risk the room will flood, so Obama calls Troy and pleads with him to return.
Troy goes back to Obama’s house, looks at the leaky pipe, checks his new rate chart and says, “Let’s see, this will now cost you $21,000.”
Obama quickly fires back, “What? A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!”
Troy explains, “Well, because of the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act,’ a lot of wealthier people are learning how to maintain and take care of their own plumbing, so there are fewer payers in the plumbing exchanges. As a result, the price I have to charge wealthy people like you keeps rising. Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work by those who get it for free has skyrocketed! There’s a long waiting list of those who need repairs, but the amount we get doesn’t cover our costs, especially paperwork and record-keeping. This unfortunately has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, they’re not being replaced, and nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they can’t make any money at it. I’m hurting too, all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won’t pay their ‘fair share’. On the other hand, why didn’t you buy plumbing insurance last December? If you had bought plumbing insurance available under the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act,’ all this would have been covered by your policy.”
“You mean I wouldn’t have to pay anything to have you fix my plumbing problem?” asks Obama.
“Well, not exactly,” replies Troy. “You would have had to buy the insurance before the deadline, which has passed now. And, because you’re rich, you would have had to pay $34,000 in premiums, which would have given you a ‘silver’ plan, and then, since this would have been your first repair, you would have to pay up to the $21,000 deductible, and anything over that would have a $7,500 co-pay, and then there’s the mandatory maintenance program, which is covered up to 17.5%, so there are some costs involved. Nothing is for free.”
“WHAT?!” exclaims Obama. “Why so much for a puny sink leak?!”
With a bland look, Troy replies, “Well, paperwork, mostly, like I said. And the internal cost of the program itself. You don’t think a program of this complexity and scope can run itself, do you? Besides, there are millions of folks with lower incomes than you, even many in the ‘middle class’, who qualify for subsidies that people like you must support. That’s why they call it the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act’! Only people who don’t make much money can afford it. If you want affordable plumbing, you’ll have to give away most of what you have accumulated and cut your and Michelle’s income by about 90%. Then you can qualify to get your ‘Fair Share’ instead of giving it.”
“But who would pass a crazy act like the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act’?!” exclaims the exasperated Obama.
After a sigh, Troy replies, “Congress… because they didn’t read it.”
Obamacare is working just like the fictional “Affordable Plumbing Act.” This is also how Socialism works, which does its damnest to redistribute wealth. Last, think of the progressive tax system that is in place in this country – especially since tax season is just around the corner!!
Wouldn’t it be nice if the people passing the laws were affected by those same laws?
This is a repost of a post that I did years ago on this blog, when it was still under the original name. It applied then, and it applies today. The date that I did the post on was October 12, 2006. Enjoy.
This whole thing about being Politically Correct in life is wrong and so bogus. There is a statement that we should all live by and stop worrying about whether or not what we do is popular. That statement is this:
“What is popular is not always right; what is right, is not always popular!”
We can seperate this out with examples. The biggest one that has implications to our nations security is this one. Immigration! Illegal immigration to be exact. The popular (at least to the politicians and their false polls) is that there are too many illegals, that have been here long enough to actually be living here. It would be unpopular, and therefore wrong to deport them. I say Bullshit!
Here is the problem with that way of thinking. For one, it is not wrong to deport them. It would instead, be right…..and very unpopular with them (the illegals) and the politicians. But even so, deporting them and enforcing the immigration laws would be the right thing to do. They broke our laws by coming here illegally, and there has to be consequences for breaking our laws. No matter what the illegals have to say about it. Right is right. Wrong is wrong, and we have to make this right. No matter what’s popular. (What’s right is not always popular).
Hugo Chavez of Mexico, has been doing his very best to let us here in the United States know, that it would be wrong to send all these illegals back home to Mexico. (These people do not have rights as American citizens. They don’t pay taxes, don’t have the right to Social Security, but since we have been lax in dealing with them, they now think they do.)
They don’t! Now my question on that one would logically have to be asked. “What is wrong with these people that you don’t want them back?” and”Is this something that we, as a nation have to be worried about?” The answer to the first one is….yes there is something wrong with these people….and the answer to the second is yes…it is a concern to our national security.
First: (What is wrong with these people…..? chances are, they are probably the poorest in your country. Of course Mr. Hugo doesn’t want them in his country because they are a drain on his already bad economy. No wonder he is fighting to give them rights here in America, where our economy’s health does not concern him.
Second, there is a problem with them cause who knows, if they are Al-Qeada or terrorists, planning something against America?
To be politically correct we are doing things like having events that have NOTHING to do with being American. Coming up is Hispanic Heritage Month. Remember this post was done in October.
Now I am an American. I was born in America. My dad’s side of the family came from Finland. If I was like everyone seems to be today, I would want a Finnish Heritage Month. But, I am not doing that, cause unlike the Liberals, I am proud to be American. My father was bi-lingual. He spoke both English and Finnish. He was proud to be an American too. I speak English. I know my heritage, but I am not pushing it on everyone. To me, that is wrong. My heritage is mine. I am proud of it. But I am not about to push it on anyone else. They have their own to deal with. If anything, we should have an American Heritage Month. It won’t happen, but it should. We are after all, Americans. Aren’t we? Shouldn’t we be proud of that fact? I know I am.
I think the reason the Liberals get away with the idiocy that they get away with, is because the media tends away from what is American, and towards what is NOT American.
Why is this? It can’t be because they hate America. After all, if you asked any of them that, they would say they Love America, even though their every action says just the opposite. But if you use some Common Sense, you can’t be for America, but against it’s Laws, like the Liberals always are.
That is one thing that the Liberals are always doing. So, starting there, it should be illogical to be Liberal. (What is Popular is not always right!) Get the thinking there?
With the illegals, we have a real problem. We are letting them get away with coming here illegally, and staying here illegally. They stay here long enough, and it will be human nature to start demanding their rights….which is what happened this last summer! People, lets do the right thing here…..and stop worrying about it being popular. It isn’t going to be…at least with them. These people DO NOT deserve rights. Premember, they broke our laws when they came here. They deserve no special treatment. (Remember, what is Popular is not always right. Right is NOT always Popular.) We need to get this straight people, and DO THE RIGHT THING! Unfortunateloy, for all the illegals…..the right thing is DEPORTATION! This is NOT the easy thing, especially since the Liberals and us Conservatives too, have let many illegals in and let them stay. That in itself was wrong! And two wrongs do NOT make a right. It is still wrong. And yes, deporting them would make them unhappy….but face it. There has got to be CONSEQUENCES FOR THEIR ACTIONS! The politicians have got to realize, that they can’t continue taking away consequences, and expect society to work. Cause it won’t. For years, Liberals have been taking the consequences away from actions that are wrong, saying that punishment was unfair and detrimental to the well being of the person. The Majority of us don’t care. We just want the right thing done. Deport them!
Now, years later, they are trying to figure out why so many choose to do the wrong thing. Look at it in any way, and you will see, the Liberals NO CONSEQUENCE mentality has caused this. It will get worse if consequences are not brought back into our society. To heck with the PC crowd. They are destroying this country. Let’s get a backbone and take it back.
What is Popular is not always Right.
What is Right is not always Popular!
God Bless America
God Bless our Troops
God Bless us every one
The hub-bub of Obama’s announcement this last week of his latest attempt at a gun grab all over the nation has sent ripples across this land. And the whole while the truth of guns and their value to the American public is being kept silent. Here my friends is the myths and the truths about what is going on.
Myth No. 1: Firearm purchases at gun shows do not require a background check due to the “gun show loophole.”
• When the president and others refer to the “gun show loophole,” they imply that there are no background checks being done at gun shows. As a result, much of the public has been misinformed and are led to believe that individuals who purchase firearms at gun shows are not subject to a background check.
• In reality, there is no “gun show loophole.” If an individual wants to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms retailer, which typically makes up the majority of vendors at gun shows, the individual must fill out the requisite federal firearms paperwork and undergo a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check.
• The only firearms that are being purchased at gun shows without a background check are those being bought and sold between individuals, peer-to-peer, as opposed to buying a firearm from a gun dealer. These private sales are no different from selling a personal hunting rifle to the owner’s niece or nephew down the road. It is a private sale and no background paperwork is required. The gun is private property and the sale is made like a sale of the family’s good silver. The one difference is that the locus of a gun show is being used to make the private sale.
• Under current law, an individual is permitted to occasionally sell part, or all, of their personal firearms collection. These private sellers, however, cannot be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. “Engaged in the business” means they can’t repeatedly sell firearms with the principal objective of earning funds to support themselves. Some of the individuals who wish to sell a portion, or all, of their personal firearms collection do so at the show and might display their wares on a table. These “private table sales,” however, are private, peer-to-peer, sales and, therefore, do not require a background check. The president cannot change criminal statutes governing requirements for which sellers must conduct background checks. His new actions don’t do so and don’t claim to do so.
• In a peer-to-peer, private firearms transaction, it is already illegal to sell a firearm to another individual if the seller “knows or has reasonable cause to believe” that the buyer meets any of the prohibited categories for possession of a firearm (felon, fugitive, illegal alien, etc).
Myth No. 2: Gun shows lack any law enforcement presence and are a free-for-all for felons and other prohibited individuals to obtain firearms.
• Local, state, and federal law enforcement are often present both in uniform and/or covertly in plain clothes to monitor and intervene in suspected unlawful firearms sales such as straw purchasing, purchases made by prohibited individuals, including non-residents, and the attempted sale of any illegal firearms.
Myth No. 3: Individuals who purchase firearms on the Internet are not subject to background checks.
• An individual cannot purchase a firearm directly from a firearms retailer over the Internet and have that firearm shipped to them directly. An individual can pay for the firearm over the Internet at websites and online sporting goods retailers. The firearm, however, must be picked up from a federal firearms licensee, such as a gun store. In many cases, this is the brick-and-mortar store associated with the website where the gun purchase was made. Once at the retail store, the Internet purchaser must then fill out the requisite forms, including ATF Form 4473, which initiates the NICS background check process. Thus, an Internet purchase of a firearm from a firearms retailer require a background check.
• Individuals, from the same state, are able to advertise and purchase firearms from one another and use the Internet to facilitate the transaction. It is unlawful, under current law, to sell or transfer a firearm to an individual who is out-of-state. Any Internet sale, even between individuals, that crosses state lines would have to utilize a federal firearms licensee, such as a gun store, and the purchaser would be required to fill out the requisite state and federal paperwork and would undergo a background check.
Myth No. 4: The president’s Jan. 5 executive action on gun control represents landmark change regarding gun control.
• With few exceptions, Obama’s executive action on firearms is nothing more than rhetoric regarding the status quo. Many senators have long argued for better and more robust enforcement of existing laws that prohibit criminals from owning guns.
• It is the current law of the land that anyone engaged in the business of selling firearms must have a federal firearms license. The president’s action does not change current law, but merely restates existing court rulings on the meaning of “engaged in the business.”
Myth No. 5: The Obama administration has made firearms enforcement a priority.
• The Obama administration has used its limited criminal enforcement resources to focus on clemency for convicted and imprisoned felons, the investigation of police departments, and on civil rights cases. The latter two categories represent important work, but the Department of Justice lost track of one of its core missions of enforcing criminal law: prosecuting violent criminals, including gun criminals.
• The Obama administration is only now making firearms enforcement a priority. Clearly, enforcing the gun laws is a new initiative, or one of the president’s actions would not have been informing all of the 93 U.S. attorneys about it.
• Proof of this lack of enforcement is revealed in the decline of weapons related prosecutions during the Obama administration. As data obtained from the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal, firearms prosecutions are down approximately 25 percent under the Obama administration versus the last year of the Bush administration.
Myth No. 6: Mental health has nothing to do with gun control.
• People with certain levels of mental illness are not permitted to own guns. Many of the recent mass killings were committed by mentally ill individuals. One of the keys to preventing further mass shootings and violence committed with firearms is addressing the issue of mental health.
• Background checks to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns can only work if states provide mental health records to the NICS system. Too many states have failed to do so. Many of the worst offenders are states with the most stringent gun control laws. For multiple years now, many members of Congress have repeatedly called for and introduced legislation that would provide incentives for states to submit their mental health records for inclusion in the NICS database.
Myth No. 7: Obama’s executive action on gun control will thwart criminals’ ability to obtain firearms.
• The president’s executive action regarding firearms is focused primarily on individuals who attempt to purchase firearms through the background check process.
• Criminals, however, obtain firearms in myriad illegal ways, including home invasion robbery, trading narcotics for firearms, burglary of homes, vehicles, and businesses, as well as straw purchasing.
• My legislation, Senate Amendment 725, was specifically designed to combat the straw purchasing of firearms as well as firearms traffickers who transfer firearms to prohibited individuals and out-of-state residents.
Myth No. 8: There is a general consensus in America that greater gun control is needed to prevent mass shootings in the United States.
• Despite the president’s statement to the contrary, polls have shown that the majority of Americans do not believe that stricter gun control would reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States.
• The American public does not believe that making it harder for law abiding Americans to obtain guns makes America safer. In fact, polls have shown that a majority of Americans thinks the United States would be safer if there were more individuals licensed and trained to carry concealed weapons. A majority opposes re-imposition of the “assault weapons” ban.
Myth No. 9: The terrorist “no-fly” list is a proper mechanism to bar Americans from purchasing firearms. —Obama, Jan. 5
• The no-fly list is actually multiple lists, which are generated in secret and controlled by executive branch bureaucrats. The Second Amendment right to bear arms has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a fundamental right. This puts the right to bear arms in our most closely guarded rights similar to the right to free speech and freedom of religion. It is unconstitutional to deprive an American citizen of their Second Amendment right without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Myth No. 10: Gun retailers need to step up and refuse to sell semi-automatic weapons. —Obama, Jan. 5
There is nothing unlawful about a semi-automatic firearm. A semi-automatic firearm simply means that a round is discharged with each pull of the trigger. These include most shotguns used for waterfowl hunting and rifles commonly used for target shooting.
You see folks. I have been saying lately, every time that Obama’s mouth is moving, a lie is being told. There are ten more just off of the top of my head. Our president is a liar and a traitor, and nothing more.
My friends, the best thing to do, is get this post, print it out, and the parts in black, keep. They are the myths’s told by the liberal left, and the facts that they always conveniently leave out. Another fact they always leave out folks, is that a law abiding citizen with a gun will deter the mass shootings that have been happening. If there is a chance of a gun carrying person is inside an area, the shooters, who are basically cowards, will look for another place to go. A GUN FREE ZONE. That is their primary targets, and the primary thing that the liberal faction, like Obama, always seem to miss.
God Bless America
God Bless Our Troops
God Bless us Everyone