Notice that POTUS has never claimed to love his Army or the nation he rules…er…serves.
January 16, 2014 at 10:06pm
Yes you can. The man didn’t HAVE the pistol, so it makes no freaking difference whether or not the state reciprocates another state’s license. Having a permit is NOT grounds to detaining or search. He most certainly CAN sue. His 4th amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure were violated. He wasn’t charged with unlawfully carrying a weapon. A $%#^ liberal, anti-gun storm trooper harassed him because he HAD a permit.
January 14, 2014 at 1:53pm
You nailed it. the sickening thing is that they get the “pass” from the other liberals so they totslly get away with it.
March 10, 2013 at 7:49am
TESLANDEDISON, “The indoctrination must continue so they can have more useful consumer idiots.”
February 15, 2013 at 10:45am
The Chief demonstrates his police-state philosophy, ““A gun is an offensive weapon used to INTIMIDATE and show POWER,” If THAT is not a communist, or fascist, exposing himself nothing else is. Because, entirely despite this man’s dogmatic proclamation of what a firearm is for, the FOUNDERS did not view it that way. They didn’t desire to empower government with ANY ability to “intimidate and show power”. Interestingly, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke has the completely opposite opinion. He said, “You can beg for mercy or you can fight back.” Notice, he says “YOU can fight back”, not “the GOVERNMENT can intimidate your attacker”. All California chief Ken James offers is a politically biased opinion that exposes his philosophy…POLICE STATE. “Intimidate…show POWER”. Exactly WHAT makes his opinion more valid than Sheriff Clarke’s?? Nothing…except that liberals are pro-police state, so they agree with James. Also interesting is the fact that Sheriff Clarke’s office is a CONSTITUTIONAL office in the state, where as an appointed chief of a municipal police department is not – James is an appointee of government. Sheriff Clarke is empowered by the constitution of Wisconsin and chosen by constitutional election. Amazing the difference there, no?
Patio, you cited Romans 13, which was speaking of the ruling government officials. Your quote is out of context, thus, invalid. Im a conservative, but if you are going to cite Scripture, cite it in context. That same text says to pay taxes to whom they are due, and honor those in authority…but bet you won;t quote it when talking about the America Revolution, which was over the unwillingness to pay taxes to whom they were due….just saying. (p.s. I am not a big-government type at ALL. I just get irritated when people do not “RIGHTLY handle the word of truth”.
November 28, 2012 at 1:46pm
People, you might as well STOP expecting equality from those who falsely claim to promote and value equality. They will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, and ALWAYS have a spin on it to make it,somehow, “different” when such things are done with images or symbols of Obama (or other liberals), but entirely “expressive and acceptable” if done against symbols of Jesus or Christianity…it is just “different”, and always will be….according to THEM.
November 28, 2012 at 1:33pm
Yeah, the angel of the Lord would have SUCH a problem with the Tea Party because of their small government positions…He (the angel) would CLEARLY pass right over the MILLIONS responsible for (and defenders of the “right to”) the slaughter of babies in the wombs of their mothers…the blood of the unborn crying out “please don’t kill me. I will love you mommy, just don’t KILL me. I’m sorry for being here in an inconvenient season, I’m sorry for being conceived by a random encounter, I’m sorry for how I was conceived, but please don;t kill me – I just want to live and be loved”…yeah, the angel of the Lord would just glide right over the mega-millions of slaughtered unborn, butchered at the altar of lifestyle-convenience and instead, he would just slice away at the Tea Party folks (most of whom oppose the slaughter) instead . There will indeed be a Day of reckoning (Isaiah 13:9 “Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it.”)
November 28, 2012 at 1:25pm
November 28, 2012 at 1:24pm
No, you are a racist for pointing that out! Well, it makes sense when THEY say it, anyway!
November 28, 2012 at 1:23pm
And do we honestly expect anything DIFFERENT from the “tolerant, enlightened, intelligentsia” left? I mean, HONESTLY…why would we expect anything different?
November 16, 2012 at 11:51am
Funny how people say it is “good” that 18000+ Americans will lose their jobs (thanks largely to the AWESOME work of their Unions) because the product, if consumed in excess, is unhealthy. Sounds like the Nanny State folks of New York who clearly cannot be trusted to make wise choices for themselves so they NEED government to step in for them. And here, it is viewed as “good” that thousands more people will e on unemployment and food stamps because someone else might EAT TOO MUCH….that is the mind set that Obamanites generally have. It is “good” to lose so many American jobs (which generate TAX REVENUE…that thing which liberals worship) because they produce something that might be over-consumed….sheesh.
October 11, 2012 at 12:32pm
Utterly GHASTLY. Amazing, how the left seems so incapable of taming their tongues…they just can’t HELP themselves, can they?
August 2, 2012 at 11:16am
Just a typical liberal tactic. Proclaim something that they don’t agree with to be, somehow, hateful or “phobic”. Those are bull crap bully words used to TRY to make the opposing position look less credible. The CEO of Chik Fil A has an opinion, based on teachings of his religious beliefs; He is entitled to his opinion, especially since it is based on a religious teaching.The LIBERAL spin has, for decades now, put an illegitimate twist on that,CALLING it hateful, because they truly believe that they have the power over truth and fact to simply pope-ishly proclaim something to be so.They reveal, in actuality, their own hate and intolerance. It is a clever tactic, I confess. Hide your own hate and intolerance by being the FIRST one to allege hate and intolerance.The problem is, just because they SAY it is so,it is still NOT so!!! The liberals are the ones who wish death upon those who differ in opinion. The LEFT is the one who wants to STOP the broadcast of differing opinions. Th LIBERAL is the one who wishes (and often BELIEVES) that government would/should silence the speech of those who have different opinions rather than protect that speech. The left is, by DEED (entirely in spite of their totally bogus claims), the enemy of freedom – they seek the freedom for those with whom THEY agree. Everyone else, they wish to silence-even by means of choking to death on their Chik Fil A; sorry, but that VENOMOUS rhetoric reveals their evil. Even if they SAY it isn’t so.
August 2, 2012 at 11:02am
So the dude is repeatedly refusing to put his hands behind his back, while saying “I’m not resisting” ? The very fact that he is NOT putting his hands behind his back after being placed under arrest IS RESISTING…he is PHYSICALLY RESISTING the officer’s attempt to handcuff him!!!!!!!!! Good grief. That is exactly the same things as running away from the polics while saying “I’m NOT running!!!”
This is what liberals do all the time. They CLAIM they are not violating the constitution while OPENLY doing it as they SAY they are not. This serves as a great illustration between the difference of TRUTH and just making statements as if they WERE true.
July 18, 2012 at 10:59am
It is amazing that democrats are FINE with signing away US sovereignty. There is not such thing as a conservative democrat. They are like Santa Claus – fictional characters….
July 18, 2012 at 10:38am
Looks like an M4 rather than an M16! lol. That makes ALL the difference!! M4′s are all the rage in beach-wear this year!
May 28, 2012 at 12:14pm
Unless the Congress of the Unites States passed a LAW requiring that cross to be built in observance of a specific religion, then it is explicitly NOT a violation of the constitution! For the love of WHATEVER they find holy (if nothing more than themselves),it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to “interpret” the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the “promotion of religion” by the states. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that “government ‘should not’ prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.” His opinion of what gov’t “should” do is still outside of the CLEAR writing of the letter of the actual LAW…but notice that “irreligion” seems to be the precise result of what has been going on. The First Amemndment has NOTHING to do with “promoting” a religion, but rather the CONGRESS ESTABLISHING one! So no..it is not unconstitutional. It might contradict present practice by gov’t and the courts, but if one wishes to pull the “constitutional card”, it is only fair to actually rely on the CONSTITUTION! And the first amendment is clearly worded. A cross on gov’t land is NOT a law passed by the US Congress. I’m so sick of that fact being ignored.
May 28, 2012 at 12:04pm
Amazing…why is it ALWAYS the terrorists are on the side of the radical LEFT? You just do NOT see this stuff from the right. Precisely why the liberal media refuses to speak of this.