Aegis of Freedom

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/explosive-benghazi...

The main stream media refuses to cover this story that proves Obama is incompetent or worse. Pass this information on through email, facebook, twitter, and every other means you have. We must expose the truth since the media refuses to do their job.

Do you have the courage to accept and spread the truth?

Let's say a man named Ponzi comes to you and says "If you pay me 10% of your income for the next 30 years, then you can retire and I'll pay for your retirement until you die. Trust me, your money will be safe in a 'lock box', it won't be spent, so you'll just be living off the interest of that huge stash." So, you agree and give him your money for the next 30 years, and then start collecting your retirement. Then one day Ponzi says "Sorry, there's no more money, there's no lock box. You are on your own." and you are suddenly stuck with no income.

1) Where is all the money you gave him?

2) Who is to blame for the getting you into this mess?

3) Who is responsible to pay for your retirement now?

4) Do your answers change if you replace the name "Ponzi" with the name "Social Security"?

Please, check out the following links:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/people-not-labor-for...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/03...

They prove that our economy is in shambles (obvious to anybody not drinking the Kool-aid). Obviously, it would be absurd to blame it entirely on Obama, there are many factors. But, just as obvious is the fact that Obama, and his policies, are NOT the answer. You can not argue, based on any facts, that Obama has been good for the economy, you simply can't. I'm not asking you to vote for Romney, I'm just asking that you look at the facts and recognize that Obama is a failure. Please, before you go into the booth and vote for Obama, look at these links, and all other real data you can get your hands on. We are in very deep trouble, now is not the time for empty rhetoric like "hope and change". Now is the time for real answers and real solutions .Obama's track record over the last 4 years proves beyond doubt that he is NOT the answer. Can you handle the truth?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-pe...

Seriously, all you uninformed people out there are hollering about 8.3% unemployment, but you ignore how it is calculated. The fact is that 1.2 million people left the workforce IN ONE MONTH! That is not recovery, that is a disaster.

Do these facts not affect your opinion at all? If not, why not?

Ok liberals, please explain to me why this is a crime, and why it should be.

Let's say my 8 year old son wants to play football. To do that he needs pads,helmet, cleats, etc. These days that can add up to quite a bit of money. Since he gets out of school at 2:30pm and we generally don't eat dinner until about 6:00pm, he has a couple hours of free time after school. We live next door to several small stores (restaurants, dry cleaners, barber shop, etc.). To earn money for his football gear, he wants to go to all these places and do menial labor (sweeping floors, taking out the trash, etc.) for a couple bucks an hour (maybe $3 or $4).

So, he is still in school, he is only working for 2 or 3 hours a day at most, he gets the football gear he wants, he is learning the value of work, and he is not putting any adults out of work. Why is this a crime? And why do liberals think it deserves to be a crime? Why do you think somebody like Newt is the anti-Christ for suggesting that this scenario is a good thing? I truly can not comprehend it. Please, explain it to me.

Hypothetical situation:

20 Muslims open fire in 20 shopping malls across America. They use handguns, killing hundreds and wrecking the economy (people afraid to shop). In response, the federal government bans all hand guns (for our own protection). This is a gross and blatant violation of the 2nd amendment, so the NRA and others disobey the law and begin organizing resistance. If the president orders you to start killing NRA members and anybody that refuses to surrender guns, do you obey?

You say that government should put a gun in our face and force us into Social Security for our own good.

You say that government should put a gun in our face and force us into Health insurance for our own good.

You say that government should put a gun in our face and force us into Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc. for our own good.

You say that government should put a gun in our face and force us into Minimum wage, unions, OSHA, etc. for our own good.

What about giving blood? That literally saves lives, should government force us at gun point to give blood?

What about brushing our teeth and washing our hands? That will give us better quality of life and reduce health care costs, should government force us at gun point to do those things?

What about helping a little old lady cross the street? That's the good, decent, patriotic thing do do, right? Should government put a gun in our face and force us to help granny cross the street?

The point is that there are lots of things we should do for own own benefit and the benefit of others (plan for our retirement, give to charity, donate blood, help granny cross the street, etc.), so where exactly is the line where government should put a gun in our face and force us to act? Seriously, if you think retirement planning is so incredibly important that it warrants our government forcing us at gun point to do it, then why not something like giving blood? On what basis do you decide which rights are ok to give up (right to control our retirement, health care, wages, etc), and which rights are ok to keep (right to not donate blood, right to dirty teeth, etc.). Is there some kind of guiding principle or do you just make it up as you go along?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/5...

Ridiculous. He bows to foreign monarchs (emperor of Japan, King of Saudi Arabia). And then he tries to apologize for winning a war that we didn't start.

America will be apologizing for Obama for generations to come. I'm embarrassed and ashamed that my country could ever elect such a worthless sack of excrement to "lead" us.

I have been desperately searching for them, but I am unable to find any of them.

I have also been unable to find "redistribute the wealth".

If none of these things are in the Constitution (and they aren't), then how can you as President believe that they are a part of your job description. Haven't you ever read the Constitution?

I play flag football. Nobody forces me to do it, it's just something I enjoy. But as a result I have ended up in the E.R. a few times over the last 6 years (broken bones, sprained ankles, etc.). It's just a part of the game, stuff happens, and I accept that when I choose to play.

My best friend does not play football and has not been in the E.R. at all over the last 6 years.

So, let me get this straight: instead of me paying for my trips to the E.R., some people are in favor of a single payer system (universal health care) where my friend and I would both pay higher taxes to pay for my trips to the E.R. What color is the sky in the universe where that makes sense? My friend doesn't play football, he didn't force me to play football, and he could not stop me from playing football. In no way at all is he responsible for my activities or the medical bills I incur from it. So how can anybody justify raising his taxes to pay for it? That is literally insane, not to mention a gross violation of his basic human rights.

I chose football as an example, but you could use anything else that people do that results in medical bills (eating junk food, not exercising, drinking, smoking, whoring around, refusing to wash your hands, etc.). The fact is that most medical bills are a consequence of choices that people make. How can you justify taxing money from 1 person to pay for the consequences of another person's choice? You can't. It's immoral, unethical, and illegal. So how on Earth can anybody support the insane concept of a single-payer or universal health care system?

Can anyone help me with a question about employer liability in Florida in regards to employees carrying a concealed weapon on company premises?

I know that the law states the employer has no liability in the parking lot, Meaning that an employee can bring a concealed weapon into the parking lot and if he commits a crime the employer has no liability. However, I have not found any information in the statutes or anywhere else about employer liability on the premises. In other words, if an employee has a valid Concealed Weapons License and the employer allows that employee to carry on company property, if that employee then commits a crime with the weapon is there any liability for the employer?

If somebody was terrorizing your family, and you kept calling the police, but they never did anything, wouldn't you eventually take matters into your own hands? Yes, the police are there to protect and serve, but if they refuse to do their job, that does not mean you are required to be a victim. You have the right to defend yourself, even if nobody else will help you.

So how is it different if your government is constantly abusing your rights and nobody will do anything about it? We've been voting for people that promise to protect us for decades, and yet nothing happens. At some point we must come to the realization that the people we hire to protect and serve have failed and take it into our own hands. Again, we have a basic human right to self defense. That is not limited to defending yourself from street thugs, it also applies to defending yourself from your government. That is the whole point of the 2nd amendment, and the reason it exists.

I don't want to get into a gun fight with gangs, but if that is what is required to protect the life of my family, I'll do it. I don't want to start armed rebellion against my government, but if that is required to protect my basic human rights, I'll do it. Nobody wants to do that, and it is a last resort, but it is always on the table.

"that whenever ANY form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the people to alter or abolish it" - U.S. Declaration of Independence.

Here's my plan. Millions of Americans need to break into the White House and Capitol. When they try to stop us or kick us out, we will just explain to them that we are not criminals, we are simply undocumented workers. The people in the White House and Capitol make more than $100K per year, more than twice the national average, we simply want to make a better life for ourselves and our families. And now that we have a 1/2 black president, we can even claim that they are racists for trying to remove us since clearly skin color would be the only possible reason they don't want us there.

Remember, no human is illegal, even if they are on your property without your permission. So what do you say my fellow Americans? Will you join me as an undocumented worker inside the halls of the White House and Capitol?

Let's say there are 5 people that live in a neighborhood. 4 of them are poor or middle class and 1 is rich.

Scenario 1: One of the poor people gets sick and can't afford the treatments. The 4 non-rich neighbors decide the rich person can afford to pay, but they are afraid he will say "no" if they ask. So all 4 (the majority) get their guns, go to the rich neighbor's house and forcibly redistribute his wealth to the sick person.

This is a crime. Sure the people have good intentions (helping the sick person), but it does not change the fact that they used force to steal money that was not theirs. The rich man's rights were violated and the 4, even though they are a majority, are guilty and would be punished.

Scenario 2: One of the poor people gets sick and can't afford the treatments. The 4 non-rich neighbors decide the rich person can afford to pay, but they are afraid he will say "no" if they ask. So they hire Tony Soprano to go to the rich neighbor's house and forcibly redistribute his wealth to the sick person.

This is a crime. They didn't commit the theft themselves, but they hired somebody to do it for them, and thus they are still guilty.

Scenario 3: One of the poor people gets sick and can't afford the treatments. The 4 non-rich neighbors decide the rich person can afford to pay, but they are afraid he will say "no" if they ask. So they hire Obama to send the IRS to the rich neighbor's house and forcibly redistribute his wealth to the sick person.

For some reason, this is not considered a crime by many people. Can you explain this inconsistency to me? Nothing changed from scenario 1 and 2. In all 3 scenarios, the exact same thing happened: based on good intentions, the majority used force to steal money from the minority.

Citizen A wants a socialized "safety net". So he voluntarily joins together with other people that feel the same. For a low monthly fee, they purchase a policy from any one of several competing companies. People that pay in to the system receive benefits, people that don't pay in don't get benefits.

Citizen B does not want a socialized "saftey net". He does not buy a policy and receives no benefits.

So what is wrong with this solution? We use it for life insurance, car insurance, home insurance, renter's insurance, etc. Why when a conservative proposes this do liberals freak out and say stupid stuff like "you just want all old and sick people to die"?

This solution gives everyone the freedom to choose whether they want to participate (a basic human right) who they want to participate with, and how much they want to participate. And since it is controlled by the private sector, there is no fear that politicians will steal the money and use it to buy votes (like they did with Social Security).

I just don't understand how there is any opposition to a solution like this, please enlighten me if you can.

Since the end of World War 2 federal spending has never gone down. Not 1 time.

In my lifetime:

Reagan said he would cut spending, he did not.

Bush said he would cut spending, he did not.

Clinton said he would cut spending, he did not.

The Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 on the promise that they would cut spending, they did not.

Bush said he would cut spending, he did not.

The Republican Congress said it would cut spending, it did not.

Obama promises that sometime in the future when the economy is fixed, he will cut spending...he will not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal...

Look at the graph about 3/4 down the page. For 60 years, everyone in both parties has been promising to cut spending, nobody has done it. Not 1 time.

So, the fact is that Obama and the Dem Congress has increased spending. The fact is that spending has not gone down, not 1 single time in 60 years. So, despite these facts, why do you believe that Obama will cut spending? Where is he going to cut it from? Entitlements? He loses the votes of old people. Military? He loses mililtary and moderate votes. Bail outs? He loses union votes and corporate votes. Just like every politician, he is lying. He campaigns on a promise to cut spending, but when he is in office he can't do it, it is impossible because he will lose votes which will hurt his personal power and his party, and that is the ONLY thing he honestly cares about.

This is not an anti-Obama question, because as you can see, the Republicans are just as bad. The question is about you as an individual. Why do you refuse to see the facts and just blindly believe that a politician will do the impossible?

Would you obey an order to return a state to the union?

Let's say that a state decides to secede peacefully. They simply get tired of all the B.S. in Washington D.C. and decide they want out.

If the president ordered you to return the state to the union, by force if necessary, would you follow that order?

It seems pretty obvious that our country is hopelessly divided between those that favor government, and those that favor liberty. Instead of fighting the inevitable civil war, I propose a peaceful (mostly) solution: we declare independence and go our own way.

What this is: A declaration that we no longer recognize the federal government as a legitimate authority. A declaration that we will recognize no federal law or statute and pay no federal taxes. A declaration that we absolve ourselves from all debt accrued in our name by the government.

What this is not: It is not a seperation from the Constitution. We still recognize the legitimacy of the Constitution, just not the current government. It is not a declaration of war. It is not a declaration of anarchy, all state and local authority is still recognized. It is not secession, since we still recognize the Constitution.

After the declaration, the newly independent people and states that signed the declaration would organize a new federal government based upon the existing Constitution. Once a new federal government is organized, we will recognize its authority, obey its laws, and pay taxes to it.

It should be a mostly peaceful process. I'm sure they old government will be mad and arrest and murder a few people to try to keep their power, but we should be able to avoid all out war.

Before you answer, please take time to think it over carefully. It would mean putting yourself and your family at risk of arrest and murder at the hands of the current government. This is not a decision to be taken lightly.

Is there anybody out there that would support this modern declaration of independence?

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government" - Thomas Paine.

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." - Declaration of Independence.

Some people say health care should be non-profit and should be provided at cost.

So how do you define cost? Only the cost of materials like medicine, medical instruments, etc? What about labor? Don't the doctors have to feed thier families too? So how much does selling at "cost" allow a doctor to make? $20K per year? $60K per year? $200K per year? Which is "cost" What if the doctor has no kids, what if he has 10 kids? What if he drives a Toyota, what if he drives a BMW? What if he lives in the city, what if he lives in the suburbs?

Who defines what "cost" is? How do you come up with a "cost" that covers every possible set of circumstances?

On what authority do you have the right to dictate to another person what their costs are?

If health care is a right, then it can't be denied right? But what if the cure costs $100,000? What if it costs $1,000,000? What if it costs $1,000,000,000 (1 billion)? It is a "right", so your fellow man MUST provide it to you no matter the cost, right? After all, if it is a right, you can't put a limit on it. Just like you can't say you have a right to free speech, but can only say 1,000 words; or you have a right to life but can only live 60 years. If it is a right, then it is unlimited. Even if it costs $1 trillion to save 1 life, we must pay because it is a "right", right?

Or is health care a service and not a right? Is it a commodity that you can purchase as long as you can afford the price? If it is not a right, then how can you force another person to pay for it? If you walk into a grocery store and steal food at gun point because you can't afford it, isn't that a crime? So then if you can't afford your cancer treatment and steal the money to pay for it from somebody else, isn't that a crime? Does being hungry or sick, justify anything and everything? Are the victims not victims anymore because you are hungry or sick? Doesn't the good of the many outweigh the good of the individual? So how can you harm the entire community by stealing their rights and property to save 1 person?

So which is it? Is health care a right, and therefore we can not deny it to any person, even if it costs every sinlge penny of the entire community? Or is health care a service like any other that you alone are responsible for; and it would be unjust to harm the community to get it for yourself?