Obama wins. How do you feel about President Obama?

[cccook]

imported post

Gator5713 wrote:

I still hold way too much respect for my flag and what it stands for to allow for it to be flown upside down!!! Half mast out of sorrow and distress, ok, upside down, NO WAY!

Sorry Gator5713, that was just my warped humor rearing it's head. It would take much more than my personal disappointmentto flya distress signal. Now if the 2nd amendment were abolished or something equally egregious, that would probably do it for me.

I do like Sonora Rebel's Bonnie Blue idea.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

MetalChris wrote:

Gator5713 wrote:

I still hold way too much respect for my flag and what it stands for to allow for it to be flown upside down!!!

Flying the flag upside down isn't a sign of disrespect...it's the sign of distress.

Copy that. Why fly the signal after you're overrun? True disrepsect for the flag would be a failure to call attention while there is still a patriot left to be called.

Waiting for extinction first does not serve it with respect.

 

[Gator5713]

imported post

cccook wrote:

Gator5713 wrote:

I still hold way too much respect for my flag and what it stands for to allow for it to be flown upside down!!! Half mast out of sorrow and distress, ok, upside down, NO WAY!

Sorry Gator5713, that was just my warped humor rearing it's head. It would take much more than my personal disappointmentto flya distress signal. Now if the 2nd amendment were abolished or something equally egregious, that would probably do it for me.

I do like Sonora Rebel's Bonnie Blue idea.

I figured as much, and quite frankly did get a chuckle outta it... Just had to make the point that we aren't there.... yet.

 

[Skeptic]

imported post

I don't feel about him.

I only know what I know.

I know he didn't even try to disguise the fact he plans to abolish firearms carry, nationwide. Neither he nor any of his surrogates have even bothered to mention "carry" when he talkss about all the gun rights Obama supports.

There will be an executive order or something like that. It will be unconstitutional but the prisons will hold us all the same.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

I am SICKENED that America has become a place where they want a handout instead of a job. And as with all socialists - progressive, marxist, and national - the problems are never theirs, they are always the fault of some evil group. Guess what - gun owners are now part of that group that is the problem. We are about to be painted as the enemies of the state. The more magnificent and miserable their failures, the more blame to be heaped upon us, the enemy.

I have a lot of people I have helped over the years and I know who they voted for. Next time they need help, they can go pray to their Obamessiah because with their enthusiastic support they have already told me they are after my property and my guns.

Next time they are hungry - they can go beg the government. Next time they need money to pay a bill - they can go beg the government. If their pseudomessiah says I am greedy and selfish, who am I to argue. Since it is automatically racist for me to disagree with him, I have no choice but to behave as he says I do.

In fact I should quit my job and let someone else pull the cart for awhile. I should spend my time plinking in my backyard. Do they have welfare ammo like welfare cheese? It is not as dirty as that Wolf stuff is it? :lol::lol:

 

[cccook]

imported post

Skeptic wrote:

Do they have welfare ammo like welfare cheese? It is not as dirty as that Wolf stuff is it? :lol::lol:

Welfare ammo...that's brilliant! I should have a "right" to free ammo under a socialist administration! Ahhh...the silver lining.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

cccook wrote:

I do like Sonora Rebel's Bonnie Blue idea.

Get one here: http://www.sevenbros.com/ Or any other flag ya mite want. Good 'Gonzales' flag with an M-4 instead of the cannon barrel: 'Come and Take It'

 

[demnogis]

imported post

Garfield, can you provide a link to a transcription or video of that event? I'm sure many of us would like to know more about that event.

Garfield wrote:

Get ready for Martial Law next guys. February of "09.............Don't forget the message we got on March 19, 2008. For those who didn't get it or have forgotten, the closed door session of the House on March 19, 2008 turned out to be notification to the Senators that the economy will collapse in September of 2009.

Personally, I'm dissappointed that Obama won. I would have been just as dissappointed if McCain won. Under Obama we will see an accelerated deterioration of our 2A rights (and many others) as we become more UN-Obedient. The NWO got a bigger foothold on our government with that win. The only things we can do now are:

1) BUY MORE GUNS AND AMMO for the impending "zombie uprising".

2) Continue to diligently write our congressional representatives, senators and other reps to vote yea/nea on bills and laws we agree/disagree with. It may even become a good idea to start getting money together to bankroll some of these decions in favor of the citizenry.

3) Continue to inform/speak to friends and family, and encourage them to write/call/email our representatives on issues that may help or hurt the citizenry.

4) Encourage friends and family that now is the time to purchase that rifle they've been wanting. Invite more people to go shooting, make it a fun group.family event and educate, educate, educate on laws.

5) I, for one, welcome our new United Socialist States of America Overlord.*



*Not really, just a meme...

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.
- Alexander Fraser Tyler,’The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic’.

I'll repeat what I said elsewhere......the people have finally figured out they can vote themselves the money......prepare for the economy to get worse, and the country to fall. I am getting ready. Know your enemy and be prepared to fight them.

 

[American Rattlesnake]

imported post

demnogis wrote:

Garfield, can you provide a link to a transcription or video of that event? I'm sure many of us would like to know more about that event.

As far as I can tell it is an internet rumor with no verification of any kind. It would be impossible to verify as it was a closed door session.

One man made an assertion with no sources at all and it spread.

Garfield, if you have any more verifiable information, I would like to see it.

 

[Skeptic]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.
- Alexander Fraser Tyler,’The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic’.

I'll repeat what I said elsewhere......the people have finally figured out they can vote themselves the money......prepare for the economy to get worse, and the country to fall. I am getting ready. Know your enemy and be prepared to fight them.

And of course, the only way that the worst off person can be made as well off as the average person by redistribution is as that averages falls towards zero.

That - or buy borrowing against the fruits of tomorrows harvests. But Tomorrow's harvests are already mortgaged to the hilt for a generation to come.

While government became drunk on the nectars of our future harvests, all to provide our small desires, we have set ourselves up for a coming time where there will not be enough of that "harvest" remaining to go around comfortably.

And since we are the enemy, guess whose slice of the pie is eliminated first.

 

[Decoligny]

imported post

Carolina40 wrote:

my flag is upside down

From U.S.C. Title 4

(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

When the flag is flown upside down, you basically have a 9-1-1 call on a pole. It should only be flown this way when you need immediate aid/rescue.

To utilize the American Flag in this manner, for partisan political speech, IMO, is just as bad as when the wacko's burn it and claim it to be "freedom of speech". It is disrespect to the flag.

If I see someone with a flag flown upside down, I will be calling 9-1-1and reporting that the home owner indicated that they were indiredistress of an unknown type and we will see what the police/fire/ambulance folks think about the display.

MY SQUADRON'S MOTTO: "GLORY ON THE FIELD OF BATTLE, COURAGE BEFORE EVERY DANGER, FIDELITY TO OUR NATION AND FLAG, AND HONOR BEFORE ALL MEN."

 

[jbone]

imported post

Carolina40 wrote:

my flag is upside down

And the National Bird will soonbecome the Dove, as the Constitution and American Eagle become extinct with the Obama Nation.

 

[Skeptic]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

Carolina40 wrote:

my flag is upside down

From U.S.C. Title 4

(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

Extreme danger to life or property. We have elected by a massive majority in the legislature a party whose ideology is prefaced on the idea that anyone who thinks their wealth belongs to them rather than to the government is a simpleton [ see also the comments of Tom Moran the other day ].

I do not see danger to property much more extreme than that - that they truly beleive that our property belongs first to the State and only incidentally to us.

But I also will not be flying my flag this way. My children live there too and I am not making a target out of them when they are too young to even defend themselves from the .gov

 

[Flyer22]

imported post

I getemails from Stratfor. They just released their analysis.

Please feel free to distribute this Intelligence Report to friends or repost to your Web site linking to http://www.stratfor.com.

Barack Obama has been elected president of the United States by a large majority in the Electoral College. The Democrats have dramatically increased their control of Congress, increasing the number of seats they hold in the House of Representatives and moving close to the point where — with a few Republican defections — they can have veto-proof control of the Senate. Given the age of some Supreme Court justices, Obama might well have the opportunity to appoint at least one and possibly two new justices. He will begin as one of the most powerful presidents in a long while.

Truly extraordinary were the celebrations held around the world upon Obama’s victory. They affirm the global expectations Obama has raised — and reveal that the United States must be more important to Europeans than the latter like to admit. (We can’t imagine late-night vigils in the United States over a French election.)

Obama is an extraordinary rhetorician, and as Aristotle pointed out, rhetoric is one of the foundations of political power. Rhetoric has raised him to the presidency, along with the tremendous unpopularity of his predecessor and a financial crisis that took a tied campaign and gave Obama a lead he carefully nurtured to victory. So, as with all politicians, his victory was a matter of rhetoric and, according to Machiavelli, luck. Obama had both, but now the question is whether he has Machiavelli’s virtue in full by possessing the ability to exercise power. This last element is what governing is about, and it is what will determine if his presidency succeeds.

Embedded in his tremendous victory is a single weakness: Obama won the popular vote by a fairly narrow margin, about 52 percent of the vote. That means that almost as many people voted against him as voted for him.

Obama’s Agenda vs. Expanding His Base

U.S. President George W. Bush demonstrated that the inability to understand the uses and limits of power can crush a presidency very quickly. The enormous enthusiasm of Obama’s followers could conceal how he — like Bush — is governing a deeply, and nearly evenly, divided country. Obama’s first test will be simple: Can he maintain the devotion of his followers while increasing his political base? Or will he believe, as Bush and Cheney did, that he can govern without concern for the other half of the country because he controls the presidency and Congress, as Bush and Cheney did in 2001? Presidents are elected by electoral votes, but they govern through public support.

Obama and his supporters will say there is no danger of a repeat of Bush — who believed he could carry out his agenda and build his political base at the same time, but couldn’t. Building a political base requires modifying one’s agenda. But when you start modifying your agenda, when you become pragmatic, you start to lose your supporters. If Obama had won with 60 percent of the popular vote, this would not be as pressing a question. But he barely won by more than Bush in 2004. Now, we will find out if Obama is as skillful a president as he was a candidate.

Obama will soon face the problem of beginning to disappoint people all over the world, a problem built into his job. The first disappointments will be minor. There are thousands of people hoping for appointments, some to Cabinet positions, others to the White House, others to federal agencies. Many will get something, but few will get as much as they hoped for. Some will feel betrayed and become bitter. During the transition process, the disappointed office seeker — an institution in American politics — will start leaking on background to whatever reporters are available. This will strike a small, discordant note; creating no serious problems, but serving as a harbinger of things to come.

Later, Obama will be sworn in. He will give a memorable, perhaps historic speech at his inauguration. There will be great expectations about him in the country and around the world. He will enjoy the traditional presidential honeymoon, during which all but his bitterest enemies will give him the benefit of the doubt. The press initially will adore him, but will begin writing stories about all the positions he hasn’t filled, the mistakes he made in the vetting process and so on. And then, sometime in March or April, things will get interesting.

Iran and a U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq

Obama has promised to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, where he does not intend to leave any residual force. If he follows that course, he will open the door for the Iranians. Iran’s primary national security interest is containing or dominating Iraq, with which Iran fought a long war. If the United States remains in Iraq, the Iranians will be forced to accept a neutral government in Iraq. A U.S. withdrawal will pave the way for the Iranians to use Iraqi proxies to create, at a minimum, an Iraqi government more heavily influenced by Iran.

Apart from upsetting Sunni and Kurdish allies of the United States in Iraq, the Iranian ascendancy in Iraq will disturb some major American allies — particularly the Saudis, who fear Iranian power. The United States can’t afford a scenario under which Iranian power is projected into the Saudi oil fields. While that might be an unlikely scenario, it carries catastrophic consequences. The Jordanians and possibly the Turks, also American allies, will pressure Obama not simply to withdraw. And, of course, the Israelis will want the United States to remain in place to block Iranian expansion. Resisting a coalition of Saudis and Israelis will not be easy.

This will be the point where Obama’s pledge to talk to the Iranians will become crucial. If he simply withdraws from Iraq without a solid understanding with Iran, the entire American coalition in the region will come apart. Obama has pledged to build coalitions, something that will be difficult in the Middle East if he withdraws from Iraq without ironclad Iranian guarantees. He therefore will talk to the Iranians. But what can Obama offer the Iranians that would induce them to forego their primary national security interest? It is difficult to imagine a U.S.-Iranian deal that is both mutually beneficial and enforceable.

Obama will then be forced to make a decision. He can withdraw from Iraq and suffer the geopolitical consequences while coming under fire from the substantial political right in the United States that he needs at least in part to bring into his coalition. Or, he can retain some force in Iraq, thereby disappointing his supporters. If he is clumsy, he could wind up under attack from the right for negotiating with the Iranians and from his own supporters for not withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. His skills in foreign policy and domestic politics will be tested on this core question, and he undoubtedly will disappoint many.

The Afghan Dilemma

Obama will need to address Afghanistan next. He has said that this is the real war, and that he will ask U.S. allies to join him in the effort. This means he will go to the Europeans and NATO, as he has said he will do. The Europeans are delighted with Obama’s victory because they feel Obama will consult them and stop making demands of them. But demands are precisely what he will bring the Europeans. In particular, he will want the Europeans to provide more forces for Afghanistan.

Many European countries will be inclined to provide some support, if for no other reason than to show that they are prepared to work with Obama. But European public opinion is not about to support a major deployment in Afghanistan, and the Europeans don’t have the force to deploy there anyway. In fact, as the global financial crisis begins to have a more dire impact in Europe than in the United States, many European countries are actively reducing their deployments in Afghanistan to save money. Expanding operations is the last thing on European minds.

Obama’s Afghan solution of building a coalition centered on the Europeans will thus meet a divided Europe with little inclination to send troops and with few troops to send in any event. That will force him into a confrontation with the Europeans in spring 2009, and then into a decision. The United States and its allies collectively lack the force to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. They certainly lack the force to make a significant move into Pakistan — something Obama has floated on several occasions that might be a good idea if force were in fact available.

He will have to make a hard decision on Afghanistan. Obama can continue the war as it is currently being fought, without hope of anything but a long holding action, but this risks defining his presidency around a hopeless war. He can choose to withdraw, in effect reinstating the Taliban, going back on his commitment and drawing heavy fire from the right. Or he can do what we have suggested is the inevitable outcome, namely, negotiate — and reach a political accord — with the Taliban. Unlike Bush, however, withdrawal or negotiation with the Taliban will increase the pressure on Obama from the right. And if this is coupled with a decision to delay withdrawal from Iraq, Obama’s own supporters will become restive. His 52 percent Election Day support could deteriorate with remarkable speed.

The Russian Question

At the same time, Obama will face the Russian question. The morning after Obama’s election, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that Russia was deploying missiles in its European exclave of Kaliningrad in response to the U.S. deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in Poland. Obama opposed the Russians on their August intervention in Georgia, but he has never enunciated a clear Russia policy. We expect Ukraine will have shifted its political alignment toward Russia, and Moscow will be rapidly moving to create a sphere of influence before Obama can bring his attention — and U.S. power — to bear.

Obama will again turn to the Europeans to create a coalition to resist the Russians. But the Europeans will again be divided. The Germans can’t afford to alienate the Russians because of German energy dependence on Russia and because Germany does not want to fight another Cold War. The British and French may be more inclined to address the question, but certainly not to the point of resurrecting NATO as a major military force. The Russians will be prepared to talk, and will want to talk a great deal, all the while pursuing their own national interest of increasing their power in what they call their "near abroad."

Obama will have many options on domestic policy given his majorities in Congress. But his Achilles’ heel, as it was for Bush and for many presidents, will be foreign policy. He has made what appear to be three guarantees. First, he will withdraw from Iraq. Second, he will focus on Afghanistan. Third, he will oppose Russian expansionism. To deliver on the first promise, he must deal with the Iranians. To deliver on the second, he must deal with the Taliban. To deliver on the third, he must deal with the Europeans.

Global Finance and the European Problem

The Europeans will pose another critical problem, as they want a second Bretton Woods agreement. Some European states appear to desire a set of international regulations for the financial system. There are three problems with this.

First, unless Obama wants to change course dramatically, the U.S. and European positions differ over the degree to which governments will regulate interbank transactions. The Europeans want much more intrusion than the Americans. They are far less averse to direct government controls than the Americans have been. Obama has the power to shift American policy, but doing that will make it harder to expand his base.

Second, the creation of an international regulatory body that has authority over American banks would create a system where U.S. financial management was subordinated to European financial management.

And third, the Europeans themselves have no common understanding of things. Obama could thus quickly be drawn into complex EU policy issues that could tie his hands in the United States. These could quickly turn into painful negotiations, in which Obama’s allure to the Europeans will evaporate.

One of the foundations of Obama’s foreign policy — and one of the reasons the Europeans have celebrated his election — was the perception that Obama is prepared to work closely with the Europeans. He is in fact prepared to do so, but his problem will be the same one Bush had: The Europeans are in no position to give the things that Obama will need from them — namely, troops, a revived NATO to confront the Russians and a global financial system that doesn’t subordinate American financial authority to an international bureaucracy.

The Hard Road Ahead

Like any politician, Obama will face the challenge of having made a set of promises that are not mutually supportive. Much of his challenge boils down to problems that he needs to solve and that he wants European help on, but the Europeans are not prepared to provide the type and amount of help he needs. This, plus the fact that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq requires an agreement with Iran — something hard to imagine without a continued U.S. presence in Iraq — gives Obama a difficult road to move on.

As with all American presidents (who face midterm elections with astonishing speed), Obama’s foreign policy moves will be framed by his political support. Institutionally, he will be powerful. In terms of popular support, he begins knowing that almost half the country voted against him, and that he must increase his base. He must exploit the honeymoon period, when his support will expand, to bring another 5 percent or 10 percent of the public into his coalition. These people voted against him; now he needs to convince them to support him. But these are precisely the people who would regard talks with the Taliban or Iran with deep distrust. And if negotiations with the Iranians cause him to keep forces in Iraq, he will alienate his base without necessarily winning over his opponents.

And there is always the unknown. There could be a terrorist attack, the Russians could start pressuring the Baltic states, the Mexican situation could deteriorate. The unknown by definition cannot be anticipated. And many foreign leaders know it takes an administration months to settle in, something some will try to take advantage of. On top of that, there is now nearly a three-month window in which the old president is not yet out and the new president not yet in.

Obama must deal with extraordinarily difficult foreign policy issues in the context of an alliance failing not because of rough behavior among friends but because the allies’ interests have diverged. He must deal with this in the context of foreign policy positions difficult to sustain and reconcile, all against the backdrop of almost half an electorate that voted against him versus supporters who have enormous hopes vested in him. Obama knows all of this, of course, as he indicated in his victory speech.

We will now find out if Obama understands the exercise of political power as well as he understands the pursuit of that power. You really can’t know that until after the fact. There is no reason to think he can’t finesse these problems. Doing so will take cunning, trickery and the ability to make his supporters forget the promises he made while keeping their support. It will also require the ability to make some of his opponents embrace him despite the path he will have to take. In other words, he will have to be cunning and ruthless without appearing to be cunning and ruthless. That’s what successful presidents do.

In the meantime, he should enjoy the transition. It’s frequently the best part of a presidency.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Brother Garfield I mean no disrespect and if you have read my posts you will know that I loathe Government chicanery. But if I may ask, how did you find out about a secret Senate meeting to plot the collapse of the economy and the institution of martial law?? I mean, that is just too outlandish. If you know about this, wouldn't some insider in DC such as, oh, I dunno..... the President........haf gotten at least a whiff of the foul stench of such a conspiracy?? If what you say is true, there is a word for it. TREASON.

I can see how you could infer such a thing from Biden's remark about the "Crisis" that will test Obama (Note that since he is President-Elect I will no longer refer to him as Ubama) and how we will probably not agree with the solution Obama implements to deal with it. But many of us on this blog are former military men, and any of us can tell you that an order to enforce martial law on such a scale would be closely examined by the officers given it. Those who would do such a thing could only do so with the cooperation of the military - it is called 'martial" lawfor that reason - and there are Constitutionl questions that must be answered by any membeer of the military from the highest General to the lowest private soldier before such an order is carried out.

The reason the Founders stipulated that the most powerful branch of the Government should be split into two bodies composed of hundreds of individuals and that both houses must agree on anything other than treaties and cabinet appointments was precisely to make this kind of plotting impossible. Hundreds of people, each of whom have staffs of dozens of others and who have their own individual interests means tht eventually the cat is going to get out of the bag. All the complete failure of any such conspiracy requires is that one person - one - who is anywhere near it to remember that he has sworn an Oath to protect and defend, not his own butt nor the Senate nor the House nor the President, but the Constitution of the United States of America. I still have faith that if such a thing is being considered then it will be uncovered and those involved will be arrested and tried for treason.

Even so, I keep my "bug-out bag" packed and my gas tank full. Time may come......

 

[FreedomJoyAdventure]

imported post

Here's the thing: Democrats will be in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, and possibly some Federal courts as well, once Obama nominates some judges.

Okay, fine. Whatever happens for the next 4 years is their fault, they don't get to blame the Republicans or anyone else. Now's the time to tell all your Democrat friends or acquaintances that the Democrats have no excuse not to turn this country into a paradise of hope, justice, and prosperity. Let 'em know you'll be checking in with them, and their side needs to put up or shut up.

The Republicans blew their chance when they controlled all the branches of the Federal government, now let's see what the Democrats will do.

The 2-party system needs to be exposed for the sham that it is. We could have had Ron Paul.

 

[open4years]

imported post

thorvaldr wrote:

I watched the speech. I liked the speech. But he's made a lot of other speeches like the ones where he calls for a national ban on concealed permits, a national ban on "assault weapons", and supreme court justices who will rule based on social justice instead of the constitution. Basically, your response confirms my concern that "partisanship and pettiness" will be the new PC term for dissent.

I've also heard about his wanting to rid the nation of people who concealed carry, except for criminals, of course. What I don't know is when he said this. Do you know?

open4years

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

This is the US annual murder rate per 100 000 inhabitants. The US murder rate hovered around 4,5 per 100 000 during the fifties. Then, in a few short years in the mid-to-late sixties, the rate doubled. What happened? In short: Liberalism happened.

Expect that graph to sharply curve upward over the next 4 years.......

 

[open4years]

imported post

TheMrMitch wrote:

He is useless and a commie. He CANNOT orate! He stutters and stammers. He's a puppet. I'd better shut up now. Gotta live with that slime ball the next four years.:cuss:

I don't think you will have to live with him for four years. This is touching on a different thread of mine, but I think he will be assassinated. There are SO many in our country that still feel about blacks as most did in the 40's and 50's. (For the record, I'm not that way. One of my good friends is black.) Some will want him taken out just because of his skin color and his being the first black to become president. I think even other groups will want him gone due to his plans for this great nation of ours, such as the gun issue.

I have to say that I over-estimated the power of the NRA. I thought there were enough members to swing the vote over to McCain. I think we need to encourage all of our friends, and enemies to join the NRA.

I'm off subject! Yes, I think there will be an assassination attempt. I hope it isn't done with a FNH Five-Seven as I like mine and they will be banned if used in such an attempt, just like the "exploding" bullets that I REALLY liked that were used on Reagan and Brady.

open4years

 

[open4years]

imported post

demnogis wrote:

Garfield, can you provide a link to a transcription or video of that event? I'm sure many of us would like to know more about that event.

Garfield wrote:

Get ready for Martial Law next guys. February of "09.............Don't forget the message we got on March 19, 2008. For those who didn't get it or have forgotten, the closed door session of the House on March 19, 2008 turned out to be notification to the Senators that the economy will collapse in September of 2009.

Personally, I'm dissappointed that Obama won. I would have been just as dissappointed if McCain won. Under Obama we will see an accelerated deterioration of our 2A rights (and many others) as we become more UN-Obedient. The NWO got a bigger foothold on our government with that win. The only things we can do now are:

1) BUY MORE GUNS AND AMMO for the impending "zombie uprising".

2) Continue to diligently write our congressional representatives, senators and other reps to vote yea/nea on bills and laws we agree/disagree with. It may even become a good idea to start getting money together to bankroll some of these decions in favor of the citizenry.

3) Continue to inform/speak to friends and family, and encourage them to write/call/email our representatives on issues that may help or hurt the citizenry.

4) Encourage friends and family that now is the time to purchase that rifle they've been wanting. Invite more people to go shooting, make it a fun group.family event and educate, educate, educate on laws.

5) I, for one, welcome our new United Socialist States of America Overlord.*



*Not really, just a meme...

6) Encourage friends and family and strangers to join the NRA.

open4years