Liberty University

User Profile: AboveMyPayGrade


Member Since: July 12, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [5] October 21, 2014 at 6:10pm

    @ Sargeking

    Thank you for your response to my 5:39pm post inquiring about whether you would have obeyed certain types of orders while you were still in the Guard.

    The things you brought to my attention about the Guard that you stated that a lot of people don’t know, well, I didn’t know any of that EITHER, so thanks for the background information.

    By the way, just so there’s no misunderstanding, in asking you the questions I did, I firmly believed that I would get no OTHER answer than the one you gave me, in fact, I was fearful that you might be offended that I would even ASK you such questions as though I believed you just MIGHT answer YES.

    And since by now I think you’ve seen plenty from me on this site to know what my beliefs are as to what level of cooperation Obama would get on such orders from the Guard, just let me reaffirm, I have OFT-stated on this site that if Obama DID try to use the Guard to help impose and enforce a national state of martial law, I firmly believe that he would get VERY little cooperation from those in the Guard for such an endeavor, just as I believe the same thing about those in our active-duty military and those in civilian law-enforcement.

    By the way, I’ve seen people on the Internet who have stated that National Guardsmen from Utah who sent to help restore and keep order in New Orleans in the the wake of Katrina told their superiors before they embarked that they would NOT obey orders to disarm the locals.

  • [20] October 21, 2014 at 5:56pm

    MKFlyBoy, you replied at 5:48pm to RJJinGadsden’s 5:35pm response to Sargeking’s 5:31pm post with: “Yes, she CLAIMED she had a permit, but did she REALLY? It doesn’t say, but I find it hard to believe anyone with a legal permit would push so many anti-gun positions, even if they ARE a democrat.”

    I very strongly suspect that MANY liberals who own firearms because frankly they’re very much afraid of that element of their OWN party’s voter base that they have grown and enabled and coddled and abetted by their votes LIE to their FELLOW LIBERALS about whether they own a gun.

    Responses (2) +
  • [51] October 21, 2014 at 5:46pm

    What would be REALLY fun is for some reporter to ask Ms. Nasheed just WHO she was carrying that gun to protect herself AGAINST.

    Since presumably she wouldn’t DARE say it was to protect herself against the COPS, since she’d be admitting by so doing that she would have been willing to open fire on a policeman (now wouldn’t THAT just REALLY make the day of the Ferguson police force), HOW would she answer the question? Is she going to say she was carrying to protect herself against one of Ferguson’s minority of WHITE PEOPLE?

    And then she should be asked that if SHE feels the need to carry a gun when in the midst of a preponderance of BLACK PEOPLE, well, then, why shouldn’t WHITE PEOPLE be able to exercise the SAME privilege?

    Responses (1) +
  • [17] October 21, 2014 at 5:39pm

    If she was in possession of the gun in a way that violates Missouri law, don’t expect her to be charged with anything. It seems just being a Democrat is a “get out of jail free” card.

    On another thread today, I noticed that you stated that you used to be in the National Guard.

    Therefore, I’d like to ask you something (and if you feel I’m getting too personal in asking this or have some other reason for not wanting to answer my inquiry, I’ll understand):

    during your time in the Guard, had the president of the United States issued a declaration of a national state of martial law, and let’s assume it was for a reason OTHER than a natural disaster (such as massive nationwide rioting), if YOUR unit had been called up to actually help impose it (and in the process, you were ordered to participate in disarming the local citizenry of wherever you were sent or maybe even in rounding up citizens to be sent to detention facilities WITHOUT CHARGE) but NOT by the governor of the state to which you were sent to impose it, would YOU have obeyed such orders?

    Responses (1) +
  • October 21, 2014 at 2:25pm

    @ tejanodude

    You replied at 1:58pm to Oregon-Trailblazer’s 1:46pm post with: “The progressives, aka communist party, are using the LGBT organizations to tear apart religion, family and this country. Commies do not believe in God. They want a Godless society, like in China and Russia. As soon as this country becomes 100% socialist, they will go after the LGBT’s as well.”


    And it won’t be just the LGBT’s, either: if the progressives ever get their communist utopia in this country through using the LGBT’s and other constituencies of the leftist coalition (blacks, unions, OWS types) to bring down traditional society in this country, once ensconced in power, they will turn their lash on THOSE groups as well. And those in these groups will find out the hard way WHY Lenin referred to those like them as “useful idiots” – AND what happens to “useful idiots” once they have completely outlived the useful phase of their idiocy to those they were useful idiots FOR.

    I’ll GUARANTEE you that under communist rule, black Americans WON’T be living lives of leisure on the public dime with Obamaphones and EBT cards anymore, since to communists, one’s worth is strictly whatever value one returns to the state – and useless eaters return NO value to the state. The communists will MAKE them work, and blacks that demur or protest or simply refuse to work will quickly not be long for this world. They’ll quickly learn to say, “YAS SUH, MASSA COMRADE!”

  • [1] October 21, 2014 at 2:06pm

    @ Tired_of_Pastels

    You ended your 1:43pm reply to foobared’s 1:30pm post with: “Sin should not be celebrated.”

    The Democrat Party will fight THAT mentality tooth and nail.

    Because if the notion that sin should not be celebrated becomes firmly ensconced in our society again, the entire raison d’etre for the Democrat Party is GONE!

    Responses (1) +
  • [15] October 21, 2014 at 1:22pm

    @ Hormel

    You replied at 1:03pm to Marcus_Tullius_Cicero’s 12:46pm post with: “nah.. i think its more to do with efforts to slow kids murdering each other in cities. not to take grandads shotgun.”

    You want to slow kids murdering each other in the ciites?


    But since liberals by now have rejected the traditional nuclear family concept, THAT’S probably not going to happen

    Responses (1) +
  • [18] October 21, 2014 at 1:18pm

    If the grand jury currently deliberating about whether Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson should be indicted for a crime decides that he should NOT and blacks go on a national rampage as a result (with the incitement and encouragement of many Democrat politicians, no doubt), the Democrat Party and its base are going to turn a LOT of Americans who at present are either not terribly supportive of or at best indifferent to the 2nd Amendment into staunch 2nd Amendment advocates!

    Obama has ALREADY gone a long way to accomplishing this all by his little lonesome: before he became president, I was never a gun owner before in my life and probably was at best indifferent to the 2nd Amendment – but I’m a gun owner NOW. And I KNOW that I’m representative of countless MILLIONS of other Americans since the start of Obama’s presidency.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] October 20, 2014 at 5:11pm

    HEY, Nilsson, LibertarianSocialist, VeryCobaltViolet, CrazyTravis, The Third Archon, J-Mo, AND all you OTHER Blaze trolls:

    THIS is for YOU!

    Responses (6) +
  • October 20, 2014 at 3:57pm

    There’s ANOTHER remedy on hand that’s more than twice that old:


  • [1] October 20, 2014 at 3:55pm

    I think you’re being way too kind, I think that that Obama is going into (even though I contend he’s ALREADY been there for some time now) “scorched earth” mode.

  • [3] October 20, 2014 at 1:55pm

    HEY, Nilsson, LibertarianSocialist, VeryCobaltViolet, Crazy Travis, The Third Archon, J-Mo, AND all you OTHER Blaze trolls:

    THIS is for YOU!

  • [1] October 20, 2014 at 1:45pm

    Not ALL of the nation is sleeping: WHY do you think people have been arming themselves as never before during the Obama presidency?

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] October 20, 2014 at 1:44pm

    This latest move by Obama only all the more adds fuel to my oft-stated contention on this site that what needs to happen is that state governors, backed by their legislatures and state law-enforcement community, need to become the first line of defense against Obama’s unconstitutional diktats and make it clear to Obama that they will neither abide by nor submit to nor obey nor enforce those diktats in their states and to dare Obama to just TRY to make them comply. And in the process, force Obama to either have to back down or to have to escalate.

    And my contention is that if the mid-terms produce Republican control of both houses of Congress, the position of those governors for such action will be IMMENSELY strengthened, because I contend that if that election result happens on November 4, after that, even his fellow Democrats will no longer go to the mat for him or be willing to take a political bullet for him because their only obsession after that will be saving 2016 for their party, and if it means sacrificing Obama, I say that they will do it.

    Yes, it IS possible that Obama COULD choose to respond to such defiance by escalating with force and violence, but I say he WON’T, and again, I offer as Exhibit A for my belief the federal backdown at the Bundy ranch earlier this year. Obama right now is too obsessed with preserving his kingly lifestyle: I say he WON’T do anything to jeopardize it even if it means accepting public humiliation.

  • [4] October 20, 2014 at 1:33pm

    I’m not going to go into an instant lather about this move by Obama, because the Constitution gives the president the right to sign any treaties he likes.

    As I’ve posted on this site before, Obama could sign a treaty with Russia ceding Alaska back to it if he wished. He could sign a treaty with some foreign power(s) which required the governments of all signatory nations – including the U.S. – to immediately confiscate from the citizenry their privately-held firearms if he liked (of course, many here will undoubtedly argue that he’s effectively ALREADY done that by signing that U.N. small-arms treaty).

    But until 2/3 of the U.S. Senate ratifies that treaty, its terms are not binding on the country.

    Now, let Obama try to IMPLEMENT the terms of a treaty he may have signed that has NOT been ratified by the Senate (like that U.N. small-arms treaty), and THAT’S when the stuff will hit the fan.

    So I don’t care WHAT kind of treaty Obama signs or doesn’t sign with Iran even if it is FLAGRANTLY unconstitutional, because the Constitution gives him that power. But in the absence of Senate ratification of any Iran treaty, let Obama try IMPLEMENTING it as though it WERE ratified by the Senate, and THAT’S when impeachment is called for.

  • [10] October 19, 2014 at 2:08pm

    As I’ve said before on this on this site, the ironic thing is, if we have a real Ebola pandemic sweep across this nation, the people who will be most adversely affected will be Obama’s own voter base.

    History has shown that pandemics spread fastest and most virulently in crowded urban settings – and THAT’S where most of the Democrat voter base lives.

    Not of course that Obama cares: the only thing of value blacks EVER had to offer him was their VOTES, and he already GOT those, TWICE, and never needs their votes again because he’s not running for anything ever again, so black American now has absolutely NOTHING of value to offer him anymore, therefore it’s outlived its usefulness to him and can be sacrificed.

    Wait a minute, I take that back, there is ONE more thing of value black America has to offer Obama: to let itself be used as cannon fodder in a race war against white America. Again, this would result in the deaths of uncounted thousands of blacks, but again, Obama doesn’t care, they’re not HIS people and never HAVE been, HIS people are actually the rich white liberals who bankroll him.

  • [2] October 19, 2014 at 12:59pm

    I think that waiting on Congress to put a stop to this madness is an exercise in futility, with the Senate currently controlled by Democrats, they will circle the wagons around Obama, so don’t expect any help from Congress on this matter.

    As I indicated in my 12:41pm and 12:47pm posts above (at least they’re above RIGHT NOW, by the end of the day who KNOWS where they’ll be on this thread), and this has been an oft-repeated contention of mine on this site for several months, it’s the individual states that need to be taking direct action, and if Obama tells them they can’t take such action, the states need to tell Obama to eff off and that they ARE going to take such action and to just TRY to stop them.

    Again, as I said in the aforementioned posts, if the Bundy ranch situation is indicative, and I think it IS, Obama may bluster and threaten, but in the end, I contend that’s ALL he will do if the states show their determination to take their own action to protect their citizenries no matter how much of a direct challenge it is to Obama.

  • [3] October 19, 2014 at 12:47pm

    Not to mention the fact that, given how much Obama has utterly alienated our military since Day 1 of his presidency, culminating this year in the Taliban-Bergdahl swap and his recent “latte salute”, if Obama WERE to order federal forces to crush such action, I think there’s a good chance he would find that our grunts will NOT obey such orders.

    As far as ordering the civilian federal workforce, like DHS employees, to do this work if the military refused: I have oft-argued on this site that for all their armament (weren’t the BLM employees facing off against the armed citizens who came out to the Bundy ranch to stand in solidarity with Cliven Bundy heavily armed, TOO?), civilian federal employees are NOT interchangeable with regular military personnel because the latter have been trained to operate in an environment where people are shooting back and trying to kill THEM, the former AREN’T, and I doubt they’re willing to martyr themselves for Obama (anymore than those BLM personnel at the Bundy ranch were willing to). I can’t imagine civilian federal employees being willing to shoot it out with the enraged armed citizens of Texas if Obama tried to use them in this way.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] October 19, 2014 at 12:41pm

    If things continue the way they’re going, I argue that sooner or later, the individual states are going to be forced to take measures to protect themselves regardless of how much they may run afoul of the Obama administration.

    Individual state governors, backed by their legislatures and state law-enforcement community, may soon be forced to put their OWN travel bans in place and refuse to allow flights from various places to land in their state’s airports, or at the least prevent those on those flights from disembarking. As well as engage in many OTHER measures to minimize the chances of this contagion affecting their states.

    And if Obama tells them, no, you can’t do these things, this is a federal prerogative, the state governors should then tell him to go straight to hell, they CAN do these things and ARE doing these things, and that the only way Obama is going to stop them is at the point of federal bayonets, so now, Obama, YOUR move.

    A lot of you might riposte that this kind of reaction is EXACTLY what Obama would be hoping for because it would give him his “Reichstag fire” trigger to impose a national state of martial law, cancel the Constitution and all future elections, and make himself president-for-life, but frankly, I think he’d be too SCARED to escalate in this way even though it IS a direct challenge to his authority, and I cite as Exhibit A for my belief the federal backdown at the Bundy ranch in Nevada earlier this year.

    Responses (1) +
  • [9] October 18, 2014 at 8:19am

    Well, so much for the Democrats’ best-laid plans to try to turn Texas blue in the next couple of years.

    With this decision, if it wasn’t foreordained ALREADY, Wendy Davis just lost ANY remaining chance to become the next governor of Texas.

    The Supreme Court decision means that the Justice Department can’t harass Texas now about using this law for the midterms. And if the DoJ TRIES, Governor Perry should tell Obama and Holder to go pound sand and that Texas WILL use this law for the midterms, and if the Obama administration doesn’t like it, the only way it’s going to stop Texas from moving forward on this law is at the point of federal bayonets, so Obama, now it’s YOUR move.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go