July 20, 2009
Reuters Calls for Obama to Act as Dictator to Ban Guns
[Image Can Not Be Found]
December 19, 2012
In a shocking article that seems to completely toss the Constitution out the window, Reuters announced President Obama’s official dictatorship in a story it published yesterday, “Even Without Congress, Obama Could Act to Restrict Guns.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/ ... 4120121218
The subheading begins, “Unburdened by re-election worries and empowered by law to act without Congress, U.S. President Barack Obama could take action…” Because he has won a second term, the story points out that, “Obama does not need to fear alienating voters who favor gun rights” and that he can, “press ahead without lawmakers” to pass executive orders restricting our 2nd Amendment rights.
According to this story, it’s official: America is under an admitted dictatorship.
This country’s government is supposed to have a system of checks and balances, with three branches of government to keep the balance of power in check—executive, legislative and judicial. America is not limited to an executive branch that controls everything.
The Reuters story continues, “His administration has the power to issue executive orders or new rules, options that Obama is likely to consider in combination with possible new laws.”
So, let’s get this straight: Obama’s administration—a body that is administrative in nature only—now has the “power” to issue not only executive orders which completely circumvent Congress, but “new rules” as well. Where in the Constitution are “rules” mentioned?
Reuters also discusses the fact that Obama U.S. Justice Department appointees have been busy “studying ideas” for gun control since Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot at a public meeting she held last year.
This mainstream media outlet isn’t the only one calling for executive orders in the wake of the Connecticut school massacre that left 20 children dead last week. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is openly demanding that Obama take “executive action” now against our 2nd Amendment rights.
Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman reportedly told CNN that, “If the president can do something now by executive order, God bless him.” Current TV Host Jennifer Graham mentioned that she used to “love stuff” she could do without having to go to the state legislature as someone who previously worked in the executive branch, to which former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich answered that some things could be done by executive order, and if Obama signs such an order, “Congress can’t stop him.”
The Reuters article even mentions that the Connecticut school shooter took his mother’s guns to commit his crime, so all these new gun laws and background checks would have been completely useless at Sandy Hook School last Friday.
Executive orders began with George Washington asking officers to apprise him of the state of affairs in America. Fast forward to today, when Obama is signing executive orders because it “isn’t clear” if Congress will pass the laws the administration wants it to.
Why would the people elect a president that will outright infringe on their basic rights and an impotent, ceremonial Congress?
The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear on this point: “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.” The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to guard against tyrannical government—against the very tyrannical government taking over America right now!
As radio show host Alex Jones has been saying for years now, “The fix is in—they’re coming for our guns”:
http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-rant ... ke-crying/
“The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” — James Madison
"a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people."