The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

As the result of a fraudulent foreclosure case in Georgia it would seem that none of the states officials who are required to be sworn into office have been given the correct oath to swear to. Thus it would appear that none of these state officials have the power to officially represent the state.
This problem also appears to be common to other states as well. Is something going on here that we should know about?

This is the first I have noticed a reference to the oaths of office having been changed so as to render them incorrect. The example that Teri Hinkle shows, below the post that you quoted, is a loyalty oath said to be that of a judge for the State of Georgia, and is shown below:



A Georgia Superior Court Judges Directory lists Thomas H Wilson thusly:

Towaliga Circuit
Chief Judge Thomas H. Wilson
One Courthouse Square, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 950
Forsyth, GA 31029
Work Phone: 478-994-7658

So this fellow is a Chief Justice of the Georgia Superior Court for the Towaliga Judicial Circuit, which was created in 1999.

The official Qualifications Guide published by the State of Georgia shows the qualification which must be met by a person in order to legally hold office as a judge or other state official, and also shows the oaths of office prescribed for these offices. The oath of office for a Superior Court judge is shown on page 129 of the guide, which is actually page 140 of the guide in pdf format, and is stated in this language:

Oath of Office
13. Before entering on the duties of their office, superior court judges are required to take the following oath:
“I swear that I will administer justice without respect to person and do equal rights to the poor and the rich and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as judge of the superior courts of this state, according to the best of my ability and understanding, and agreeably to the laws and Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.”
O.C.G.A. § 15-6-6
Note:
The federal constitution requires that the judicial officers of the state be bound by oath or affirmation to support the federal constitution. See U.S. Const., Art. 6, § 3.
14. Every public officer must take the oath of office and any oath prescribed by the Constitution of Georgia and must swear that he or she
a) is not the holder of any unaccounted for public money due this state;
b) is not the holder of any office of trust under the government of the United States, any other state, or any foreign state which he or she is by the laws of the State of Georgia prohibited from holding;
c) is otherwise qualified to hold said office according to the constitution and laws of Georgia; and
d) will support the constitutions of the United States and of this state.
O.C.G.A. §§ 15-6-6, 45-3-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above stated requirements for the oath of office were obviously in effect in the year 2000, when the guide book was published, and as far as I can tell the requirements were no different in 2010 when Thomas H Wilson was sworn in. From the above qualifications, we can see that the actual oath taking procedure also requires compliance with requirements of the US Constitution, as well as further swearing that the person is not in violation of any things expressly prohibited by the State of Georgia for a holder of such office. If the above image, showing Wilson's "Loyalty Oath" is actually representing the full oath of office which Wilson was sworn in by then Teri Hinkle is correct and there is a huge problem with this oath as taken. Taking an intentionally incorrect oath of office is the same as having taken no oath of office. Georgia law prescribes the penalty for such failure thusly:

Entry into duties of office without oath
O.C.G.A. § 45-3-9. Entry into duties of office without oath.
Any officer or deputy required by law to take and file an official oath who shall enter upon the duties of his office without first
taking and filing the same in the proper office shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
HISTORY: Orig. Code 1863, § 141; Code 1868, § 136; Code 1873, § 146; Code 1882, § 146; Penal Code 1895, § 270; Penal
Code 1910, § 273; Code 1933, § 89-9901

A "misdemeanor?" Image that! This is some of the worst possible fraud, and should be punishable by a long prison term, along with disbarment and a prohibition from ever again holding a public office. This man is interpreting law and passing judgment on people, and is no more qualified to do that than the person bagging groceries at your local supermarket, even if he meets all other qualifications aside from his oath of office. And what about the person administering the oath, and the person attesting to the oath having been taken? Why shouldn't they be just as guilty and held accountable? Where's the provision for that?

In looking through the Georgia Constitution, there is no requirement for, or stated text of, an oath of office for judges. It only lists the other requirements. Therefore, the oaths of office are prescribed by state law rather than the state constitution. In looking up Georgia Code for the year 2010, when Wilson was sworn in, the applicable oath can be found in the following Title, Chapter, Article, and Section, and is identical to what was stated in the guide book quoted above:
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 15 - COURTS
CHAPTER 6 - SUPERIOR COURTS
ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 15-6-6 - Oath of judges

Before entering on the duties of their office, superior court judges must take the oath required of all civil officers and in addition they must take the following oath:
"I swear that I will administer justice without respect to person and do equal rights to the poor and the rich and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as judge of the superior courts of this state, according to the best of my ability and understanding, and agreeably to the laws and Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

I think Teri is right, and we should all be looking into how the officials in our own states are being sworn in. If it is just half as bad at it appears to be in Georgia then this calls for some serious citizen action and involvement.

[rickoff]

Quotable quotes of the day......

Regarding the government seizure (theft) of bank account assets in Cyprus:

"Cyprus was a leader – in some circles and for some applications, the leader – in quiet storage, management and structuring of exceptionally large sums for private individuals and corporations all over the world. Briefcases full of cash? Think shipping containers. Bafflingly intricate networks of corporate and private wealth, shell companies, holding companies and staggering transfers between these entities and others. Think private planes and mega-yachts, too – the works – and multiply this kaleidoscope by thousands of beneficial owners, major shareholders and top executives all over the world.

How much was stolen, after all? How many accounts were seized?"... "I don’t know all the details. Nobody does. That’s the point. All we know is that immeasurable sums have vanished, and the victims are quiet. It is a perfect crime. You will never see a complete and verifiable list of beneficial account holders. You will never see a complete and verifiable tally of the loot.

The best way to pull off a heist is to make it so nobody blows the whistle or calls the authorities. Better yet is to arrange things so the authorities are in on the job. Best of all, of course, is when the authorities do the job. And that is exactly what has happened in Cyprus." - Franklin Raff, managing director of Raff Radio

Raff explains that, "The score itself is bigger than we can imagine and will be impossible to determine. The breadth of the depositor base and very nature of the business, the holding of particularly large deposits, gives us an inkling as to the size of the heist, but so does the brazen nature of the action. What we know is that it is government theft of a kind not seen since wartime Germany or revolutionary Russia. Accounts have simply been seized; portions of their untold contents, as we like to say in America, 'redistributed.'......Some of the largest businesses and the richest, most powerful people and trusts in the world had money in Cyprus. And that is why nobody is talking."

[rickoff]

The "Farmer Assurance Provision"

We constantly see Congress pushing new legislative initiatives that are intentionally mislabeled so as to make us think that the legislation is either good, or of no concern to us. Legislation such as the 'Patriot Act,' and the 'Patient Affordable Care Act, immediately come to mind. They sound good, but we know that what is in them is not. The Patriot Act should have been labeled 'The Liberty Destruction Act,' and the Affordable Care Act would have been more appropriately labeled 'The Government Healthcare Takeover and Tax Act.' One of the latest examples is the 'Farmer Assurance Provision.' From the given name, it immediately sounds like legislation intended to help struggling farmers, perhaps by giving them a break on fuel costs for their tractors, or offering an assurance of a minimum price they will get on a crop. Sounds reasonable, right? But this legislation has nothing to do with struggling farmers, and everything to do with protecting a giant corporation from lawsuits related to GMO foods. It essentially gives Monsanto a free pass to carry on with current GMO foods, and to introduce new ones for which there is no proof that they are safe. This legislation should have been labeled the 'Monsanto Protection Act,' since Monsanto is by far the worlds largest developer of GMO foods. The 'Monsanto Protection Act' was sneakily inserted as Section 735 (in a single paragraph) on pages 35 and 36 of H.R. 933, which was the Continuing Appropriations Act (spending bill) of 2013. H.R. 933 is a 240 page document, and chances are pretty good that not a single legislator who voted to approve the bill ever bothered to read all that was inside it. The allowed insertion of this corporate protection device can be blamed on Democrat Senator Barbara Mikulski, chairperson of the Appropriations Committee. “In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety.

[rickoff]

Shortly before Barry's reelection, news of the Benghazi killings was everywhere you looked, but now it seems as though the incident is all but forgotten. Of course that's because the MSM wanted to drop that topic like a hot potato and focus on gun death stories here in the USA. Some of watched the testimony of Hillie Clinton on TV, and noted that both the questions asked of her by members of Congress, and the answers she gave, really explained or revealed nothing at all. Now of course she wasn't there in Benghazi at the time of the attack, so she couldn't be expected to have firsthand eyewitness knowledge of what went down. So really the questions being asked were put before the wrong person. There are persons who actually are in the know as to exactly what happened in Benghazi, and 33 of them to be exact. These are known as the Benghazi survivors. Certainly they have a story to tell, but not a single one of them has been allowed to tell their story, and the MSM has made no mention of that. It is rather obvious that these 33 people have been told to shut up, and threatened with reprisals if they were to speak up and tell the truth of what happened. Senator Graham has spoken with several of the Benghazi survivors, and he says that, “The bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet,” Graham told Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier on Friday. “Their story is chilling. They feel afraid to tell it.”

Some very pertinent questions that should be asked of these Benghazi survivors have been raised by Deroy Murdock, a writer for National Review Online, in a story titled Ungag The Benghazi 33!:

Did they warn Team Obama about this pending attack?
Did they request more security?
What responses did they get, and from whom?
How did Team Obama react to the attack as it unfolded?
What role, if any, did Obama himself play that horrible night?
Does Team Obama’s official story differ from events on the ground?
When and how were they told to stay quiet about what they knew?
Were they offered any benefits, or otherwise bribed, if they hushed up?
Were they threatened, or otherwise extorted, if they spoke up?
Were they in any other way pressured or intimidated?


Until these questions are asked and answered, all we can know for certain about the Benghazi incident is that the American people were lied to, and that a government and media cover-up has so far succeeded in hiding much of the truth from the public. Barry, and the others responsible, were given a free pass, and no one has been held accountable. Of course that is what we expected would be the outcome, just as it always is, but we shouldn't be accepting that outcome. Here's what should be happening, according to Deroy Murdock, and we should be demanding it to our members of Congress:

"With an apparent full-blown cover-up and perhaps dozens of public servants eager to talk, the House immediately should move to subpoena the Obama administration for the names and contact information for all 33 Benghazi survivors. It then should subpoena each of them, immunize them against prosecution, and protect them, their jobs, and their pensions and other benefits under the appropriate federal whistleblower statutes." - Deroy Murdock

[rickoff]

If you haven't already done so, please go to this link and sign the Pro Gun Petition to be sent to both your US Senators urging them to join Rand Paul in voting against the upcoming "motion to proceed" on S.649 as well as any other gun-control schemes designed to trample our Second Amendment rights.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

Your right, of coarse; Benghazi stinks to high heaven. We all saw the photos, from inside the Sit room, during the Bin Laden 'raid'; WHY aren't there similar pictures, showing Obummer, Hillie, and the Nat'l security team monitoring, in 'real time' and step by step, an attack on one of our Embassies, which resulted in the death of the ambassadoe and several others????
Such an attack is, or USED to be, considered an 'act of war', as any embassy is considered 'soveriegn territory', and yet there are no such pictures, and evidence is that neither hillie, O'bummer, or anyone else 'high up' was anywhere near the sit room, on the nite of the Benghazi attack! Guess it just wasn't as important to them,....huh? Jim

[rickoff]

Jim, I'm sure we will never see such pictures, as they would only confirm that Barry and his administration were totally negligent, but I think we can also safely assume that the White House Situation Room was active throughout the attack, and that all top level administrative staff were informed about it. The story goes that Barry was informed about an hour after the attack began, so what was he doing during the final 6 hours of the attack? Same goes for Hillie, Joint Chiefs of military, etc. The "grilling" of Hillie, during the televised Congressional "investigation" was absolutely pathetic. Most of the panel members wasted at least 80% of their 5 minute allowance by first heaping praise on Hillie, and then asking stupid questions. Very few asked anything important, and when they did Hillie defiantly gave answers intended to obscure the facts, and acted angry when pressed further for a real answer. Everyone except Rand Paul backed down when Hillie got huffy. Rand said to her that if he had been President he would have fired her. But even Rand neglected to ask some of the very important questions that you see in post #4144. No doubt it was because of the 5 minute time constraint, but the fact remains that these questions have not been answered, and there is no excuse for that negligence on the part of Congress. The People deserve much better than that.

[rickoff]

Quotable quote of the day......

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism ..."- U.S. Supreme Court, in Ex parte Milligan case, 1866

Ex parte Milligan was a very important case, because in the decision the Court ruled that it is never permissible to depart from the Constitution or any of its Amendments, whether during times of war or peace."

So, how does Ex parte Milligan apply to tthe so-called "debate" on the Second Amendment? It means that there is, in fact, no debate whatsoever. It means that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" just as the Supreme Law of the Land clearly states.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

The 'hearings' where hillie was 'grilled' on Benghazi were an obvious 'dog and pony show'! As the chairpersons of the hearing detirmine at the outset, how much time each memeber is going to get, they telegraph right at the outset, the 'scope' of the hearing.
5 minutes ain't sh*t, and so it was obvious from the begining they were'n't going anywhere!
" and there is no excuse for that negligence on the part of Congress."

The list of 'things' the Congress has done which are negligent is simply staggering, at this point. The system simply doesn't work, (did it EVER, really?) and while I LIKE some of the things Rand Paul says, I'm not all that confident even He isn't 'in on it'.

I just can't help thinking the whole thing needs to collapse of its own weight, so we can start over.And, that given what 'they' are doing, such a collapse is only a matter of time.They are fiidling while Rome burns, (down around their heads!), shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic, playing games, whatever.
Everything they are doing is meaningless, 'Gun Contol debates/legislation'; meaningless. Fiscal tax debate, as you have pointed out numerous times, MEANINGLESS! You got the Repubs, who are pretending to try to reduce 'spending', (but NOT, really!) and the dems who argue DOOM if we 'cut programs', and neither is really doing anything substantive.

Its ALL smoke and mirrors, and all meaningless.Jim

[Mad Scientist]

The 'hearings' where hillie was 'grilled' on Benghazi were an obvious 'dog and pony show'! ...........

Its ALL smoke and mirrors, and all meaningless.Jim

Of course. But it was never meant to be a real fact finding exercise.
If they actually told the truth can you imagine how many people would, shall we say, be “embarrassed”.

[Mad Scientist]

Ex parte Milligan was a very important case, because in the decision the Court ruled that it is never permissible to depart from the Constitution or any of its Amendments, whether during times of war or peace."

If we went back to the original constitution that might help. However this could be a step in that direction.

New Hampshire Bill Introduced to Re-Instate ORIGINAL 13th
Amendment


HOUSE BILL 638
AN ACT recognizing the original Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
SPONSORS: Rep. Tremblay, Rock 4; Rep. Baldasaro, Rock 5; Rep. Christiansen, Hills 37
COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs
ANALYSIS
This bill recognizes the original Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
13-0796
09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Thirteen
AN ACT recognizing the original Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Preamble and Statement of Intent. The general court hereby finds that:

I. In 1810, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibited titles of nobility and which later became known as the original Thirteenth Amendment, was introduced, passed both houses of Congress, and was sent to the states for ratification. On December 9, 1812, shortly after ratification by Virginia, New Hampshire became the thirteenth state to ratify the amendment. The amendment was therefore ratified by the requisite number of states and became Article XIII of the United States Constitution.

II. During the War Between the States, otherwise known as the Civil War, the country was under martial law, and all executive orders made by President Lincoln were, in effect, law. After the war, laws made during that period were to be abated; yet, vestiges of martial law remained and presidents continued to write executive orders.

III. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, otherwise known as the Act of 1871, created a corporation in the District of Columbia called the United States of America. The act revoked prior legislation relative to the district’s municipal charter and, most egregiously, led to adoption of a fraudulent constitution in which the original Thirteenth Amendment was omitted.

IV. Today, what appears to the public as the United States Constitution is not the complete document, as it was never lawfully amended to remove the Thirteenth Amendment. Instead, the document presented as the United States Constitution is merely a mission statement for the corporation unlawfully established in the Act of 1871.

V. The purpose of this act is to recognize that the original Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits titles of nobility, is properly included in the United States Constitution and is the law of the land. The act is also intended to end the infiltration of the Bar Association and the judicial branch into the executive and legislative branches of government and the unlawful usurpation of the people’s right, guaranteed by the New Hampshire constitution, to elect county attorneys who are not members of the bar. This unlawful usurpation gives the judicial branch control over all government and the people in the grand juries. As long as the original Thirteenth Amendment is concealed from the people, there shall never be justice or a legitimate constitutional form of government.

2 New Chapter; Thirteenth Amendment. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 1-A the following new chapter:
CHAPTER 1-B
ORIGINAL THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT
1-B:1 Original Thirteenth Amendment. The following shall be recognized as the original Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Article XIII

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them or either of them.

3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

So let’s see this would mean that anyone with allegiance to a foreign power would be excluded from holding public office. Such as a “lawyer” who is a member of the BAR (British Accredited Registry ) Which just so happens is what most of our politicians are. I think this might get real interesting to watch?

[rickoff]

In 1810, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibited titles of nobility and which later became known as the original Thirteenth Amendment, was introduced, passed both houses of Congress, and was sent to the states for ratification. On December 9, 1812, shortly after ratification by Virginia, New Hampshire became the thirteenth state to ratify the amendment. The amendment was therefore ratified by the requisite number of states and became Article XIII of the United States Constitution.

I'm glad to see that legislators in at least one state are finally proposing legislation to recognize the original 13th Amendment. Unfortunately, though, what is stated above is incorrect. New Hampshire did not ratify after Virgina. Between February 2, 1811, and February 14, 1811, Virginia's two legislative houses (General Assembly) considered the Titles of Nobility Aamendment (TONA). Senate and House of Delegates' journal entries record that on February 14, 1811, the following took place in Virginia's Senate:

"on the question being put thereupon, the said resolution was disagreed to by the House." ("House," in this case, refers to the upper house, i.e., the Senate, not the lower house, the House of Delegates.)

"...disagreed to," means not accepted, as opposed to rejected. According to house rules, the matter could not be raised again in the same legislative session, but no rejection was ever reported.

To my knowledge, there was never a recorded vote taken by the Virginia legislature to ratify the TONA. They did, however, vote on March 12, 1819, to republish the laws of the commonwealth of Virginia, in which the TONA was included, and a copy of that publication was sent to, and received by, the US Department of State. See my November 2009 post #164 for a full explanation concerning the TONA ratification process. If Virginia did in fact record a vote to ratify TONA, then that record appears to have been obscured by hiding or removing it. That is why Virginia is the state that must step up to the plate and either produce the record of that vote to ratify, or take a new vote to ratify. That can still be done, since there is no time limitation for ratifying TONA. The problem with the New Hampshire proposal is that their "facts" are incorrect unless they can show proof of Virginia's ratification in 1812, and so far it would appear that even Virginia has not been able to do that.

So let’s see this would mean [if 13 states did ratify TONA] that anyone with allegiance to a foreign power would be excluded from holding public office. Such as a “lawyer” who is a member of the BAR (British Accredited Registry ) Which just so happens is what most of our politicians are. I think this might get real interesting to watch?

The TONA Amendment reads, "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

So yes, this could have an enormous impact in Washington DC. This would especially be true for Barry, who would lose his citizenship (if he ever had it to begin with, which is doubtful) both for accepting the chairman position of the UN Security Council, and for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Barry by the Norwegian Parliament. Obama received a certificate, a gold medal, and a monetary award exceeding one million dollars. Actually, even without TONA, Barry is already in violation of the Constitution's Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8, which is similar to the TONA language, and states:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Barry clearly violated this clause when he accepted the "office" and "title" of UN Security Council Chairman, and again when he accepted the awards (considered a present or emolument) ,attached to the Nobel Peace Prize, from a foreign state (Norwegian Parliament).

The TONA Amendment was obviously intended to strengthen Clause 8 by further including honorary titles, and inserting the language that "any citizen" who violated TONA would "cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." It's no wonder that the politicians wanted this hidden, as it would mean that many of them would be ineligible to ever hold office in the first place, and could easily be stripped of their citizenship. Those who proposed the TONA, and those states which ratified it, were doing the right thing for this nation as it could have prevented so much of what went wrong in Washington. But it's not too late to turn back the clock if Virginia will step up and do what is needed.
Again, see bottom part of post #164 for a suggestion on how to get the ball rolling in that regard.

[rickoff]

Important petition

Please take a moment to sign the following petition to the US Senate prepared by the National Association for Gun Rights:

Oppose the Motion to Proceed on S. 649Petition to my United States Senators

Whereas: Barack Obama is doing everything he can to ram gun control down the throats of the American people; and
Whereas: By definition, criminals don’t obey laws and new gun control laws make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families; and
Whereas: The Second Amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”; and
Whereas: Second Amendment supporters like myself strongly oppose – and will be paying close attention to any Senator and Congressman who votes for – new unconstitutional gun control schemes; and
Therefore: As your constituent, I INSIST you OPPOSE the motion to proceed on S. 649 and SUPPORT the Paul, Cruz and Lee filibuster.

Go here now to sign!

[Mad Scientist]

Go here now to sign!

Haven’t done that yet, but here is a letter that I send to my “illustrious” representative just the other night.
It is my version of one that Teri Hinkle wrote.

Regarding gun control legislation please consider cosigning the Stockman-Broun letter.

It is clear as a bell the reason these gun control measures are even being considered has nothing to do with nor is it intended to make people safer… do you make people safer by rendering them defenseless? We aren’t stupid, we know exactly what is going on! We hear Ms. Feinstien declare all vets to be mentally ill. (my representative is a vet!) We see vets being targeted already. We know the only way Obama can observe the UN Small Arms Treaty is to disarm us as quickly as he can.

We already have gun registration. We know that criminals almost NEVER use registered weapons much less the “scary” assault weapons and we also know that doctors kill way more people than people with guns ever do. Should we ban doctors?

We know this type of measure will have zero impact on mass shootings and we know for sure, THIS IS ALL ABOUT MORE CONTROL OVER US BY AN OUT OF CONTROL, TREASONOUS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.

We also know that by the time it gets out of committee and actually comes up for a vote it will be swollen to bursting with pork barrel spending. America is sick to death of having her representatives bought by special interests and it is time to clean house!

ENOUGH! YOU KNOW VERY WELL THE MAJORITY PEOPLE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS, AT LEAST ANY WHO STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO REASON DESPITE MEDIA PROPAGANDA and those are the people who are NOT going to comply. Those are the people who will not allow the UN to dictate to them. This is a most dangerous issue in the history of our country and all who shrink from the responsibility of it will be held accountable sooner or later.

[rickoff]

Good one, MS, I like that.