The third definition of "patriot" in the Oxford English Dictionary is "A person actively opposing enemy forces occupying his or her country; a member of a resistance movement, a freedom fighter. Originally used of those who opposed and fought the British in the American War of Independence."
The term first was used in the U.S. by Benjamin Franklin in a 1773 letter. It referred to people who stood in opposition of those pledged to the British Crown — the Tories aka loyalists.
It's time to take stock of where we stand as a nation. The election of 2012 offers us a stark contrast, between candidates who are looking to protect our Second Amendment rights and those who seek to restrict those same freedoms. Over the past month, I've been alerting you to some dangers on the horizon. As we consider the path we are about to embark upon, it's good to recall what's at stake.
We need to prevent the next president from appointing a Supreme Court that would reverse the two landmark Second Amendment cases — Heller and McDonald. In those decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that all American citizens, no matter where they live, have the right to legally possess a firearm as a means of self-defense. These decisions were a tremendous accomplishment, and they finally ratified what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they drafted the Second Amendment.
Sometimes, as the saying goes, the truth really is stranger than fiction. There may have been some wild plotlines on "Walker, Texas Ranger," but there was nothing that compares to the scandal surrounding "Fast and Furious" — the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operation that resulted in the loss of a distinguished Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry.
The congressional investigation into "Fast and Furious" has been going on for more than a year, but it was stonewalled by Attorney General Eric Holder, who instead opened an internal investigation by the Department of Justice's inspector general. Tens of thousands of internal Justice Department documents supplied to the inspector general were withheld from Congress, despite having been requested in a lawful subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This act of stubborn defiance resulted in Holder's becoming the first attorney general to be voted in contempt of Congress. Now Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report finally has been released, but it leaves some critical questions unanswered. Before delving into specifics, let me thank Townhall's Katie Pavlich for her help deciphering the report, as well as her groundbreaking reporting on this issue from day one.
Last time I checked, Americans were responsible for making our own laws. We do not invite foreign nations to have a say in how we govern ourselves within our own borders. Yet if you follow what's been going on with the United Nations this year, you know that the USA came perilously close to having other countries dictate our gun laws. And the fight isn't over yet.
The United Nations has been debating an arms trade treaty for nearly a decade now. Though the treaty is ostensibly focused on military arms, it has long been clear that the majority of U.N. delegates consider our personal firearms to be crying out for international regulation, as well. The focus of the treaty would be a demand that governments regulate the sale and possession of firearms worldwide — all of them, including yours and mine.
I believe freedom is worth fighting for. I am committed to protecting the freedoms our forefathers guaranteed to us in our Constitution. There are many politicians who disagree with me, although they are loath to admit it, but their true colors show in voting records on critical legislation. And part of what makes America great is that every two years, we, too, cast our votes, rendering judgment on whether lawmakers have fulfilled their promises. And every four years, as in 2012, our opportunity extends to the highest office in the land.
Less than 60 days remains before Election Day. I don't need to tell you how important this election is to the future of our country. The stakes are high, and that's why I proudly serve as honorary chairman of Trigger The Vote, the National Rifle Association's nonpartisan campaign to register voters who support the Second Amendment. As a proud gun owner and defender of our Constitution, I am working within the system to make sure my voice is heard in Washington.
In 2010, President Barack Obama confessed to ABC News' Diane Sawyer, "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." But what if Obama's one term was not good but bad for the country?
The past two weeks, I've given the first eight reasons not to re-elect President Obama. Though I would encourage readers to read the details in each of those points, here they are in summary:
The New York Times reported, "With waning approval ratings and a stagnant economy, the possibility that Mr. Obama will not be re-elected has entered the political bloodstream." It's more than entered; it's flowing strong.
Last week in Part 1, I began to list my Top 10 reasons not to re-elect President Obama. Though I would encourage readers to read the details of each of those points, here they are in summary:
On Feb. 2, 2009, President Barack Obama explained his chance to fix the economy to host Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today": "I will be held accountable. I've got four years. ... If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
Here are the top 10 reasons I believe President Obama shouldn't sit a single day beyond his one term in the Oval Office:
Last Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted on his website his most recent anti-Semitic tirade, saying global forces should join together to annihilate Israel. Meanwhile, in Orlando, Fla., President Barack Obama had a takeout plate of pulled pork and rice.
The Jerusalem Post reported Ahmadinejad as saying, "Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom."
President Barack Obama's recent business-related comments in Virginia ("If you've got a business — you didn't build that; somebody else made that happen") sounded more communistic than capitalistic, especially because the "somebody" to whom Obama referred was in fact the U.S. government.
Progressives and the mainstream media were quick to come to the aid of the president by stating that similar statements have been said by other entrepreneurial moguls, such as Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Andrew Carnegie and Walter Chrysler. Others excused Obama by saying he "borrowed" his business verbiage from Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.
In 2007, when I began writing my New York Times best-seller "Black Belt Patriotism," unemployment was less than 5 percent; the annual federal budget was about $2.9 trillion; the federal deficit was $161 billion; and the national debt was $9 trillion.
Today unemployment is stuck at 8.2 percent; the federal budget is $3.8 trillion; the national deficit is $1.3 trillion; and the national debt quickly is approaching a staggering $16 trillion.
A Boy Scouts of America national board member, James Turley, who is also global chairman and CEO of the accounting firm Ernst & Young, recently said he "will work from within to seek a change" to overturn the BSA policy that bans gay Scouts and leaders. But is Turley working on his own initiative, or has the White House prodded him with perks and favors?
Is it a coincidence that Turley came out swinging against the BSA's century-old policy to ban gays from leadership and that he has such close affiliations with the pro-gay Obama administration?
Do you remember when President George H.W. Bush made the promise not to raise taxes ("Read my lips: No new taxes") but unfortunately was talked into raising taxes and it cost him in his bid for a second term?
If President Bush No. 41 could lose a re-election by breaking one promise, how can President Barack Obama win a second term when he has broken a truckload of promises?
How much power does the president actually possess?
That is a question at the heart of most debates about the federal government. Declaring war, writing executive orders, legislating, allocating taxpayers' money and even influencing what your children learn and eat are just a very small sample of subjects hotly under dispute right now.
Wisconsin Democrats, Washington elite and insiders, and liberal special interests have joined together to fight for the recall of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in Tuesday's election. But this past Friday, when I saw them also send in the big gun — former President Bill Clinton himself — against Gov. Walker, I knew I had to enter the ring, too.
The Los Angeles Times reported last Thursday: "Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced Thursday that Clinton would be campaigning with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett as he looks to unseat Gov. Scott Walker in next week's recall. The former president will take part in a rally with Barrett, according to the Barrett's website."
On May 23, President Barack Obama told more than 1,000 jubilant, uniform-prepped-and-polished graduates of the U.S. Air Force Academy that the world has a "new feeling about America." He declared: "I see it everywhere I go, from London and Prague to Tokyo and Seoul to Rio and Jakarta. There's a new confidence in our leadership." If only it were true.
Obama boasted, "We can say with confidence and pride: The United States is stronger, safer and more respected in the world."
WTHR, the NBC affiliate in Indianapolis, recently reported about how millions of illegal aliens are getting billions of dollars in U.S. tax refunds without having paid a dime in income taxes. The story instantly went viral because it's true. You won't believe what illegals are getting away with, and our government is enabling them.
With Mother's Day right at our back, I want to address one of the most extreme overreaches by the federal government into American homes that I've seen in a long time. Then I want to call on my own 91-year-old mother, who was raised in rural Oklahoma and worked in cotton fields with her family during the Great Depression, to help set straight the rural farm and child labor record.
After a national decry by American farmers (and all of us who support them), the Obama administration has just shelved its plan to severely restrict kids younger than 16 from working on family farms. But mark my words. As the feds often do, they merely are regrouping to march again on those great American homesteads.
Last week, I showed how the Republican Party likely would lose the presidential election in November if it were to use conventional campaign tactics. However, I also explained an unconventional strategy that could usher in victory for the GOP and our republic — a tactic used by President Abraham Lincoln.
This week, I want to elaborate more on Lincoln's concept of a team of rivals — and who could be a part of it — and also share with you the inspiring dream my wife, Gena, had that we both hope comes true.
With President Barack Obama's officially starting his campaign this Saturday, many are wondering whether the GOP front-runner and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, has a real chance at winning the general election. But I know a way he could pull it off, and my wife, Gena, even dreamed about it.
I said that I would vote for whichever candidate won the GOP nomination. As of this writing, it appears to be Romney. Truthfully, I believe that Mitt has the skills and organization to defeat Obama and stop his fundamental transformation of America. We all know what four more years of increased socialistic decisions would do to our country.
For many, the term "sheriff" conjures up images of the Old West. A few may consider a sheriff to have some form of outdated and obsolete political office. But for me and countless other patriots across our nation, a sheriff is the epitome of good and necessary county law enforcement.
As documented on the Durham County, N.C., website, the position of sheriff originated in England more than 1,000 years ago, known then as a shire-reeve, who was "the steward of the King's estates, guardian of the peace, judge and jury of the Shire County (county court) and was the local agent of the King in military affairs. The King also appointed him as the Chief Police Magistrate."
President Barack Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department have a new obsession to obstruct any state's passing of voter identification laws, even recently attacking South Carolina and my own state of Texas. Holder calls voter ID laws "unnecessary" and says voter fraud "doesn't exist," but new video proof in his own voting precinct proves otherwise.
Obama's administration says it's against voter ID laws because it is trying valiantly to keep minorities and the poor from being unfairly discriminated against. But the truth is that it is trying to keep President Obama in office. It knows that voter IDs are bad business for this White House's campaign and re-election.
In my column two weeks ago, "Not All Presidential Orders Are Created Equal," I discussed some specifics in President Barack Obama's March 16 executive order, "National Defense Resources Preparedness," and how it is a completely audacious overreach of presidential power, especially enacting peacetime martial law.
Here I will discuss why analysts are wrong for simply overlooking it as a benign order similar to other presidents' orders.
Though I have concern that every American citizen has affordable health care, too, I have grave concerns about the opinion that the federal government holds the true solution.
History shows that whenever government oversees personal welfare (such as with Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and Social Security), the program is inept, broken, intrusive, impersonalized, oppressive or often bankrupt.
In his typical duck-'n'-dodge fashion, President Barack Obama spewed his 115th executive order upon the American public on a late Friday afternoon, March 16. Cloaked in one of Obama's candy-coated, grandiloquent titles, the "National Defense Resources Preparedness" executive order set the blogosphere ablaze this past week.
Canada Free Press ran an article titled "Obama Executive Order: Peacetime Martial Law!" An Examiner.com article similarly declared that the order would "nationalize everything" and "allow for a civilian draft." And the Drudge Report ran a story headlined "Martial Law? Obama issues Executive Order: the National Defense Resources Preparedness."
The video that the late Andrew Breitbart released of Barack Obama during his Harvard days revealed one more link in the president's early chain of associations with radicals. But I watched a video a couple of weeks ago that I believe is far more incriminating for our president because it shows the present fallout from his radical agenda, including the redistribution of wealth.
Obama has been called the "food stamp president" because more federal grocery subsidies have been given out under his presidency than were under most others combined. But far more than that, this president is the sultan of socialist swing with his assault of federal government entitlement expansions (Obamacare), spending, accruing of national debt, interdictions, seizures, regulations, overreaches, unilateral legislation, czars, presidential orders, Chicago-style politics, etc., and he has the uncanny ability to make most people believe he's doing none of them.
President Barack Obama's energy plan involves radically increasing gas prices to the European rate of about $10 a gallon. And he's well on his way, as gas prices have more than doubled since he took office in January 2009, when gasoline was only $1.79 per gallon. And he's scheming to double prices again in his second term, with you footing the bill.
It's no secret that we're being gouged at the pumps. The reason for soaring gas prices? According to Obama, it's not because of anything he has done — not his devaluing the dollar via his disastrous economic decisions, his closing federal lands for oil production opened by his predecessor, his passing cap-and-trade legislation in the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression or his refusing to stand strong against the regime in Iran, which controls 20 percent of the world's oil supply via the Strait of Hormuz.