Video: A Couple of Quickies

Video: A Couple of Quickies

Signs of the times.  The following two videos were sent to me by P.S. and J.S. and I thought I’d offer them to our readers as simple random clips. The first one is a harkback to 2014 in which a patriot Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives condemns the Executive for failure to enforce the laws passed by Congress.

 

This clip is a powerful statement about “Gun Free Zones”, done without using any spoken words.  Produced by Gun Owners of America (GOA)

 

About Author

Elias Alias

Editor in Chief for Oath Keepers; Unemployed poet; Lover of Nature and Nature's beauty. Slave to all cats. Reading interests include study of hidden history, classical literature. Concerned Constitutional American. Honorably discharged USMC Viet Nam Veteran. Founder, TheMentalMilitia.Net

Comments

  1. LoneStarHog 7 August, 2016, 07:12

    July 28, 2015 Mr. Trump Tweeted – that if elected – Congressman Gowdy would be his Attorney General. I believe he has been consistent and Gowdy is still his first choice. He and Gowdy share the same no-nonsense style.

    I have also read the possibility of Giuliani or Christie.

    Personally, I think Giuliani and Christie might be Pit Bulls, but Gowdy is like the little dog that chases you relentlessly down the street nipping at your ankles until you fall down. Then goes for the jugular.

    I’ll take Gowdy!

    LoneStarHog (Hog)
    Texas Life Member #140

    Reply this comment
  2. Cal 7 August, 2016, 09:45

    The mandate in Article II is that the president, all US presidents are to “Preserve, Protect and Defend” the US Constitution and to uphold its provisions is considered by the executive branch attorneys to contain implicitly the notion of things such as being able to declare “emergency powers” or “martial law”. To be able to decide upon the laws that the person WHOSE SERVES as president will enforce. Yet that cannot be true since they are required to “PRESERVE”, not only to “protect and defend” the US Constitution; plus presidents are also mandated to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. In actuality all US Presidents are held to a higher standard then everyone else who are lawfully bound by Oath to the US Constitution as they are the ones chargds with implementing the “laws of the land” – all laws/regulations/codes/etc that are IN Pursuance thereof the US Constitution.

    The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: where it says “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’

    Notice that the Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses which set forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specifically defines the President’s assigned power. The President is required to take the oath after he assumes the office but before he can lawfully execute it.

    Consider that the location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised. That is how I see it when because to be REQUIRED to Preserve the US Constitution does not mean to take it apart by presidential actions.

    The word “preserve” means to to keep the US Constitution in its original state or in good condition; to keep it safe from harm or loss. Add to the word “preserve” the words “protect” and “defend” and the meaning is pretty clear even in today’s meanings. “Protect’ means to to defend or guard the US Constitution from attack or invasion, from loss; it means to cover or shield the US Constitution from injury or danger, to guard it with all a presidents delegated and authorized powers. While “defend” means to to fight in order to keep the US Constitution safe; to not allow a person, group, entity, foreign nation, etc to hurt, damage, or destroy the US Constitution. It means to fight and work hard in order to keep the US Constitution from being taken away by others, by foreign nations, by whatever threatens her. It also means to speak or write in SUPPORT of the US Constitution when she is being challenged, criticized, demeaned.

    That is the Oath that who serve as US Presidents are to take and KEEP. Remember that breaking the Oath is also a crime, a felony plus the crimes of Perjury.

    So in what manner can anyone say that the person who is impersonating a US President is doing those things? Which US President can one remember doing those things instead of usurping and working against the US Constitution, our nation, our people?

    In the First video Gowdy asks what they can do to stop presidential overreach (not in those words). The legislative branch was give constitutional authority to remove any person serving as a US president who was not doing the job as required. They have not used it, and by those actions condone and assist in his destruction of our legitimate government.

    The Second video shows exactly why the Second Amendment and others listed, and not listed by referred to, within the Bill of Rights were RETAINED by the people and not delegated to either branch or to either the state or federal government. Some people get a taste of power and become addicted. Like a lot of addicts they can cause much trouble in pursuit of their drug of choice – power.

    Reply this comment
  3. flinter 8 August, 2016, 05:50

    Mr Gowdy made a decent speech but It fell a bit short in the tooth and claw department in my opinion. Not bold enough. What he should have done is call for the impeachment of the imposter in chief. Everything said referring to the NOT president touched on very serious crimes committed by the NOT president. There can be no action other than arrest and impeachment and as congress has failed to act in accordance with the law by not bringing charges, they too are just as guilty.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*