Defining Socialism at the Local Dry Cleaners

"Socialism is tyranny based on good intentions."

America the Battlefield
by Timothy A. Pope
April 22, 2015

Yesterday while driving to work, I was pleased to see the following sign up at my local dry cleaners:

Southside Cleaners - Launderers
901 S. Florida Ave.
Lakeland, FL 33803
(863) 688-4747
garmentcarepros.com

I frequent this business about once a week to drop-off and pick-up my wife's work clothes, and I often have a good laugh at their ever-changing clever sayings, plays on words, pop culture references, idioms and colloquialisms. In fact, they are famous in this town for their very memorable and quotable water cooler content, not to mention their exceptional service.

However, they have never gotten very political until now. They sometimes put up a silly jab regarding the economy or what in the world those guys in Washington are up to, but nothing at all like this. 

Tyranny is defined as arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; the despotic abuse of authority; the government, a state or rulership of a tyrant or absolute ruler; oppressive or unjustly severe government; undue severity or harshness; a cruel or harsh act or proceeding; or an arbitrary, oppressive, or tyrannical action.

This public proclamation on the adamantine connection between socialism and tyranny really struck me and made me stop and think, and compelled me to stop and snap this picture for posterity.

What really made me think was trying to recall the last time I had seen a local business or large corporation openly make such a profound statement regarding the driving force behind the fundamental transformation of this country of ours.

I emailed a letter to the owner expressing my support, and attached it below for your consideration. I hope that you will also do likewise and stand behind the people and business owners (the real job-creators) in your community who are standing up for the truth and not hiding behind the approved spectrum of debate, which is the incrementally destructive melody of the Pied Piper.

Vote with your dollars!

Here is the letter I sent to the owner of Southside Cleaners:

Dear [name redacted],

I wanted to offer you due praise for your current outdoor sign message: "Socialism is tyranny based on good intentions."

As a self-taught student of history, economics and sociology, I can see exactly what is being done to our once-great Constitutional Republic, and can predict with absolute certainty the direction we are being led by domestic enemies who have infiltrated our government, unless otherwise averted.

Today we have every single so-called "official"—from the President of the United States on down to the public school teacher, and every media pundit and news anchor in-between—employing deceptive psychological warfare upon the American people, trying to convince us that we are not a sovereign Republic but a social Democracy. These talking points are being fraudulently promulgated even though all of our original framers decried a pure democracy as the political arm of an aspiring tyrannical government. Those who don't know history truly are doomed to repeat it. 

These men who formulated our original founding documents, charters and compacts were wise and learned men, and had deduced from studying history that the socialist states that had arisen by force of arms (Babylon, Egypt, Greece, the Roman Empire, and later, pre-revolutionary France, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, etc.) ultimately collapsed under their own weight and inability to sustain themselves. With that said, the entire socialist Eurozone is teetering on the edge of a soon coming great collapse.

As Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet Premier who gave form and purpose to the modern socialist ideology, said candidly, "Democracy is indispensable to socialism." And revolutionary socialist and author of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx, enunciated that "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."

So, considering the ever-growing influence the United Nations wields over us, an unelected foreign governing body of elitists, and considering the socialistic political aspirations, purpose and vision of its founders—not to mention Alger Hiss, the convicted communist Soviet spy who penned the Charter of the United Nations—yes, tyranny is the ultimate inevitable outcome. And the so-named U.N. "peace-keepers" are actively engaged in eliminating the opposition to their world-wide socialist vision.

Also, considering the estimated 162 million Christians, conservatives, moralists, ideologues, intellectuals and anti-establishmentarianists who went against the system, who were subjugated and genocided under the tyranny of the international socialists, if their modern-day posterity are not successful in altering that vision, then we and our children are in for the fight of our lives, and the "Great Experiment" of our founders will have failed—the experiment which asked the question: Are Americans willing and capable of discarding the shackles of slavery and governing themselves?

"Good intentions" is always the ruse; the window dressing; the Wizard of OZ; the exoteric method of diverting the people's attention from the real underlying goal and gaining their trust in order to betray them behind the veil of secrecy. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain," said the magician who employed sleight-of-hand to manipulate his emerald kingdom.

"For the children" and "For your safety" are also very popular Trojan Horse phrases made famous by the likes of Hitler, Mao, Ceausescu, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, most recent U.S. Presidents, politicians and NGO's, and is gaining more momentum under the devastating ignorance of the growing numbers of low-information voters. And events which precede those mantras are always used as pretexts to infringe upon our Creator-endowed rights under the guise of the law and of national security.

All governments are inherently as George Washington rightfully explained, not to be trusted; they are "Force! Like fire ... a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And I believe that more and more Americans—especially small business owners who are in the most prescient position to experience the first fruits of the agenda—are coming to the full realization of the truth that is lurking behind the facade of "democracy," which is indispensable to socialism. It is the gradual de-industrialization and democratization of the West, the redistribution of wealth to the East, the building-up of the third world to engineer an even playing field.

And ultimately the agenda is about the elimination of a strong, enlightened, politically active, aware and prosperous middle class, which has always been the main opposition and roadblock standing in the way of the social engineers and revolutionary change agents throughout history. For a deeper understanding of the playbook for this agenda, look up the Pincers Movement by communist theoretician, Jan Kozak, a member of the Secretariat of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, who was the first to outline and implement its political principle of "pressure from above and pressure from below," the squeezing out of the middle class leaving total government in its absence.

My friend David of NCRenegade liked the photo I took of your sign so much, that he published it on his website, and other like-minded bloggers have been sharing it all over the web:

http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/one-definition-of-socialism-from-florida

I have no doubt that you are a very well-informed person, but I hope that this letter further fleshes-out a few elusive data points from my studies for you to consider. I am a dot-connector. I connect the dots and join the scattered puzzle pieces of information in place to see the bigger picture and analyze a more broad perspective of the world. Let us hope that more Americans venture to do the same before it's too late.

Thank you again for being one of the few who are not afraid to tell it like it is, and for standing under the banner of truth in this age of deception when a vast majority are submitting to the discrediting socialist narrative of perception management, whose modern extension is "political correctness," a detriment to Freedom.

A loyal customer and fellow bane of socialism,
Timothy A. Pope

CONTRIBUTE TO MY RESEARCH!

I work very hard and spend innumerable hours studying, researching and digging out the truth, which is a great cost to a husband and father. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor sponsors. Please help me by donating the amount that you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to my time and effort, and ultimately to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom for all. May God bless each and every single one of you.

Thank you! - Tim

16-Year-Old High School Student Alec Scheer to President Obama, "Your Internet Tyranny Will Fail"

President Obama, your internet tyranny will fail
Reposted from: We Are 1776
By: Alec Scheer
February 12, 2013

President Obama,

The Hill has reported that you are expected to release an executive order regarding cyber-security. Your Administration’s spokesperson stated, “You know that the President believes that cybersecurity is a very important issue. It represents a huge challenge for our country. He has called on Congress to take action. Unfortunately, Congress has thus far refused legislatively.”

It is my duty, as an American citizen – and as a student who has a full life ahead of him in this nation – to inform you that you are drastically violating your oath to the Constitution. When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they left the legislating power in Congress for a reason: To prevent would be dictators and tyrants. They knew all too well that when one man has the sole ability to decide what is best for a nation and its people, that the nation would be propelled into despotism. Having said this, I would like to simply point out that you can’t bypass Congress for whatever convenient excuse you have. I would think this basic concept is rather easy for you to grasp. After all, you are a Constitutional law graduate from Harvard. Knowing that you have an extensive understanding of the Constitution, your habit of constantly signing executive orders for what you want done, when Congress doesn’t do it, just further shows that you are blatantly violating the Constitution and the rights of individuals in this county.

“The order is expected to establish a critical infrastructure cybersecurity council manned by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, staffed by members of the departments of defense, justice and commerce, and national intelligence office, according a preliminary draft leaked in September,” USA Today reported.

You have a sick humor. You expect Americans to pay to spy on themselves by taxing the hell out of them. Moreover, you expect them to pay to have your Administration infringe on their privacy rights. Furthermore, from a Constitutional and free market position, you are expanding the government with yet another agency to supposedly “protect” Americans. In my opinion, the best protection you can offer the people you’re supposed to represent is by relinquishing your power. Now obviously, this is just my wishful thinking. I know that despots never relinquish their power until the nation’s people relinquish it for them.  Furthermore, by creating another agency – which expends more tax dollars into more big government programs – you are depriving the people of the resources they need to purchase goods from producers; and you are depriving entrepreneurs from the funds they need to either produce or invest in more capital, which generally employs more people and expands the economy.

My last concern is basic: Why do you feel the need to monitor and regulate the internet? I know your excuse is for “security,” however, this seems to be the standard excuse which every tyrant uses, along with “it’s for your safety.” Both you and Bush Junior have justified the molestation performed by the Transportation Security Administration on innocent American travelers with excuse of “it’s for the betterment of our national security” and “it’s for your safety.” Thus it is hard for me to believe that your cyber-security initiative will actually offer security and protection. In fact, there is a 100% chance that this supposed “security” program will, in fact, become a right infringing program.

The last thing I have to say to you is: Stop the drone killings, stop destroying our freedom and our economy, stop the murders you have allowed occur in foreign lands, and stop expanding the institution which holds a monopoly on force. This, of course, would require you to relinquish your power.

Remember, Americans are growing tired of your dictatorial actions. If you continue on down this road, I can’t promise you that people will retain their anger. Your actions will inevitably lead to an uprising, just as the actions of past dictators led to uprisings.

From a pissed off high school student,

Alec Scheer,

Founder of We Are 1776

I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors. Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom, and may God bless each and every single one of you.

Over 1,000 US Army Special Forces Soldiers Sign Letter Supporting Second Amendment

Over 1,000 Green Berets have signed a letter re-asserting their Oath to support and defend the Constitution by protecting the Second Smendment rights of American citizens. They agree that the right to keep and bear arms is primarily a defense against government tyranny.

The letter, which originally featured at ProfessionalSoldiers.com, was written by "current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers."

It highlights the fact that the Constitution was drafted primarily as a means of protecting citizens against "governmental tyranny and/or oppression," further citing the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who outlined the purpose of the second amendment when he stated, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

January 29, 2013
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

"Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants' accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation's revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic."

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle - it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” - it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: "…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States' retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful "Eddie the Eagle" program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be "sold" as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

Re-posted with permission from  ProfessionalSoldiers.com
I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors. Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom, and may God bless each and every single one of you.