Documenting Democrats' Double Talking and Double Think

national debt

March 16, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S2237

Are we supposed to believe what Obama says NOW or what he said on 3/16/06?

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion......................................................

http://www.gpo.gov/.../pdf/CREC-2006-03-16-pt1-PgS2236.pdf

Are we supposed to believe what Reid says NOW or what he said on 3/16/06?

"Mr. REID: ........If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today, and more than $3 trillion dollars over the last 5 years, is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they believe more debt is good for our economy. How can the Republican majority and this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars of new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it is fair to force our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes? That is what will have to happen. Why is it right to increase this Nation's dependence on foreign creditors? They should explain this.
   Maybe they can convince the public they are right. I doubt it, because most Americans know that increasing the debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the baby boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.
   Again, on debt--Thomas Jefferson. These are his words:
   And to preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty--or profusion and servitude.
   That was President Thomas Jefferson.
   Democrats will not be making arguments to support this legislation which will weaken our country. The President often speaks of personal responsibility. In a speech before African-American leaders earlier in his administration, the President stated that a President is judged not by the words he speaks but by the work he leaves behind. By that benchmark, the President and this Republican-controlled Congress will not be judged kindly with respect to the stewardship of our Nation's finances.
   We are being asked to do what should not be asked of us, to increase the debt to almost $9 trillion. I hope everyone walking down to these desks today will understand what they are doing, what they are doing to our country. On this side of the aisle, we know.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2006-03-16/pdf/CREC-2006-03-16-pt1-PgS2225-5.pdf

September 9, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESSON HEALTH CARE

U.S. Capitol Washington, D.C.

Are we supposed to believe what Obama says NOW or what he said on 9/9/09?

  First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future.  (Applause.)  I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.  And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize.  (Applause.)  Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for -- from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy.  (Applause.)  I will not make that same mistake with health care.  

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care

My experience with the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," AKA "Obamacare."

I have to say this "ACA" is less reputable for its claim of making health care affordable. Here is the scam of Obamacare.

 In my case, I was paying a $750 deductible and about $750 a month for insurance. Since my Providence healthcare is mandated to comply with the ACA, now I have a $2,500 deductable with my $750 a month insurance premium.

THEREFORE, I am going to have to pay an extra $1750 a year to get the same benefits. Not only that, but my costs at least doubled after the requirement that my insurance company was forced to accept members who had prior conditions and did not see fit to pay for insurance BEFORE they got sick.

Further, there is too much talk about data bases being combined to assure me my information will not be abused and my privacy violated just to prove compliance with the federal government and its various bureaucracies; starting with the IRS and the 100s of other committees created by this law.

I am John Lloyd Scharf, born 1951, and, because of cost increases imposed by Obamacare, have had to lose part of my benefit to take it at 62 instead of 66, when I would have been fully eligible for 100% of my benefits instead of 70%.


national debt

Furloughed Workers List

Democrats ignoring Obama's promise to veto Obamacare adding to the deficit in 2009 and now.

https://twitter.com/LeftsideAnnie/status/384117823280148481

Obama's claim of 8:45PM, September 9, 2009

TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS ON HEALTH CARE

"First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future.  (Applause.)  I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period." 

As Senator, Obama sponsored the PayGo or Sequester Process

110TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 10 To reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement and reduce budget deficits by strengthening budget enforcement and fiscal responsibility. JANUARY 4, 2007 Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. SALAZAR, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. KERRY, Mr. HARKIN, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. OBAMA, and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget

Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester

(July 12, 2011):

They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.

“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.

“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”

“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.

(July 26):

At 2:30 p.m., [White House Budget director Jack] Lew and [White House legislative affairs director Rob] Nabors went to the Senate to meet with [Senator Majority Leader Harry] Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. 

“We have an idea for a trigger,” Lew said.

“What’s the idea,” Reid asked skeptically. 

“Sequestration.”

Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he was going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling.

“A couple of weeks ago,” he said, “my staff said to me that there is one more possible” enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, “Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?”

Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained.

What would the impact be?

They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department….The idea was to make all of the threatened cuts so unthinkable and onerous that the supercommittee [tasked with making additional cuts] would do its work and come up with its own deficit reduction plan. Lew and Nabors went through a laundry list of programs that would face cuts.

“This is ridiculous,” Reid said.

That’s the beauty of a sequester, they said, it’s so ridiculous that no one ever wants it to happen. It was the bomb that no one wanted to drop. It actually would be an action-forcing event.

“I get it,” Reid said finally. 

This is the third reference to the White House putting together the plan for sequester. Granted, they are using language from a congressional law from a quarter-century earlier, but that seems a thin reed on which to say this came from Congress. In fact, Lew had been a policy advisor to then House Speaker Tip O’Neill from 1979 to 1987, and so was familiar with the law.

Republicans agreed to the White House proposal for a sequester.Republicans had to work through the night to understand the White House proposal.

BREAKING: The House will consider a bill this afternoon to delay #Obamacare by one year as well as keep the government running, repeal the medical device tax, and make sure that our military is paid in the event of a government shutdown.

Congressman Doug Lamborn

Then and now - Obama on ACA increasing the Deficit/Debt Limit and Democrats threatening a debt default.

OBAMA THREATENING TO SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT FOR OBAMACARE AFTER PROMISING NOT TO INCREASE DEFICIT WITH OBAMACARE  AND THEN BLAMING THE REPUBLICANS

September 9, 2009 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS ON HEALTH CARE: And here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize.


 "We have not seen this in the past that a budget is contingent on us eliminating a program that was voted on, passed by both chambers of Congress, ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, is two weeks from being fully implemented, and that helps 30 million people finally get health care coverage. We've never seen that become the issue around a budget battle. And so that's right now the primary roadblock to resolving the budget. "What's worse, that same faction has said, if we can't succeed in shutting the government down and leveraging that to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, we may be prepared to let the government default on our debt."

Banned On Facebook - Political Comment on "Breitbart- One Voice Silenced, Millions Awakened" Page

“You foolish American Infidels! Obama isn’t coming for OUR guns! Only yours! He is ARMING us for the JIHAD! See you soon!”  was at the base of a picture of Ali Beheshti, posing with a gun in this Metropolitan Police photo, who admitted conspiracy to endanger life. This was posted by a user on the Facebook page of Breitbart- One Voice Silenced, Millions Awakened. 

ALL of the administrators of that page were logged out for violating the Terms of Service because one of their members uploaded a picture that offended the delicate sensitivities of al Qaeda terrorists. 

Ali Beheshti once paraded his baby in an 'I love Al Qaeda' hat. Now he has been sentenced to four and a half years for firebombing the home of the publisher of a novel about Mohammed. You have to wonder how this terrorist, who looks like actor Dominic Purcell with a beard, was able to get a handgun in the United Kingdom. 

However, most of all, why does Facebook allows a Jihadist Facebook named Fuck Israel
 
to publish violent comments against Israelis while banning an image that is actually a political statement about the Obama Administration. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198111/If-choose-live-country-live-rules-says-judge-jails-Muslim-extremists-arson-attack-publishers-home.html#ixzz2fPDF6PqS 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Right to Firearms for Self Protection - Resource for Arguments

Second Amendment Foundation Court Cases
 http://www.2ndamendmentcourtcases.com/ http://www.facebook.com/notes/second-amendment-foundation/second-amendment-foundation-saf-gun-rights-legal-actions/10152404093150247

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER www.law.cornell.edu Weapons for war are what were intended by the Second Amendment. It was for assault weapons; not hunting rifles. You cannot regulate a right without losing it. It should be common knowledge the Supreme Court is on our side in this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html/07-290.ZO.html

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." District of Columbia v. Heller | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law www.oyez.org For the first time in seventy years, the Court heard a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws,,, The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290#opinion 

SUMMARY OF THE RECENT MCDONALD V. CHICAGO GUN CASE
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. 
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm 

After Heller, the federal government cannot prohibit the possession of handguns in the home. This case raises the question of whether the same restriction applies to state governments. McDonald argues that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right that states should not be able to infringe. Chicago argues that states should be able to tailor firearm regulation to local conditions. The outcome of this case will affect the ability of states to regulate the possession of handguns in their jurisdictions and could have far-reaching effects on long-held conceptions of federalism. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521 

Any civil or military agent of the Obama Administration who follows an illegal order will be subject to criminal penalties and civil law. Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the President of the United States does not have "inherent authority" or "inherent powers" which allow him to ignore a law passed by the United States Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_v._Barreme 
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/6/170/case.html 

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's interim provision commanding the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct background checks, §922(s)(2), is unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

Printz v. United States - 521 U.S. 898 (1996) Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act provisions require the Attorney General to establish a national system for instantly checking prospective handgun purchasers' backgrounds, note following 18 U. S. C. § 922, and command the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct such checks and perform related tasks on an interim basis until the national system becomes operative, § 922(s). Petitioners, the CLEOs for counties in Montana and Arizona, filed separate actions challenging the interim provisions' constitutionality. In each case, the District Court held that the background-check provision was unconstitutional, but concluded that it was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background-check system in place. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding none of the interim provisions unconstitutional. (e) Contrary to the contention of JUSTICE STEVENS' dissent, the Brady Act's direction of the actions of state executive officials is not constitutionally valid under Art. I, § 8, as a law "necessary and proper" to the execution of Congress's Commerce Clause power to regulate handgun sales. Where, as here, a law violates the state sovereignty principle, it is not a law "proper for carrying into Execution" delegated.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/case.html

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174

PARKER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [prior to DC vs Heller] http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E23F1D1340E39A99852574400045380B/$file/04-7041a.pdf http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0557.htm

On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court dismissed Castle Rock v. Gonzales on the grounds that there was no constitutional right to police protection.
http://mises.org/daily/5651

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found that Jessica Lenahan could sue the Castle Rock, Colorado, police department for its refusal in 1999 to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. The American courts had dismissed her case.
http://mises.org/daily/5651

The town of Castle Rock, Colorado and its police department could not be sued under 42 USC §1983 for failure to enforce a restraining order against respondent's husband, as enforcement of the restraining order does not constitute a property right for 14th Amendment purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

Respondent filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that petitioner violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children.... ... (a) The Due Process Clause’s procedural component does not protect everything that might be described as a government “benefit”: “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person … must … have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.htm

████████████████████████████████████████

JULY 15, 1991: Clarence Thomas, judging from his speeches and scholarly writings, seems instead to believe judges should enforce the Founders' natural law philosophy -- the inalienable rights "given man by his Creator" -- which he maintains is revealed most completely in the Declaration of Independence. He is the first Supreme Court nominee in 50 years to maintain that natural law should be readily consulted in constitutional interpretation.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/15/opinion/clarence-thomas-and-natural-law.html

“As Sheriff of Malheur County Oregon, I took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Oregon,” Wolfe said. “I cannot and will not stand idly by while the Constitutional rights of the citizens of this great country are violated by misguided government officials.” http://www.argusobserver.com/news/malheur-sheriff-joins-fray-over-guns/article_d17be314-6198-11e2-9ef3-0019bb2963f4.html 

Gun Control in Colonial New England http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/GunControlColonialNewEngland.PDF 

FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm ‎

(Data are for the U.S. and are final 2009 data; For the most recent preliminary data see Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011 [PDF - 1.7 MB]) 10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths by Age Group Highlighting Violence-Related Injury Deaths, United States – 2010 http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.pdf 

ARMED RESISTANCE TO CRIME: THE PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF SELF-DEFENSE WITH A GUN *Gary KleckMarc Gertz 
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm 

United States — Gun Facts, Figures and the Law http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states 

UNODC Homicide Statistics 
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html 

Annexe 4. The largest civilian firearms arsenals for 178 countries (ranked by averaged rate of civilian ownership, guns per 100 people) http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf 

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf 

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.htm 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook 

The city violent crime rate for Kennesaw in 2010 was lower than the national violent crime rate average by 85.16% and the city property crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the national property crime rate average by 46.46%. In 2010 the city violent crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the violent crime rate in Georgia by 85.15% and the city property crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the property crime rate in Georgia by 56.74%. 
http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html 

Crime Statistics Report (U.S. Crime Rates) [by State and then city] http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/ 

Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation Solicitation Number: HSCEMS-12-R-00011 Agency: Department of Homeland SecurityOffice: Immigration & Customs EnforcementLocation: ICE-OAQ-MS This announcement is being placed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) paragraph 5.207. It is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items. 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation and proposals are being requested. See attachments for complete details.
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0 

Natural Right To Bear Arms For Self Protection [Photo Album] http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151143565126457.495715.637766456 

MY PERSONAL ARGUMENT ABOUT BLAMING OBJECTS 
If you kill someone with a car,it is not in the federal crime statistics. I cannot think of a more violent crime. More people are killed by motor vehicles than all those involving firearms. Blunt objects did kill more than rifles in the FBI stats. Drunk drivers killed more than hand guns. If you re looking for the number one killer under 44, it is motor vehicles. Hand guns killed 6,220. 

ALL firearms killed 8,583 Drunk drivers killed 10,136 If you kill someone with a firearm other than justifiable homocide, you will be charged with a felony and never legally possess one again. If you kill someone with a motor vehicle, IF you are charged with a felony, you will never be able to possess a firearm, but you will in all likelihood be driving again in less than 10 years. 
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8http://www.madd.org/blog/2012/december/2011-State-data.html 

We DO Need Large Capacity Magazines misconceptions/preconceived notions about the nature of terminal ballistics and what really happens in a gunfight: People die immediately upon being shot. It is easy to shoot a moving person. You will face only a single attacker. http://jerkingthetrigger.com/blog/2013/02/06/we-do-need-large-capacity-magazines/ 

Fees Charged by NICS PC For States
http://www.nssf.org/PDF/NICS_POC_States.pdf 

You never need to demostrate a need for a right, but rights are there to fullfil needs. There is no justification for limiting magazine size. An example is given from North Carolina 
One Bullet Can Kill, but Sometimes 20 Don’t, Survivors Show - New York Times 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html 

When major organs — the heart and brain especially — and blood vessels are avoided, the chances of survival are good, they said. The catch, of course, is that there is no science to preventing a bullet from hitting a vital part of the body. This one is from Georgia: A Georgia mother shot an ex-convict six times to protect her and her children after he apparently forced his way into the family’s home..... The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area, Chapman said. But Slater, who has arrests dating to 2008 and was released from jail in August, was still conscious.“The guy’s face down, crying,” the sheriff said. The woman told him to stay down or she’d shoot again. 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/06/georgia-mom-home-alone-with-kids-shoots-ex-con-intruder/ 

Deputies found Slater bleeding profusely in a neighbor’s driveway. “I’m dying. Help me,” he told them, according to Chapman. Slater was transported to Gwinnett Medical Center and is expected to survive, the sheriff said. ...Slater has six other arrests in Gwinnett dating back to 2008, according to jail records.... 
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/

Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman said the suspect, Paul Ali Slater, is now “walking and talking” after recovering for more than a month at Gwinnett Medical Center. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports (http://bit.ly/WfI2HC) that bullets punctured his lungs, liver and stomach. He faces aggravated assault and burglary charges. http://valdostadailytimes.com/todays-top-stories/x2056613562/Man-shot-by-Ga-mom-in-home-invasion-recovering-from-wounds

WHY DO WE NEED FULLY ARMED CITIZENS? EXAMPLE: 
Battle of Athens (1946) The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htmhttp://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

GUN CONFISCATION IS NOT JUST A FEAR; IT IS A STATED GOAL
Dianne Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 - She wanted to Ban all guns,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo