BREAKING NEWS! - Is Barack Obama Really A Saudi / Muslim "Plant" in the ...

SHARE BEFORE YOUTUBE SCRUBS IT!

The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101118/10291211924/the-19-senators-who-voted-to-censor-the-internet.shtml
from the free-speech-isn't-free dept
by Mike Masnick

Thu, Nov 18th 2010 11:10am

This is hardly a surprise but, this morning (as previously announced), the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill -- despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. What's really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. There's very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning:

 
Jon Kyl -- Arizona
Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota

Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin

Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
Dianne Feinstein -- California
Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
Chuck Schumer -- New York
Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
Dick Durbin -- Illinois
John Cornyn -- Texas
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
Al Franken -- Minnesota
Chris Coons -- Delaware

This should be a list of shame. You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but, apparently, they have no problem turning the US into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content it does not like (in this case, content some of its largest campaign contributors do not like). We already have laws in place to deal with infringing content, so don't buy the excuse that this law is about stopping infringement. This law takes down entire websites based on the government's say-so. First Amendment protections make clear that if you are going to stop any specific speech, it has to be extremely specific speech. This law has no such restrictions. It's really quite unfortunate that these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America.

Show birth certificate, or don't get on ballot!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=229373

BORN IN THE USA?

Eligibility storm clouds on horizon for Obama

Posted: November 17, 2010

1:39 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A Texas state lawmaker has filed a bill that would require candidates for president or vice president to show their birth certificates to the secretary of state before being allowed on the ballot, and the measure could become effective as early as next year if adopted and signed into law.

The move by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, renews the threat to a second Oval Office term for Barack Obama that was posed last year when the state House in Arizona actually adopted the requirement, but the session ended before the Senate acted.

Berman's legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:

It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."

It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for the expected presidential campaigning for 2012.

Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency

Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama actually qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen," a requirement not imposed on most other federal officers.

"If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we'll do it in our state," he said. He noted the Senate's investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator's birth in Panama to military parents.

Berman also said there will be pressure on any lawmaker who opposes the information plan, since voters would wonder why they wouldn't want such basic data about a president revealed. And he said even if one state adopts the requirement, there will be national implications, because other states would be alerted to a possible problem.

"If Obama is going to run for re-election in 2012, he'll have to show our secretary of state his birth certificate and prove he's a natural-born citizen," he said. "This is going to be significant."

Berman said he's convinced there are problems with Obama's eligibility, or else his handlers would not be so persistent in keeping the information concealed.

A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were even aware of a dispute over Obama's eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is, in fact, eligible under the Constitution's demands.

WND requests for comment to the office of the Texas House speaker, as well as Democratic leadership, did not generate responses.

The Texas House is expected to be dominated by the GOP, with a roughly 2-1 margin, but in the 31-member Senate, Democrats will have probably 12 seats and might be able to kill off legislation using the chamber's requirement that there is support from two-thirds of the membership before holding a floor vote.

WND reported during the last series of state legislatures that the issue was very near success in Arizona.

There, the state House of Representatives adopted a similar plan put forward by Rep. Judy Burges, but it died in the state Senate in the closing days of the session. Burgess has told WND she will work to bring the plan forward again.

A number of other states also have taken launched their own work on the subject:

Georgia has a plan by Rep. Mark Hatfield, House Bill 1516, introduced just as the last legislative session was closing. He told WND he expects to use it to create support for the plan when the legislature returns this winter.

New Hampshire had a proposal pending that would require candidates meet the "qualifications contained in the U.S. Constitution."

Oklahoma had a proposal that would be a referendum for voters on the issue.

South Carolina had discussions over a plan to prohibit the name of a candidate on a ballot "unless that person shows conclusive evidence that he is a legal citizen of the United States."

Several other states have discussed requirements for candidates but they did not specifically address the Article 2, Section 1 constitutional compliance so it's unclear whether they would have addressed Obama's situation.

Then there's Rep. Bill Posey's bill at the federal level.

Posey's H.R. 1503 states:


"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The bill also provides:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

The sponsors' goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

Join tens of thousands of others who already have signed a petition to state lawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the Constitution's eligibility requirements.


There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's eligibility never has been documented. The "Certification of Live Birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii is a document that has made available to those not born in the state.


The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has kept from the public documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.
A petition that has been launched by WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah asks that state lawmakers do their duty in making sure the next presidential election will feature candidates whose eligibility has been documented.


Tens of thousands already have signed on.


"What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition – encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so," he said.

An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans, and it attracted moreo than half a million names.


For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule, name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in addition to the earlier petition, he has:

• erected billboards around the country demanding, "Where's the birth certificate?":
• produced a 40-page special report on the subject;
• produced a 60-minute documentary video primer on the issue;
• manufactured yard and rally signs to bring attention to the topic;
• pledged to donate at least $15,000 to any hospital in Hawaii or anywhere else that provides proof Obama was born there and given you an opportunity to raise the amount;
• created a line of T-shirts you can wear to appearances by the president to raise visibility of the issue;
• created a fund to which you can donate to further the kind of investigative reporting into this matter only this company has performed over the last two years;
• launched a line of postcards you can use to keep the issue alive;
• distributed thousands of bumper stickers asking, "Where's the birth certificate?"

Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.

"Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his willingness to do in his first two years in office," he wrote in a column. "However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective."

Double click on photos to view enlargement

Snopes got Snoped!

http://hubpages.com/hub/Snopes-got-Snoped

Snopes is run by a man and a woman, with no background or training in investigations, using Google.

Snopes.com has been considered the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. Once a negative article is posted by them, people point and say, "See, I told you it wasn't true!"

But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But, over the past couple of years people started asking questions when Snopes was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.

In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet. The Mikkelson's were quick to "research" this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inaccuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg's contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.

But the Mikkelson's never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the "final factual word" on the issue.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-motivated.

So, if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means, do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an Internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.

Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do.

WHAT ISLAM IS NOT...

http://www.nmatv.com/video/618/What-Islam-Is-Not

Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/investigation-reveals-numerous-bogus-claims-on-obama-resume

April 3rd, 2010 7:15 pm ET

In what is being called 'the biggest hustle in human history,' a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama's resume, including the outright lie that he was a 'Constitutional scholar and professor.'

His claim turns out to be false.

 

As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be. The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be false--

fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.

According to a special report issued by 'the Blogging Professor,' the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama. The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a 'constitutional professor and scholar,' and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.

The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an 'instructor' at Chicago Law School, not a professor. Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.

In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.

In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham. The President of the United States is a complete fraud.

According to Doug Ross:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Thus, the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review a 'put-up job' as well, allowing the student to claim he held this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the requirements of holding that position? And why?

Further, consider this:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application.

2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at the Chicago Law School.

(Click on pic to enlarge to read the title of book)

There is more from Ross, however: 

6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video. 

You would THINK a former Constitutional attorney would NOT make up Constitutional quotes!  ("We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal...")

Um, wrong founding document, Mr. President. It is in our Declaration of Independence that we read: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in ourConstitution: the notion that we are all created equal."

10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.

Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight. And apart from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama's presence in their institutions.

BREAKING DEVELOPMENT--just as these disturbing facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals with numerous 'journalists,' promising unprecedented access to the President in exchange for refraining from reporting certain information 'they may discover.'

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. " ~ John Adams

 

Queen must wear a burqa: UK Islamists

Monday, November 2, 2009,11:10 [IST]

 http://news.oneindia.in/2009/11/02/queen-must-wear-a-burqa-uk-islamists.html#comments    


Queen must wear a burqa:
UK Islamists

London, Nov 2: After the appeal to convert Buckingham Palace into Buckingham Masjid, UK Islamists leader now insists that Queen Elizabeth II must wear a burqa if she has to go out.

Anjem Choudhary, spokesman for pro-sharia campaigners Islam4UK was quoted in Daily Express as saying, "If the Queen decides to go outside then she must cover herself like every woman."

The radical Islamists had also demanded that the Mall approaching Buckingham Palace be renamed as Masjid road.

Seeking to introduce the Sharia law, Choudhary said that the a dome and tannoy to call followers to prayer will be fitted in Buckingham Palace once the Sharia law is implemented.

Choudhary also said that the Queen will be stripped of all power under the new Sharia law.

At the same time he said that the in the year 2009 he awaits the fall of Rome, the White House and of course the Buckingham Palace.

OneIndia News

                                                 

Is Obama Planning A False Flag Event?

Suspicion and Secrecy Swirl Around India Trip

"Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: [this shall be] the portion of their cup." Psalm 11:6

Something here is not right.

Obama and his team are planning what could be the strangest state visit trip in United States history. Consider this just in from the Daily Paul website -

"Obama is leaving the country just after the election. He is taking his wife and kids as well as 3,000 other people for this India trip. They are taking 40 planes, armored cars, helicopters, security forces, and a blank check book. They are planning on spending $200 million per day. At least that is what they are admitting to." source - Daily Paul

What is a false flag event? False flag operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and can be used in peace-time. source - Wikipedia



Obama's upcoming trip to India will involve the following:

• A fleet of 34 naval warships

• An Aircraft carrier

• His own personal limos imported from the US

• 800 hotel rooms booked at the Taj Mahal

• 500 US security personel

• Private luxury jets carrying hundreds of top American corporate CEO's

• Interception and obstruction devices

• US fighter jets

• The majority of his White House staff will travel with him

• They say the reason for all this security and cost is because of the extreme danger faced by the President...if that's true, then WHY is he taking his children with him??

• A fleet of over 40 high-tech cars for his convoy

• Cost for this 10-day trip is $200,000,000 million per day, making the 10 day event cost just over 2,000,000,000 (billion) dollars...are they visiting India or relocating?
source - NDTV

Now, all conspiracy theories aside, does this sound right to YOU? If you are honest you will have to say that no, it does not. But what it does sound like is that Obama and the entire guts that run this country are planning to leave the United States in a hurry.

Now consider this from the Daily Mail UK:
"The entourage will be the biggest ever in terms of logistics and manpower for any US president. The president himself will be ferried around in a black Cadillac - dubbed 'Barack Mobile' - which has its own built in communications centre - to enable Obama to be in touch with the White House, US vice president and the US strategic command The car also has the US nuke launch codes and the nuclear switch for the president. It can also withstand a chemical or germ warfare or even a bomb attack. Obama will be accompanied on the trip by US first lady Michelle Obama and their daughters Malia and Sasha, according to Indian newspaper Headlines Today. Earlier, Obama's daughters Sasha and Malia were not to be part of the trip. But Michelle's opinion prevailed and now the girls will accompany the first American couple to India, according to the paper." source - Daily Mail UK

Looks like to me that they are packing up and leaving...and then there's this from a few weeks ago:

We can absorb a terrorist attack. Really, Barack? A few weeks back Bob Woodward released a book, Obama's Wars, where Obama had something very unusual to say about 9/11 and the possibility of America being attacked again. The unbelievable, mind-numbing tragedy of 9/11, in Obama's mind, is something that could be easily absorbed should something of that magnitude happen on US soil again.

During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever... we absorbed it and we are stronger." Sounds to me like he is mentally preparing us for another terrorist or nuclear attack.

So you decide, dear reader, what this all means. But it sure does not sound right. And be prepared for anything at anytime, because something is coming...remember to the words of Jesus about life in the end times - "Behold, I have told you before." Matthew 24:25



>> Obama Signs Martial Law Executive Order << WASHINGTON - President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors Monday, 11 January 2010

Obama Signs Martial Law Executive Order

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release January 11, 2010

EXECUTIVE ORDER ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Council of Governors.

(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms.

(b) The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.

 

Sec. 2. Functions.

The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter terrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander,United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Such views, information, or advice shall concern:

(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;

(b) homeland defense;

(c) civil support; more (OVER) 2

(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and

(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 11, 2010.

source - WhiteHouse.gov

GOP Takes House But Second Amendment Battle is Far From Over

Michigan --(Ammoland.com)- We are happy to see that the Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives as the Grand Old Party as it is known tends to be friendlier to gun related issues.


The people have spoken and this wasn’t the result of some nefarious plot by the insidious gun lobby – which is how the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun organizations are painted in the mainstream media – to take control of the country.

This was the will of the people, which includes hunters, shooters, gun collectors and just every day citizens that believe in the Second Amendment.

But the writing is on the wall, and we’re not out of the woods yet. Nor is it the time however to let down our guard.

The Senate will still include a rogue’s gallery of anti-gun zealots including two Republicans: Senator-Elect Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a co-sponsor in the U.S. House of Representatives of legislation to close the so-called gun show loophole, and Senator-Elect Dan Coast in Indiana had previously served in the U.S. Senate, voting for the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Key anti-gun Democrats retained their seats in the U.S. Senate as well, and these include Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Senator Barbara Boxer of California. New York was also a special case as Kirsten Gillibrand was finally “elected” to the Senate (she had been appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat, which she will now hold for two more years).

Both Schumer and Gillibrand have been foes to gun owners, while Boxer has also been a supporter of gun control. The NRA-endorsed Christine O’Donnell was also defeated by Democrat candidate Chris Coons in Delaware, while Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), who was appointed to finish the term of former Senator Ken Salazar, was elected to a full term. He has co-sponsored gun show loophole legislation.

We happy that Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) was defeated in his re-election bid, as Feingold has had at what best can be described as a mixed record on gun related issues, including voting in favor of background checks at gun shows.


But now is the time to think to the future, but to be on guard today. Only this year the EPA attempted to ban lead ammunition, while the State Department stopped efforts to allow the importation of American M1 made rifles from South Korea. These are both back door gun bans, and while the same mainstream media that sees the NRA as a cabal of evildoers bent on turning America into a Wild West, turn a blind eye to these efforts. Instead the media tries to say that the Democrats and President Obama have done nothing to impose new restrictions.

Except for the attempt to ban lead ammo, the blocked importation of those M1 rifles and the appointment of two fiercely anti-gun rights Supreme Court Justices.

So while this is a time to celebrate our wins with the House, we should be remain on guard.

Peter Suciu is executive editor of FirearmsTruth, a website that tracks and monitors media bias against guns and our Second Amendment rights.