Gun Control - A CRIMINAL's Best friend!

The True Effects of Gun Control

Fort Hood, Columbine, Arizona senator Gabrielle Giffords, Virginia Tech — what do all these have in common?

A crazy person with a gun . . . in a gun-free zone!

It was instituted that as of 1982, no one shall have handguns in Chicago city limits.  Since then it has been a city ordinance and the funny thing is Chicago just took over as city with the most murder in the US.

I thought you all would like to see the now available data from Down Under.

 It has now been over a year since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now available:

-Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent;

-Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;

-Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent); 

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up
300 percent as compared with the last one year period when private
ownership of a firearm was legal.  The law-abiding citizens did turn in their personal firearms, the criminal element did not (and thus criminals in Australia still possess their guns.)

-While data for the 25 years preceding the confiscation of privately
owned guns showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months as criminals now are assured their victims will be unarmed. 

-There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults
of the elderly, while the resident is at home.  Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.

-This story of well intentioned government intervention in the
rights of lawful individuals to own and possess firearms won't be seen in the mainstream US media or on the American evening news.

 President Obama who advocates a similar confiscation in the US will not be reporting any of this to you.  But, the Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. 

Americans must take note before it's too late!

There is little empirical evidence that reducing general access to firearms reduces criminal violence.  In fact, overwhelming empirical evidence suggests that the more punitive gun control is, the greater the level of violent crime.  For example: 

1.  US per capita handgun ownership remained stable in the first 30 years of the 20th century, while the homicide rate rose tenfold; between 1937 and 1963, the American homicide rate fell 35.7% 

2.  In 1976, Washington D.C. enacted stringent gun controls. Since then, the homicide rate has risen 134% while the national rate fell 2%. 

3.  Maryland claims to have the "toughest gun laws" in the U.S., and has the highest robbery rate, and ranks 4th in violent crimes and murders.

4.  20% of American crimes occur in 4 cities with roughly 6% of the U.S. population (Detroit, Chicago, New York and Washington D.C.). Each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns. 

5.  Switzerland has fewer gun controls than the U.S., and lower crime.  Almost EVERY home is Switzerland has a weapon.

6.  Australia and England, which have essentially banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault and assault among the top 17 industrialized countries. 

7.  Since banning guns, the UK has seen a dramatic rise in violent crime. 

8.  Since banning guns, Australia has seen greater than 100% increases in armed robbery, kidnapings, assaults, attempted murder and sexual assaults.

9.  Alberta has the highest rates of firearm ownership in Canada. Alberta does not have the highest crime rate in Canada, and has the lowest crime rate in Western Canada.

Alberta has the highest gun ownership in Canada. As such, Albertans favor the right to bear arms to a much greater extent than other Canadians.

Further, restrictive gun control harms certain members of the population more than others, especially when self-defense is an issue.  Women, by nature, tend to not have the physical strength of men.  In a criminal attack by a man against a woman, the woman will in most cases be at a disadvantage.  Firearms counteract this difference.  Abridging the right to bear arms disproportionately harms women, which leads to some questions regarding the equality of right under the law.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.  From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.  By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

China established gun control in 1935.  From 1948 to 1952, 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.  From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, without the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.  From 1971 to 1979 under General Idi Amin Dada, 300,000 Christians and political rivals of Amin, unable to defend them­selves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.  Between 1975 and 1979, 2,035,000 "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In a March 1976 coup in Argentina, a military junta seized power and went on a campaign to wipe out left-wing terrorism with terror far worse than the one they were combating.  For seven years thousands of people, most of them dissidents and innocent civilians unconnected with terrorism, were arrested and then vanished without a trace, the Argentinian service chief's version of Hitler's Nacht und Nebel directive.  After democracy was restored in 1983, a national commission was appointed to investigate the fate of "los desaparecidos."  That report revealed the systematic abductions of men women and children and the methodic use of torture and murder.  Human rights groups say up to 30,000 people were killed or "disappeared" as the military waged its campaign against a disarmed citizenry.

The United Nations imposed gun control after civil war broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992.  Although the town of Srebrenica was a UN-designated "safe area," in July of 1995 more than 7,000 unarmed Muslim men and boys were murdered by Serb forces as the UN forces in the town proved unable or unwilling to help its Muslim population.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:  at least 56 MILLION, that we know about.  The places are all too familiar:  Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Uganda, Rwanda, Guatemala, Cambodia, Armenia, the Sudan, Bosnia and many more.  EVERY country there is Socialist or Communist.

Even in the new Millennium…

In April 2000, toward the end of Sierra Leone's 11-year civil war in which the United Nations convinced civilians to surrender their private weapon, those citizens ended up defenseless when 500 UNAMSIL peacekeepers in the east, unable to protect even themselves, were taken hostage by rebels moving on the capital of Freetown.

And back in Uganda, extreme brutality and death continue today due to the government's continued attempts at "forceful disarmament" of the civilian populace, primarily Karamojong tribespeople.

Additionally, in 2006 the genocide of unarmed victims in Darfur was unfathomably bad, more than two million people, yet no one acted to stop it. The United Nations has failed to issue any meaningful sanctions against the openly racist Islamist dictatorship in Khartoum perpetrating it, or to even call it genocide.



David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen, writing in the Notre Dame Law Review (Volume 81, Number 4), note that that national gun-control statutes7 for the Darfur victims effectively prevent self defense.





So the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "WHO DO YOU WANT TO ROUND UP AND EXTERMINATE?"



Something to think about as the Liberal media attempts to demonize firearms and gun owners in what amounts to an unending propaganda blitz.  They are sympathetic to the politicians who seek to blame crime on "the easy availability of guns" and "illegal guns" through evil devices like "the gun show loophole."







At one point gun confiscation in this country was unthinkable, yet we saw it occur quite openly in 1991 in New York City, enabled solely due to a registration scheme put into place in 1967 when Mayor John V. Lindsay signed a long gun registration law which was later used as a confiscation list.

1.      It's clear that Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) deemed gun control a critical element of his National Socialist policy. After having occupied Russian territory he wrote in Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942:

Der größte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre, daß alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten.

Translation: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942, Dr. Henry Picker, editor. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)] (But see N. A. Browne's The Myth of Nazi Gun Control)

2.    Human rights groups say actually up to 500,000 people were killed during Idi Amin's 8-year rule. Bodies were dumped into the Nile River because graves couldn't be dug fast enough. At one point, so many bodies were fed to crocodiles that the remains occasionally clogged intake ducts at Uganda's main hydroelectric plant at Jinja.

3.    During the short four years of its rule in Cambodia, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge government murdered over 31 percent of the entire Cambodian population.

4.    A government report "officially" lists only 9,000 victims.

5.     According to Robert J. Cottrol in "A Liberal Democrat’s Lament" (The American Enterprise, September/October 1999), University of Hawaii political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel, one of the leading students of democide (mass murder of civilian populations by governments), has estimated that nearly 180 million people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century, the largest single cause of untimely death in the world.

The familiar list of mass murderers – Castro, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini – only scratches the surface.  Notice all are Socialists or Communists.

6.   The mass slaughter of helpless, unarmed civilian populations continues to this very day in Sudan, Rwanda, and parts of the former Yugoslavia.

7.     Kopel, Gallant and Eisen on The Consequences of United Nations Gun Confiscation in East Africa: forceful disarmament in Kenya and Uganda.

8.   
 A permit applicant in Darfur must be over 30 years old, have specified social and economic status, and be physically examined by a doctor. A handgun owner can legally purchase only 15 rounds of ammunition a year, hardly enough to gain any level of proficiency. Violation of the gun control laws include severe penalties, ranging up to execution by the government.

US SENATE STANDS WITH NRA IN STRONGLY OPPOSING UN GUN CONTROL 

YES , AS YOU CAN SEE HERE – IT IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE, BUT IS THE PLAN TO “OVER REGULATE” ENTIRE POPULATIONS OUT OF EXISTANCE

Obama is not against guns, he surrounds himself with armed guards with machine guns, both in Chicago and in Washington DC – HE DOESN’T WANT THE CITIZENTY TO LAWFULLY CARRY GUNS – I WONDER WHY THAT IS?

Congress - NO Federal Internet Takeover!

CONGRESSMEN & CONGRESSWOMEN, time is short. We have possibly less than 60 days for you, Congress, to act.  It is your CONSTITUTIONALLY-MANDATED JOB to oversee the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Yet, AS WE SPEAK, Obama’s FCC is providing new rules and regulations to Internet service providers, as well as me, the Internet user.  This is an another invasion of my privacy from the Obama adgenda.  My Internet freedoms are guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Yet, the FCC is being directed by President Obama, to see it much differently.

PLEASE, use your Constitutionally mandated oversight powers to stop the federal government expansion and advance over my freedoms.  NO federal bureaucrat, not even POTUS can intrude upon my right to the Internet.

Not only am I against "government over-reach," that we are seeing every day now, but my constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms must be upheld in order to allow citizens rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT of Happiness.  Please look into this very important matter that every American is genuinely concerned about, AND STOP IT while there is still time.

Over the last few years in Egypt, China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc., dictators and despots have used unlawful control and even SHUTDOWN of the internet in their countries to hide violence and other atrocities committed against their citizens, reduce their citizenry’s access to updated news, and defeat LIBERTY.  DON’T ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN IN AMERICA!

The bottom line is that President Obama wants to use these same dictatorial tactics to take away control and Internet freedom, FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS.  He hopes to do it without your noticing or complaining!  He has already declared his FCC has the "right" to REGULATE your Internet.  That is the SAME RIGHT that EVERY third country dictator has stolen from their citizens, so they could carry out their carnage against their people, away from the watchful eye of the world, since the Internet was created.  But three US federal judges have already DISAGREED and ruled that Internet freedoms should be treated the same as "Freedom of the press" for ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Will this Obama plan curtail the American Constitutionally mandated FREEDOM OF SPEECH?  OF COURSE, YES IT WILL!

Will this Obama plan steal the Constitutionally mandated FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY?  OF COURSE, YES IT WILL!

Will this Obama plan plunder the Constitutionally mandated FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION?  OF COURSE, YES IT WILL!

Would this Obama plan allow the same violence, control, and hidden illegal governmental activities as all the previous dictators/despots have used against their people, TO OCCUR HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OF America?  YES, YES, YES, OF COURSE IT WILL!

Our federal GOVERNMENT wants to CONTROL OUR INTERNET in order to choose who will be allowed to use it, and who will NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE IT!  They want an INTERNET KILL SWITCH to be able to instantly switch off transparency/connectivity to the world.  They want to oversee the CONTENT of our Internet!   They want to be able to hide criminal activity AGAINST the citizens of AMERICA, FROM THE WORLD.  American law is ALREADY in place to prosecute illegal activities against criminal use of our Internet – NO “CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN”, IS NECESSARY.

STOP THIS UN-AMERICAN AND UNLAWFUL FEDERAL TAKE OVER OF OUR INTERNET NOW!  IT’S YOUR JOB AND THE PEOPLE DEMAND IT.

This fax was sent to POTUS, Senators Cornyn, Hutchinson, Rubio, Snowe, McConnell, Reid, Feinstein, Reed, Murray, Representatives Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, DeMint, Poe, Levin, Pelosi, New first-term House Republicans Berg, Noem, Crawford, Gosar, Benishek, Nunnelee, Guinta, McKinley, Griffin, Huizenga, Ellmers, Rigell, Womack, Runyan, Heck, Kelly, Herrera, Gardner, Palazzo, Nugent, Lankford, and various Conservative and Liberal media outlets.

Obama, You Are Not Our King

RE: Our Founders Did Not Proclaim: 'No King But King Obama!'

President Obama, you have gone too far.  You are not a king.  You are not a dictator. You are not the law and you are most certainly not above the law. Enough is enough, and there has been too much already, over the last three years!

The American people have repeatedly said NO to amnesty for illegal aliens.  Yet apparently frustrated over Congress’ refusal to either sneak amnesty for illegal aliens past the American people or shove it down our throats, the Obama Administration has DECIDED to CREATE amnesty by executive decree, by announcing that you will once more, only selectively enforce the laws of our land.  You are sworn to uphold the Constitution, yet you are on the public record stating that you will NOT bypass laws by executive decree, which bypasses the exclusive legislative authority to CREATE law.   You publically stated you will NOT use “signing statements”, etc.  Yet with illegal immigrants once again, you REFUSE to follow existing law – even going so far as joining with Mexico to bring lawsuits against Arizona to bully and punish them for FOLLOWING existing law, also you again REFUSE to follow existing law by refusing to defund 4 of your 37 czars as required by existing law.  You have NO right to decide the constitutionality of federal law – only the Supreme Court and State governments have those rights of NULLIFICATION.  Why are your public statements ALWAYS at odds with your actions?

The Constitution is very clear. The legislative branch MAKES the laws and the executive branch ENFORCES the laws.  Your decision to effectively make law by cherry-picking which laws will be enforced and which laws will not, is a clear abuse of power and a clear and present threat to our Constitution and our nation.  It is exactly the same as the recent trend of the liberal Supreme Court CREATING NEW law instead of upholding the Constitution by simply “interpreting”  law, not creating it.  The responsibilities of a modern president must still be handled within the framework established by an eighteenth-century document, the Constitution that created not a PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM of government but a system of SEPARATED INSTITUTIONS sharing the powers of government between three “balanced” branches.  It was intentionally designed this way to prevent the unlawful implementation of TYRANNY on the people of the United States of America.

Legislators, you must send President Obama a clear message.  Take the crown off of his head and stop his amnesty power grab dead in its tracks.  You can start by passing Congressman Lamar Smith's HALT Act (H.R.2497).  Immigration is fine – ILLEGAL immigration is NOT fine!  Make it a priority.  Make it the first item on your agenda and make it happen now.  No excuses will be tolerated!  We the people are watching.

Then, Legislators you MUST insure that President Obama follows all existing law without cherry-picking around his agenda.  The public is becoming more and more aware of his administration’s “agenda”, but awareness is not enough, we must hold him responsible to the legislated, authorized duties of POTUS.  This ground-swell of public scrutiny brought about by President Obama’s attempts to “hijack” OUR federal government, may provide us relief in November 2012, but we must stop his rough-shod trampling of the laws he is sworn to uphold – NOW, AND RESTRICT HIM TO ONLY THE AREAS OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY!  We the people are watching.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

This fax was sent to POTUS, Gov. Perry, Senators Cornyn, Hutchinson, Rubio, Snowe, McConnell, Reid, Feinstein, Reed, Murray, Representatives Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, Poe, Levin, Pelosi, and various Conservative and Liberal media outlets.

No Internet National ID

I am writing to respectfully make clear that you need to put an immediate stop to Barack Obama’s plans to institute the "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" aka Internet National ID.  This is merely a more palatable Obama-ism name for an agenda to isolate the American people during a fabricated “crisis”.  The American military considers Internet shutdown as a “war provocation” in other dictatorships, and we the American people MUST recognize it could be used to harm us here in America, in the same way.

NO TO GOVERNMENT-ISSUED INTERNET NATIONAL ID, and NO TO PRESIDENT OBAMA’S “THOUGHT POLICE”

The fact is, an online national ID will NOT PROTECT ANYONE from the many viral, phishing and identity theft programs already in use. These sophisticated programs already have the ability to impersonate people online, including breach of passwords, Internet IDs and security "dongles." SHUTTING DOWN the Internet will not change that - it can provide no "protection" for Internet visitors.  So what does Obama’s faux "Cyber-Security" proposal REALLY accomplish?

CONTROL!   CENTRALIZED FEDERAL CONTROL.  No thank you, Mr. Obama.  The danger to be used against the American people is too great to be acceptable.

The Federal government and the Obama administration in particular have become adept at redefining principles, stifling free speech and implementing programs that would make notorious totalitarians squirm.

This agenda must end now. The Internet is the last bastion of vigorous First Amendment rights and expression we have under this odious Executive Branch, and we must refuse the Obama administration’s attempt to take control of it!

Therefore, it's vital individual activities must remain unhindered and uncontrolled by Federal government intrusions, snooping and regulatory encroachments in ALL guises. 

President Obama, keep your hands off my freedoms!

Other dictatorships worldwide shut down Internet access as soon as they want to hide their persecution, murder and other mayhem from the world.  We have seen multiple examples of that over the last couple of years in Libya, China, Egypt, etc.

America even has a secret “proxy cloud” strategy to prevent dictators from isolating their people from the world to more easily commit their atrocities.  The secret aircraft “Commando Solo”, and even drones can be sent into countries to frustrate dictatorial efforts to subdue dissenters. 

So the American strategy is to prevent other dictators from escaping the world’s eyes for their murder and mayhem – but no protection for our own American citizens?

There is NO LEGITIMATE purpose for any dictator to shut down the Internet in some sort of fabricated “crisis” situation.  It is simply a dictatorial method for subduing dissention towards the dictatorship!

We don’t want that that here in America – we want limited government intrusion, with unlimited freedom and transparency.

I insist you immediately shut down Obama's Orwellian"National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" -- TODAY!

Support it and stand with the dictators at your own political peril.  We the people are watching.

This fax was sent to POTUS, Boehner, Cantor, Poe, Cornyn, Hutchinson, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid, and various Conservative and Liberal media outlets.

Malignant Narcissist Obama?

Today I believe we have reached a point with this administration which could become the point of CRITICAL MASS.  Today started what I think could possibly become the FINAL step in Obama's agenda to gain a complete DICTATORSHIP over the United States of America.

He is accomplishing this by implementing gradual steps to completely eliminate any responsibility of the Presidency, to the American Constitution, and I believe this could become the last step in that goal.

This final step looks like a building Obama attempt to allow the President of the United States (POTUS), to ignore the constitutional necessity of congressional APPROVAL for raising the debt ceiling, and allow him to unilaterally raise the ceiling by "Executive Order".  If this turns into the final step, then from this point on, the POTUS is a dictator without any of the intended Constitutional checks & balances instituted to prevent his becoming a dictator.

When this happens, the only options to the American people are tax revolt (cut off the economic head of the beast), and revolution.

This possibly final step today was spoken against, by Texas Senator John Cronyn:   Sen. Cornyn warned President Obama on Sunday to not even consider interpreting the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment to bypass Congress and raise the debt limit without it's approval.  "That's crazy talk.  Its not acceptable for Congress and the President to not do their job, and to say somehow the President has the authority then to basically do this by himself."  Cornyn (REP-Texas), a former judge on the Texas Supreme Court, told "Fox News Sunday".

The proposal that Obama re-interpret Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to justify raising the RECORD $14.3 trillion debt limit has been gaining traction in Democratic circles since possibly outgoing Treasury Secretary, & income tax violator, Tim Geithner told reporters last May that in his opinion the Constitution's language could support the President's raising the national debt limit without congressional approval.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and others on Capitol Hill reportedly acknowledged that the idea is percolating, and had been presented to the president.  "It's certainly worth exploring. I think it needs a little more exploration and study," he said during a conference call with reporters held Friday.

Without addressing efforts to invoke the Constitution, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Sunday the president and congressional negotiators shouldn't even be discussing a debt deal privately.  "Congress is the constitutional place for this to be decided," said Sessions, who is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. 

Asked during a press conference Wednesday whether the debt limit was constitutional, the president glossed over the question, saying, "I'm not a Supreme Court justice, so I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on here."

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/03/cornyn-obama-bypassing-congress-on-debit-limit-is-crazy-talk/#ixzz1R6ZaaHlg

If the Obama plan works, and we allow him the right "not to be questioned" and to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling of the United Stated of America without confirming vote by the US Congress, we will then be operating as a dictatorship for the first time since the birth of out country!  Is this the change we can believe in?

Obama's plan best works slowly.  The same way the lobster doesn't struggle in the pot so long as the temperature goes up slowly.  As you see from above Geithner brought up the "no questions" concept in relation to raising the nation's debt ceiling, three months ago.

Other occasions where Obama started chipping away at the REQUIREMENT of Congressional approval are:

The forged birth certificate, even though McCain was REQUIRED to provide his birth certificate.

Placing American troops under the command of UN authorities, and into combat in Libya without Congressional approval, nor threat to the United States from Libya.  CANDIDATE Obama made several statements about his opinion AGAINST PRESIDENT BUSH in  an interview with the Boston Globe:

Q:  In what circumstances would the President have Constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

A:  The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.  In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his Constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking it's consent.  History has shown us time and time again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.  It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently intro taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.duced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that "any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.

     Source:  Boston Globe question on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

Q:  Can the President disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops - either by capping the number of troops, or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments?

A:  No, the President does not have that power.  To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation.  As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an expressed limit imposed Congress and adopted into law.

         SOURCE: Boston Globe question on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

I am sure there are other examples of Obama's using small steps to ignore REQUIRED Congressional approval for POTUS actions.  If you are aware of any, please leave a comment.

If he gets away with this illegal debt ceiling takeover without congressional approval, I fear it might become the final nail in the coffin of transfer of the US into a dictatorship.  Once we allow that to happen, Obama could become dictator for an indefinite term (no longer needing congressional approval for any law he wants to institute).

WHAT CAN WE DO?

We can recognize that the Administration is encouraging blatantly unconstitutional, if not criminal, actions. Two hundred and thirty years of law is being subverted by a Marxist socialist named Barack Obama.

“We the people” can take action by vowing not to buy vehicles from Fiat/Chrysler and to avoid doing business with those concerns which profited from the "bail-out" travesty of justice. Ditto with General Motors … or Government Motors as it is now called.

We can also continue legislating restrictions on unions and their ability to influence elections and the selection of politicians. This has gone way beyond monopolistic practices, it is now bordering on subverting the Constitution of the United States.

We can start considering a grass roots movement to demand that Barack Obama produce documents proving that he is eligible to be the President of the United States.

We can continue to promote and contribute to grass roots movements to pressure elected officials to investigate Barack Obama and draft articles of impeachment citing massive self-dealing, bypassing REQUIRED Congressional approval, and other corruption involving trillions of dollars.

We can let our Senators know that we will not accept activist judges and that there will be consequences for their actions when they come up for reelection.

And we need to let our elected officials on all levels know that we are serious about not reelecting any incumbents.

IF WE FAIL, THIS COULD BE THE DEATH OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT