January 30 2013 FULL SHOW In This Show (Ben Ferguson fills in for Michael Savage) Order Mike's NEW BOOK ( TRAIN TRACKS ) On The Michael Savage Web Site http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/ 127 sheriffs won't enforce Obama gun laws; specter of 'door to door' gun search
The list continues to grow, but where does your local sheriff stand on any new gun control bill? Call them and report back. Let's spread the word.
By: Anthony Jay Blackwell
Assault weapons are rarely used in crimes, but are the targets for gun bans. Some say criminals should be banned instead, who are always present in crimes.New York is discovering its tough new gun law may not be enforceable unless police do a door to door search for guns and magazines.
Law enforcement opposition to federal gun bans increases daily, rejecting the President's proposed ban on assault weapons as unconstitutional.
Over 127 sheriffs pledge Obama gun legislation will not be enforced.
-------------------------------------------------
Collin County Sheriff Terry Box of Texas became the latest Sheriff to publicly pledge that he would not enforce proposed federal gun bans should they become law, according to Dallas News. Sheriff Box joins a growing number -- now at least 127 -- of sheriffs across the nation denouncing President Obama's proposed gun control legislation. Sheriff Box explained that recent gun deaths have prompted politicians to pass laws that would:
seriously erode the constitutional rights of innocent and law abiding citizens. Neither I, nor any of my deputies, will participate in the enforcement of laws that violate our precious constitutional rights, including our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
According to CBS News on Monday, a dozen Missouri sheriffs -- including newly-elected Osage County Sheriff Michael Dixon --have signed on to Sheriff's Heiss' letter to President Obama, stating that they refused to enforce the proposed gun laws. The names of all the Missouri sheriffs have not yet been released.
Dissension in the ranks.
One lawman -- Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson -- has publicly disagreed with the growing position taken by his fellow sheriffs. According to in a report filed this morning by NBC News, Sheriff Robinson questioned the other sheriffs, saying:
Public safety professionals serving in the executive branch do not have the constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most cases, the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue. Law enforcement officials should leave it to the courts to decide whether a law is constitutional or not.
Door-to-door gun searches; Feds, like New York, cannot enforce gun bans.
Other law enforcement officials, while not publicly taking sides on the President's proposed gun laws, have questioned how new federal gun legislation would be enforced. As reported by WKTV on Friday, Oneida County Sheriff Robert Maciol has already examined New York's new, toughest-in-the-nation 39-page law. The law bans currently legally-possessed assault weapons, and requires owners of such weapons to register them with the state within a year or sell them to an authorized dealer.
But Sheriff Maciol wonders how the law could ever be enforced -- aside from searching door to door for such weapons, which raises the specter of massive Fourth Amendment search and seizure violations. Says Sheriff Maciol:
We don't know where these guns are because they're not registered and again I will not and I certainly don't have the manpower to start going to every person in Oneida County to see if they have a gun. I mean, we're not going to be doing that.
Thus, as popular support for new gun laws gradually cools with the passage of time, and reason takes the place of "knee jerk gun control," gun rights activists may discover that the President's gun control proposals ultimately have no teeth.
Sheriff opposition to President Obama's proposed gun laws reaches at least 127.
At least 127, but possible 139 (counting pending declarations from 12 Missouri sheriffs) now publicly oppose proposed federal gun bans and will not enforce them should they become law. We provide the list of those sheriffs to you below, current as of Jan 23, 2013.
Note: We are constantly searching for and updating our list with verifiable "non-enforcement" sheriffs. If you know of other sheriffs in and around your community who should be included here, please add a comment below with an appropriate link for inclusion and credit.
Alabama sheriffs (3) (as reported by local news station WHNT, gun rights organization Oath Keepers, media outlet Dothanfirst);
Houston County Sheriff Andy Hughes
Madison County Sheriff Blake Dorning
Morgan County Sheriff Ana Franklin
Arizona sheriffs (2) (according to news outlets TPM and Reason);
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Yavapai County Sheriff Scott Mascher
Califonia sheriffs (13) (according to The Modesto Bee, local news stations KRNVand KFSN, and CSPOA);
Del Norte County Sheriff Dean Wilson
El Dorado County Sheriff John D’Agostini
Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims
Humboldt County Sheriff Mike Downey
Lassen County Sheriff Dean Growden
Mendocino County Sheriff Thomas Allman
Modoc County Sheriff Mike Poindexter
Plumas County Sheriff Greg Hagwood
Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko
Tehama County Sheriff David Hencraft
Trinity County Sheriff Bruce Haney
Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey (letter)
Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson (letter)
Colorado sheriffs (4) (as reported by local television station KWGN, the El Paso County Sheriff's Official website, the Mesa County Sheriff's Official Facebook page, the Denver Post);
El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa
Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith
Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey
Weld County Sheriff John Cooke
Delaware sheriffs (1) (according to CSPOA)
Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher
Georgia sheriffs (3) (as reported by the Cherokee Tribune, MinnPost Christian Science Monitor and CSPOA);
Cherokee County Sheriff Roger Garrison
Gilmer County Sheriff Stacy Nicholson
Oconee County Sheriff Scott Berry
Florida sheriffs (3) (according to local news station WPTV and Sheriff McKiethen's personal Facebook page)
Bay County Florida Sheriff Frank McKiethen
Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott
Martin County Sheriff Bill Snyder
Idaho sheriffs (2) (according to news station KIFI and newspaper Idaho Statesman);
Canyon County, Idaho Sheriff Kieran Donahue
Madison County Sheriff Roy Klingler
Indiana sheriffs (1) (according to CSPOA)
Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers
Kansas sheriffs (1) (according to the Kansas City Star)
Johnson County Sheriff Frank Denning
Kentucky sheriffs (2) ( as reported by NBC News and CSPOA)
Bath County Sheriff John Snedegar
Jackson County Sheriff Denny Peyman
Minnesota sheriffs (1) (according to NewsMax)
Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole
Missouri sheriffs (4) (as reported on BeforeItsNews, IRN News, news stations KOAM and KCTV, and CSPOA);
Johnson County Sheriff Charles Heiss (letter)
Lawrence County Sheriff Brad DeLay (letter)
Livingston County Sheriff Steve Cox (letter)
Osage County Michael Dixon
Montana sheriffs (2) (according to radio station 96.3TheBlaze and CSPOA)
Ravalli County Sheriff Chris Hoffman
Sanders County Sheriff Tom Rummel (letter)
Nevada sheriffs (1) (as reported by local news station KRNV)
Humboldt County Sheriff Ed Kilgore
New Mexico sheriffs (30) (according to the Portales News-Tribune, Guns.com and CSPOA)
Roosevelt county sheriff Darren Hooker and the New Mexico Sheriff’s Association (30 out of 33 New Mexico sheriffs)
New York sheriffs (2) (according to CSPOA)
Otsego County Sheriff Richard Devlin Jr.
Schoharie County Sheriff Tony Desmond
Ohio sheriffs (2) (according to radio station KyPost and WCPO);
Boone County Sheriff Michael A. Helmig
Clermont County Sheriff A.J. Rodenberg
Oklahoma sheriffs (1) (according to CSPOA)
Wagoner County Sheriff Bob ‘Big Block’ Colbert
Oregon sheriffs (14) (as reported by Fox News, online newspaper OregonLive, local radio station KCMB, local television station KMTR, Herald News, gun rights organization Oregon Firearms and CSPOA);
Baker County Sheriff Mitchell Southwick
Coos County Sheriff Craig Zanni (letter)
Crook County Sheriff Jim Hensley
Curry County Sheriff John Bishop (letter)
Deschutes County Sheriff Larry Blanton
Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin (letter)
Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer (letter)
Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters (letter)
Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson (letter)
Klamath County Sheriff Frank Skrah
Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller (letter)
Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe (letter)
Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Staton
Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett
South Carolina sheriffs (3) (according to The Post and Courier, news station WYFF and CSPOA);
Berkeley County Sheriff Wayne DeWitt
Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon
Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright
Texas sheriffs (3) (as reported by local news station KLTV, Dallas News and CSPOA)
Collin County Sheriff Terry Box
Randall County Sheriff Joel W. Richardson
Smith County Sheriff Larry Smith
Utah sheriffs (28) (as reported by CSPOA)
Beaver County Sheriff Cameron M. Noel (letter)
Box Elder County Sheriff J. Lynn Yeates
Chache County Sheriff G. Lynn Nelson
Carbon County Sheriff James Cordova
Daggett County Sheriff Jerry Jorgensen
Davis County Sheriff Todd Richardson
Duchesne County Sheriff Travis Mitchell Utah
Emery County Sheriff Greg Funk
Garfield County Sheriff James D. Perkins
Grand County Sheriff Steven White
Iron County Sheriff Mark Gower
Juab County Sheriff Alden Orme
Kane County Sheriff Lamont Smith
Millard County Sheriff Robert Dekker
Morgan County Sheriff Blaine Breshears
Puite County Sheriff Marty Gleave
Rich County Sheriff Dale Stacey
San Juan County Sheriff Rick Eldredge
Sanpete County Sheriff Brian Nielson
Sevier County Sheriff Nathan Curtis
Summit County Sheriff David Edmunds
Tooele County Sheriff Frank Park
Uintah County Sheriff Jeff Merrell
Wasatch County Sheriff Todd Bonner
Washington County Sheriff Cory Pulsipher
Wayne County Sheriff Kurt Taylor
Weber County Sheriff Terry Thompson
Utah County Sheriff James Tracy
https://www.examiner.com/article/127-sheriffs-won-t-enforce-obama-gun-la... () Order Mike's NEW BOOK ( TRAIN TRACKS ) On The Michael Savage Web Site http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/ ( The Savage Nation - January 28 2013 FULL SHOW (How the amnesty for illegal aliens will affect you? )
MARINE TELLS FEINSTEIN… SHOVE YOUR GUN BILL!
MARINE VET CPL. JOSHUA BOSTON has become an American hero almost overnight.
After posting an Open Letter to Senator Feinstein at CNN’s iReport Site last week letting Feinstein know that he would not submit to her draconian law denuding him of his Second Amendment rights, Boston’s letter has now gone viral.
The veteran Marine, Joshua Boston, who was deployed to Afghanistan 2004 through 2005, informed Feinstein that he will NOT register his weapons nor does he believe Feinstein (and her ilk) has the right to require him to do so since he is not Feinstein’s “peasant,” but rather, she is subject to him and to all American citizens. Bravo!
The “No Ma’am’ Letter Of Ex-Marine Joshua Boston Reads As Follows:
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own.
Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.
You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=784 — with Laura Diez and Amani Arqueros. (The Savage Nation - January 29 2013 FULL SHOW )
() Hillary Gives Away the Game
Hillary Clinton’s angry flip-out at Senator Ron Johnson during her Benghazi testimony was a charmed moment. All at once, before the whole world, one of the highest ranking progressive authoritarians on the planet spilled the beans — all of them — about the left’s modus operandi.
The revelation might be overlooked, however, if we focus too closely on Clinton’s easily quotable “What difference does it make?” The line as quoted merely shows Clinton to be a trapped liar trying to fake her way through an awkward moment with pomposity and bravado. In truth, however, “What difference does it make?” is merely a media-friendly ellipsis of her actual words. What she actually said, without the convenient editing, is far more telling.
Here is the exchange:
Johnson: We were misled that there were supposedly protests and then… an assault sprang out of that. And that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days — and they didn’t know that.
Clinton (shouting, glaring, and waving her arms): With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference — at this point — does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened, and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.
Note in passing the obvious contradiction in saying that it makes no difference what happened, and then immediately saying that “our job” is “to figure out what happened.” Clearly, in her flustered state, Clinton confused her talking points, the intended gist of which was presumably that the job of finding out what happened is the responsibility of the administration’s own internal investigators alone, because only the administration itself will be able to construct a tale that “gets to the bottom of things” without incriminating anyone in the administration.
All contradictions aside, however, let us turn to Clinton’s central point. Johnson’s question was a straightforward one, and the one people have been asking since the first days after the attack, when, thanks to foreign media sources, Americans were learning that there was no evidence of any video protest anywhere in Libya on September 11. That question gained force and significance when the world learned that the assault had lasted for seven hours, and that throughout the battle, administration officials in Washington were receiving live communications from those under attack, as well as real time images from a U.S. drone on the scene. It gained further urgency when Clinton promised Tyrone Woods’ father that the government would hunt down… no, not the terrorists who killed his son, but the maker of the video that supposedly ignited the non-existent protests.
The simple question Senator Johnson revived gained a fever pitch of relevance when President Obama went on television, and to the United Nations, to condemn an anti-Islamic video which by that time he had to know was in no way related to the attacks. (See here.) And of course the precise context which heightened the relevance of this “video protest” lie was on display when, during a debate, Obama refused to answer questions about what he had done to help the Americans under attack, instead glaring condescendingly at Mitt Romney while delivering a carefully prepared (and frequently repeated) diatribe about his supposed “three orders,” none of which addressed the actual question as to what he had done during the assault to rescue the victims.
The context, and the brazenness of the lie, provoked many speculations as to what the Obama administration was hiding, and why. The kindest, most generous interpretation, given what we now know, is that the administration was running a sophisticated smokescreen operation to evade damage to the Obama campaign’s talking point that by “getting bin Laden” while endorsing the “democratic elements” of the Muslim Brotherhood, Barack the Avenger was freeing America from the threat of Islamic extremism. The video protest story, tarted up by the administration as “understandable outrage” about a “disgusting” case of “religious intolerance,” was (minimally) designed to deflect blame from a foreign policy that, with its projection of weakness and its moral support for the global caliphate movement, was an invitation to aggression.
It is in this light that we must view Clinton’s angry outburst, and particularly her most revealing declaration: “Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference — at this point — does it make?”
Notice that her first question carefully avoids the true option, namely “a planned assault by well-armed Islamists affiliated with al-Qaeda.” Had she included that one among her list of hypotheticals, the absurdity of her rhetorical question would have been crystal clear, even to her. Obviously, in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the answer to this question — why were the men killed? — made all the difference in the world. The administration’s lies, obfuscations, and contradictory half-stories about the events were the crux of the issue — at that time.
But that was months ago. As Clinton so pointedly says, “What difference — at this point — does it make?” Clinton, the administration official most closely linked to this catastrophe, chose not to be available for questioning in September, when Susan Rice, who (conveniently) had nothing to do with any of it, was sent out to the Sunday talk shows to deliver the administration’s lies. Clinton chose not to be available the first time she was asked to testify before Congress, due to an urgently important trip to Australia. And then, of course, she was unavailable for her second invited appearance, due to having reportedly hit her head after fainting.
Now, four and a half months after the murderous assault on a woefully under-defended diplomatic staff by a well-known terrorist group; two and a half months after the presidential election was won by the man who made the unthinkably brutal decision to leave American government employees under attack for hours without taking any action to help them; months after the administration’s point-man in its initial cover-up, Rice, was safely cordoned off from scrutiny on the inscrutable grounds that she was a complete naïf “just delivering the information that was given to her” (by whom?) — after all this time, Clinton can simply bury the central question, and the main reason for the congressional investigation itself, by wailing, “What difference — at this point — does it make?”
“At this point.” That is, and has always been, the underlying strategy of the Obama administration on Benghazi: stall for time until they’ve reached a safe distance from the horrors they perpetrated on the ambassador and his brave defenders, on the American people, on an insignificant amateur video maker, and on the many Arab Muslims killed during real protests stoked by the administration’s repeated citing of an “outrageous,” “disgusting,” “intolerant” video which in fact had nothing to do with anything. From this distance, they hoped, all the important questions would begin to seem less urgent, and all the ugly facts begin to drift into the dark recesses of public consciousness.
Had Hillary Clinton, during any of those September Sunday shows she avoided, said “What difference does it make what actually happened?” even her mistresses of the robes in the mainstream media would have had a hard time carrying her train.
Had Obama himself, during his re-election campaign debates, said “What difference does it make what really happened?” even Candy Crowley would have been hard pressed to leap to his defense.
Now, at last, believing they have successfully run out the clock on the public’s infantile attention span, the progressives can offer their only real defense of their terrifying inhumanity — the argument they undoubtedly used privately from the beginning, but which they dared not utter in public while many were still disturbed about the details of the attack: “What difference does it make?” What’s done is done.
Furthermore, Hillary Clinton’s angry blurting out of the truth is applicable to much more than just the Benghazi fiasco. With that revealing little qualification — “at this point” — she actually gave away the entire progressive game that has been played on Western civilization for more than a hundred years, and has now all but shut the door on the five hundred year adventure the West has dubbed “modernity.”
This is the big secret at the core of the progressives’ conception of “progress”: You cannot justify the unjustifiable in advance, or persuade people of the rationally unpersuasive. Rather, you must simply push “forward” into ever-deepening waters, repeatedly building reserves of social pressure and then releasing them in little thrusts of propelling energy to carry civilization ever nearer the vortex — all the while promising to save men from the frightening depths, if only they will hold on tight, and follow you, the progressive, just a little farther forward, just a little farther forward.
The key to the progressive “ratchet,” as it is often, correctly, called, is that no step forward may ever be retraced. Each stage of degradation is to be rationalized after the fact, precisely by the means exemplified in Hillary Clinton’s stark question: “What difference — at this point — does it make?”
Was modern public education conceived as a tool for preventing the development of individualism and exceptional men, in favor of a morally and intellectually stunted “workforce” of the compliant to support an entrenched oligarchy? “What difference — at this point — does it make?” say the defenders of public education. “After all, we can’t just abolish an education system we’ve come to depend on for generations to raise our children.”
Would ObamaCare’s individual mandate stand up to the judgment of the framers of the U.S. Constitution? “What difference — at this point — does that make?” says the Supreme Court. “After all, it was passed by a duly elected Congress and president of today, so who’s to say James Madison himself would not have approved, had he seen Barack Obama’s well-creased pant leg?”
FDR rammed New Deal legislation through an intimidated Supreme Court, and against strong Republican and public outcries that it betokened the thin edge of the socialist wedge. “What difference — at this point — does it make?” say subsequent generations of Americans when the question of “Social Security reform” is tentatively raised. “After all, we can’t just unravel programs that have come to be taken for granted by generations of Americans, even if they are bankrupting the country.”
Throughout the dilapidated West, the same now goes, or soon will go, for wealth redistribution, government-controlled medicine, abortion, affirmative action, the abolition of private property, government-ordered euthanasia, gay/transgender/bi-species marriage, a ban on private gun ownership, anti-industrial “green” legislation, restrictions on soft drink serving sizes, government-mandated molestation at airports, the outlawing of all forms of private education, and mental health assessments for those showing excessive reverence for individual liberty.
The key to the success of Western socialism’s ”progress” is not the periodic lurches toward the abyss. It is the art of effective stalling. All of today’s political and moral outrages will be rationalized with a shrug tomorrow: “What difference — at this point — does it make?”
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/01/29/hillary-gives-away-the-game/ (The Savage Nation - 2 / 1 / 2013 FULL SHOW ) () () () () () Here's The Link To My (Fukushima Save Japan's Kids ) Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fukushima-Save-Japans-Kids/40591984615127... Here's The Link To My Facebook Like Page https://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-The-Honey-Bee/378541242240346?ref=hl (SAVE THE HONEY BEES ) Here's The Link To My Rescue ( Marine SGT Charles Dyer) Facebook Like Page https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marine-SGT-Charles-Dyer/375971002495947?r... Here's The Link To My (NDAA Minutemen of Pennsylvania South West / West Virginia Pan Handle )Facebook Like Page https://www.facebook.com/pages/NDAA-Minutemen-of-Pennsylvania-South-West... (Here's Links to contact me ) (E-mail) chefronz@yahoo.com ( Terry Ronzio Facebook Page )http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1354382652 ( My Facebook News Page ) http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000217366289 ( David Boom Boom Washington )