Skip to content
Advertisements

Barack Obama signs law which will limit free speech at political events

March 14, 2012

  Last Thursday the president secretly signed into law a bill which will place limits both our right to free speech and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances–a direct assault on the first amendment. I first read about this troubling story this morning on Sentry Journal and Bunkerville, I suggest you read both these excellent blogs for their take on this issue.

  What this bill–H.R. 347–does is give the president the authority to grant anyone he wants Secret Service protection, and it grants the person who receives the protection the authority to unilaterally declare that it is illegal for people to protest at an event he or she is attending. This bill goes so far as to make it a felony offense to disregard this order. This bill is effectively limiting political speech at a political event.

    You can be charged with a felony for exercising your first amendment right at a political event based on the whim of a politician or one of his minions, and what is most disturbing about this story is the secrecy in which this bill was moved through the Congress, and the amount of bipartisan support it received from people in the Congress who spout constitutional ideals every chance they get–namely the people that won election claiming to be Tea Party candidates.

  Barack Obama promised to fundamentally change America, but what is the fundamental law of the United States? The constitution, so if Barack Obama wants to change America fundamentally it goes without saying this means he was talking about changing–or dismantling–the constitution. There can be no other way to change the fundamentals of the country without changing the fundamental document governing the country, and that is precisely what he is doing. And our Congress has fallen right in line in alarming numbers.

Advertisements
69 Comments leave one →
  1. March 14, 2012 7:45 pm

    I think it would behoove us to tell him to shove it. This morning I forwarded a Fox News story reporting that the DNC Hq in Lake Co., Fl had super imposed Obama’s face on an American flag. Your report is just more of the same type of rot eating away at the fabric of our traditions and freedom. (See link to article below.)

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/14/us-flag-depicting-president-obama-removed-from-floridas-lake-county-democratic/#ixzz1p6tnmSTO

    The following was my accompanying comment :

    “This is another disgusting display of narcissistic arrogance on the part of the Democrats and Comrade Obama. The only thing missing was his Che Guevara tee shirt and Mao cap….I guess we were expected to pledge allegiance to the new messiah – Yes change is here.”

    With that said those of us who pay attention have no illusions as to what this creature and his henchman are up to. Unfortunately their agenda seems closer and closer to fruition….WM

    Like

    • March 14, 2012 9:00 pm

      I heard about this earlier today as well. Apparently these people do not know that this is a violation of the flag code, on top of the arrogance it shows, it also shows a lack of respect for the flag.

      Like

      • March 15, 2012 9:53 am

        There is a lot of ignorance on both sides of the aisle. The most common one that I’ve seen at Tea Party protests is people with article of clothing with the flag on it. The worst I seen was someone superimposed the Gadsden snake on it.

        Like

      • March 15, 2012 7:58 pm

        It is true Terrant, I see lots of people also wearing the flag on their shirts, Old Navy does this quite a bit, and that is also a violation of the flag code. Personally, I don’t wear a shirt with the flag on it for this reason.

        Like

      • April 24, 2012 8:18 am

        I beg to differ, in part. IF a “flag” is altered into something else, then it’s wrong. BUT – If an article of clothing, or other item to display or wear, was NEVER originally produced as a FLAG, then I’m fine with it. I wear several articles of clothing with stars and stripes as part of the pattern. Defacing the FLAG is one thing. Likenesses that were never a FLAG, is another.
        I’d also be in favor of protecting the FLAG from willful destruction, but ONLT actual FLAGS. Even then, we have to be careful in being too broad in that description. I’d prefer to specify a FLAG, meant and produced for the sole purpose of being flown as a flag.
        Personally, I’d prefer to have a right to knock the crap out of flag burners. But, I absolutely believe in free speech. Our amendments MUST be protected first.

        Like

  2. March 14, 2012 7:49 pm

    I would further add that maybe it’s time for us, the real 99 percent, to “re-occupy” our country and send this carpetbagger and his harpies packing….WM

    Like

    • March 14, 2012 9:01 pm

      I think it is way passed the time to send these people packing.

      Like

  3. March 14, 2012 8:02 pm

    I have already mentioned this on Bunkerville’s blog, and at Sentry Journal, but I totally can not understand why Oklahoma Senators Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe let this slide through the Senate. They should have slammed the brakes on it, but they didn’t. It really makes me wonder.

    Like

    • March 14, 2012 9:01 pm

      That is what is most frustrating Larry, how did this ever make it to Obama’s desk with the huge support it had?

      Like

      • July 20, 2012 2:59 pm

        Steve, “how did this ever make it to Obama’s desk with the huge support it had”? You answered your own question. It was supported bipartisan. As all statutes (that limit more and more of our freedoms) are passed. It matters not who is president, rep, dem, or whoever. The agenda is to corral the people. Thin the herd and psychologically emasculate us. We have been literally sold down the river. Soon they’ll come knocking down our doors and putting us in detention camps, like they did the decedents of Japanese not so long ago.

        Like

      • July 20, 2012 7:37 pm

        The fact that the Tea Party went along with this is perhaps what is most troublesome to me, they were elected to stop this kind of nonsense but they sold us down the river.

        Like

  4. lou222 permalink
    March 14, 2012 8:09 pm

    It is happening one step at a time. Does this apply to townhall meetings? Does it apply if someone is campaigning? Who decides if someone gets the SS protection? Is it going to be bi-partisan in its’ usage? Lots of questions, isn’t there? In other words, we can’t protest or speak out or we get picked up? Wow! I can’t believe that something like this would pass. Limits the free speech a bit, doesn’t it?

    Like

    • March 14, 2012 9:04 pm

      The president gets to decide who gets the Secret Service, so I would expect that Democrats campaigning would have the service and protests would be banned, while Republicans would be denied the service and protests would be allowed. All in an attempt at propaganda to make the American people think that nobody wants to protest the Democrats, while portraying everyone as being against the Republicans.

      Like

      • lou222 permalink
        March 14, 2012 9:22 pm

        I had the feeling that it would be partisan, just wondered if I was alone in my thinking. We are just being further and further taken down as a nation. I can’t imagine that even the liberals would want this, but I could be wrong. Is there a list of WHO voted for this bill that you know of? I would be curious to see who is selling us out, quickly.

        Like

      • March 14, 2012 9:30 pm

        You are not alone, that is for sure. This is an unbelievable assault on the first amendment. Here is a link to the House vote, only three people voted against it. I don’t have the Senate vote.

        Like

      • July 20, 2012 3:28 pm

        Google “Council of Governors” you’ll see that the political part matters not. While you’re at it also do “Fusion Centers”. They’re watching every move we make and even if you read certain literature (that’s not inline with the main stream way of thinking) you get listed.

        Like

  5. Jim Knight permalink
    March 14, 2012 8:12 pm

    Jesus Christ!

    I am more flabbergasted than I have ever been about anything Obama and his cronies have done before this.

    Like

    • March 14, 2012 9:04 pm

      And that really has to be saying something!

      Like

  6. March 14, 2012 8:16 pm

    They didn’t even read it, Steve. This is supposed to be for the security of our politicians. But now that it is law, there is nothing to stop abuse of it. Any unfavorable protest can be shut down. With the Patriot Act, NDAA, and now this, we are going to have to change our national anthem; the line about the “home of the free”.

    Like

    • lou222 permalink
      March 14, 2012 8:45 pm

      C on F, who decides if it is unfavorable? That is going to be the problem. We have not been the “home of the free” for awhile, have we? I think there is alot we don’t know that has passed and won’t find out until it is implimented. Scarey stuff, isn’t it?

      Like

      • March 14, 2012 9:06 pm

        The president can give the SS to anyone he wants, and that person can decide what is unfavorable. yes it is very scary indeed!

        Like

    • March 14, 2012 9:05 pm

      I am not surprised they didn’t read it, that seems to be SOP for the Congress. They are closing in around us and there isn’t really much we can do about it.

      Like

      • lou222 permalink
        March 14, 2012 9:25 pm

        What happened to posting it on the internet for all of us to read, what was it 72 hours before the vote? That went by the wayside rather quickly, didn’t it? Who needs to read the bill, anyway. If they want to push something thru, it appears there is no one that is willing to stop it happening. What did we elect to Congress????

        Like

      • March 14, 2012 9:37 pm

        Yeah, that was a broken promise wasn’t it? I don’t think any bill ever got posted online before a vote, did it?

        Like

    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      March 15, 2012 12:02 am

      Looks as if those complaining didn’t read it either – the bill doesn’t give the protected person any special authority. Just lowers the bar a bit on prosecuting trespassers like Occupy people.

      Like

  7. stinkprogress permalink
    March 14, 2012 9:37 pm

    just amazing how they plod along unchallenged without a bit of concern for public opinion……spooky indeed

    Like

    • March 14, 2012 9:40 pm

      It sure is, the Congress has allowed much of the mandates, controversies, and appointments to go unchallenged. They have allowed Barack Obama to get away with quite a bit, but in this instance they went right along with him. It is so damned disappointing!

      Like

    • lou222 permalink
      March 14, 2012 9:57 pm

      SP, we have complained, but nothing is ever done about it. Where else do you go from there? Our Dept. of Justice, well, doubt they will look into it, if you know what I mean. It appears that they have it all sewn up in a bag and are running wild, as we sit here in amazement. I still hold the opinion that there is a file on each and every one of our Congress “people” and they don’t dare speak out, unless they are given the ok to do so. This presidents promises mean nothing, in fact when he DOES promise something we should really be watchful, because the opposite will happen, I believe nothing that comes out of that administration. Now, on top of that we have to watch what we say, as well. Wow!

      Like

      • March 15, 2012 8:01 pm

        They simply do not care about our conserns because they feel they no better than we do, because of this they ignore what we are saying. They simply do not care.

        Like

  8. bunkerville permalink
    March 14, 2012 10:31 pm

    Thanks for the link. Apparently not one person read it. What happened to posting bills for three days? This bill is the worse that NDAA in many ways. So much for the Tea Party members.

    Like

    • March 15, 2012 6:26 am

      You are welcome. The Tea Party let us down big time on this one, didn’t they?

      Like

  9. March 14, 2012 10:49 pm

    This bill is part of the 18 USC Chapter 84 – PRESIDENTIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL STAFF ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT and ONLY clarifies some of the language in the Restricted Building and Grounds section. The language is changed very little.

    This only applies to this code of regulations as it pertains to the safety of the President, VP, their staffs and other government officials like the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate.

    This particular part that is raising such concern has been around since 1971 so any fears of this being a “slippery slope” should be tempered as any banning of speech or protests would have happened long ago. This bill simply has nothing to do with protests or the banning of them or speech.

    Please look through the actual language of the bill ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:7:./temp/~c112A8HMTd:: ) and the more detailed descriptions on the Cornell Law School’s website:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-84

    Like

    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      March 15, 2012 11:31 am

      Absolutely correct – prosecution of offenders is made a little easier now because they cannot claim they didn’t know what they were doing was illegal. I’m surprised the cons are so up in arms about this, since it was passed with an overwhelming majority and reduces the prosecutorial burden. Their opposition seems to be based largely on the fact that President Obama signed it. They even characterize the signing as “in secret,” apparently because the media wasn’t invited to the actual signing, although the usual statement about the signing was made after the fact.

      Take good care and may God bless us all!

      TGY

      Like

      • March 15, 2012 8:03 pm

        But it is more than that because this bill also makes it illegal to protest on the grounds anywhere close to where a politician will be appearing. If that isn’t a slippery slope I don’t know what is.

        Like

      • March 24, 2013 8:29 pm

        For the record, Steve, no it doesn’t – although if you could point out where HR 347 does that, I’d be happy to look it over.

        Like

  10. The Georgia Yankee permalink
    March 15, 2012 12:01 am

    HR 347 passed in the House by a vote of 399-3. I’d hardly call that an example of the President and his cronies sneaking one by us.

    Steve, what you said about the bill is inaccurate. You claim that it gives those under Secret Service protection the authority to declare protests illegal. Here’s exactly what you said:

    “it grants the person who receives the protection the authority to unilaterally declare that it is illegal for people to protest at an event he or she is attending. This bill goes so far as to make it a felony offense to disregard this order. This bill is effectively limiting political speech at a political event.”

    I researched, and even the two blogs you linked do not seem to state that the person protected can declare protests illegal. All the bill really does, in fact, is remove the requirement that the offender know that what he’s doing is illegal, thus lowering the bar for prosecution.

    I even read the bill itself – it’s only two pages long – and it doesn’t anywhere give the protected person any special authority at all.

    What gives?

    Take good care, and may God bless us all.

    TGY

    Like

    • March 15, 2012 6:16 am

      I did mention that there was bipartisan support for this bill, and I mentioned my disappointment at the Tea Party politicians for going along with it. This was pushed through the Congress very quietly by both sides.
      It appears as if the Tea Party supported this to crack down on OWS, but that doesn’t make it okay. OWS has as much a right to protest as does the Tea Party.
      Page two of the bill defines where a person cannot protest, and it states that any building or grounds where the Secret Service is protecting a politician is off limits, pretty wide ranging. The video included in the post mentioned that the protected politician can ask the Secret Service to silence protesters if he wants to, my words might have been strong but the end result is the same. The punishment is not more than ten years in jail. An aweful high price for exercising free speech.

      Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        March 15, 2012 11:44 am

        Steve, I’m awfully impressed that Judge Napolitano read into that small piece of legislation the idea that the person being protected could ask the Secret Service to shut down protest.

        In fact, Napolitano seems to be playing very fast and loose with the truth, claiming that HR 347 grants the President broad authority to give SS protection, and that the President signed the bill in secret. In fact, the bill grants nobody any new authority with respect to the assignment of SS protection, and a great deal of legislation is signed in the privacy of the Oval Office without any special ceremony.

        I don’t know if Napolitano is deliberately lying or just got carried away by his opposition to anything the President does, but his characterization of HR 347 was irresponsibly inaccurate. I don’t fault you for repeating it, because we generally trust those who are presented to us as experts, but in this case, I think you need to re-check the facts and clarify them, since you laid out a highly inaccurate representation to begin with.

        Take good care and may God bless us all!

        TGY

        Like

      • March 15, 2012 8:16 pm

        I admit that I have overstated what this bill represents, but I also think that you are underestimating what is in this bill. The bill broadens the scope because it makes it illegal to protest on the grounds near a place where a politician is set to speak, that language was added so this law does put further restrictions on the freedom of speech.
        Think about this for a moment; the most effective place to protest the government is at a political event, and yet this bill takes that right away. I think people on both sides of the aisle should be upset about this.
        You have taught me a lesson though, I should do more research before I simply take the word of a paid political analysis before I post.

        Like

    • March 15, 2012 2:30 pm

      Georga Yankee> “All the bill really does, in fact, is remove the requirement that the offender know that what he’s doing is illegal, thus lowering the bar for prosecution. ”

      So essentially the change is stating that ignorance of the law is not defense for breaking it. Nothing new here. How many times has it worked getting out of a speeding ticket by saying you didn’t know what the limit was? This is the same thing, is it not?

      Like

      • March 15, 2012 7:43 pm

        Pretty much – to my understanding, that’s the only significant change to the law as it stands. Nevertheless, while I don’t think it rises to the point of actually abridging our ability to exercise our first amendment rights, because political speech is potentially involved, we need to remain vigilant.

        The problem lies with the “moving forcefield” of SS protection, but since they usually do thorough advance work, there’s actually little change that they’ll walk into a building where a protest is underway without anyone knowing about it. However, let’s say it happens – say a town hall meeting in New Hampshire and there’s a raucus demonstration against a candidate who sent a proxy, and then the candidate himself shows up to speak – could the protesters be considered trespassers? I think so, and I think that’s a problem. I hate to blow this up into anything bigger than it really is, but in cases like that, htere needs to be something akin to the Brits’ “reading the riot act” before any law enforcement activity commences.

        Take good care, and may God bless us all!

        TGY

        Like

      • March 15, 2012 8:20 pm

        I don’t think that you are blowing this up to anything bigger than it is with your scenario, this bill does expand the “no free speech” zone to include areas around where a politician is set to appear, and in my opinion that is an assault on the first amendment.

        Like

  11. The Georgia Yankee permalink
    March 15, 2012 12:18 am

    Steve, I cannot post comments from the regular email I usually post from.

    I get an error message: “You must be logged in to post comments from that email address.”

    Do you know of any changes WP has undergone? I haven’t got a WP account to log in to.

    TGY

    Like

    • March 15, 2012 6:18 am

      I went to the wordpress forums and it appears there are a few blogs having this problem right now. WP staff has not responded to the question yet, but I will notify them I am having a problem also. It sounds like WP has a glitch, ithey seem to get them from time to time, hopefully it will be corrected soon.

      Like

      • March 15, 2012 7:30 pm

        You know, I looked nto my supersecret password book and realized that a couple of years ago, foolishly thinking I could keep up writing daily (or weekly, or monthly . . . ) blog, I signed up for a WP account. So I logged in and now I can post to your blog using my regular email.

        Thanks for taking the time to look into it. You’re a pal, no matter what they say about you!

        🙂

        And may God bless us all!

        TGY

        Like

      • lou222 permalink
        March 15, 2012 8:00 pm

        TGY, I have a small notebook with all my passwords. Foolishly thinking (yes, me as well), I could keep up with all of it in my head. Ha! I have a head for numbers, such as phone numbers, pagers (emergency ones of everyone in the county EMA group) and cell numbers. Once you start having to add a letter or a few numbers or capitals to a password or user name, I slowly lost the ability to know what they were, hence the notebook. As for people talking about Steve, I can only imagine what “they” are saying.

        Like

      • March 15, 2012 8:24 pm

        TGY, apparently WP has made some changes to their commenting software and anyone who has an email linked to WP is required to log in. Reading the WP forums it appears as if many people are having this problem and are not happy about it. I am glad you got it figured out, but hopefully in the future this will be changed back to the way it was.
        PS, I think you would make a great political blogger and suggest that you give it a whirl in the future. Let me warn you though, it is addictive. 🙂
        BTW, you should be able to go into your account and change the way your name appears when you comment to make it look like it did before this happened if you want to.
        And finally, what are they saying about me? Do I really want to know? 😉

        Like

      • March 15, 2012 8:25 pm

        You know what Lou, I am afraid to think about what they are saying. 🙂 ALthough some of them have made their feeling known to me quite well.

        Like

  12. Georgia Peach permalink
    March 15, 2012 12:58 am

    It doesn’t surprise me this bill didn’t get noticed. Apparently congress is trying to legislate every thing they can think of. If you want to see bills introduced this session look here:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/home/Browse.php?n=bills&c=112
    List of Bills Introduced in the 112th Congress

    Like

    • March 15, 2012 6:19 am

      Wow! That is quite a list, isn’t it?

      Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        March 15, 2012 11:55 am

        Only a fraction of all the legislation introduced in the Congress is ever seriously considered, let alone passed. In some cases, newly-proposed legislation, when it’s considered to have merit, will be incorporated into other bills, but in most cases, they just die in committee.

        However, the sponsoring member(s) can then go back to their districts and insist that they’ve been busy pushing new laws.

        Like

  13. March 15, 2012 9:58 am

    Just part of a continuing trend. Essentially, this just legitimizes the use of “Free speech zone.” *sigh*

    Like

    • March 15, 2012 8:27 pm

      Yep, as far as I can remember this started with Bush and Kerry in 2004 with the “free speech zones” and it has now been expanded by the Congress and Barack Obama. Where will it go from here? Nobody can tell, but it is a disturbing trend which I fear will continue no matter which party is in power.

      Like

  14. March 15, 2012 12:36 pm

    With regards to defiling the flag. The Gadsen flag, the Snake with “Don’t Tread On Me” represents, unlike Obama’s face which is a real defilement of the flag, an American tradition in proclaiming the right of personal freedom – it in no way denigrates the message.

    Obama’s picture defiling the flag is a symbol of hero worship by a partisan who like many other left wing Democrats, have fallen prey to lies and false promises….WM

    Like

    • March 15, 2012 8:29 pm

      Both cases are examples of a violation of the flag code, but their is something quite eerie about a politicians face being on the flag. It remends me of dictatorships where the leader is considered above all else in society.

      Like

  15. March 15, 2012 7:27 pm

    Oh, to be sure, anything at all that lowers the bar to prosecuting people, especially for violations connected to their exercise of their first amendment rights, is cause for concern – we must closely watch any developments with respect to this law.

    Nevertheless, had it been, say , GWBush signing such a bill after its virtually unanimous passage, the rightwing would have been smugly complacent, convinced they had another weapon with which to beat down the Occupy crowd (which indeed law enforcement does). In fact, in reasearching this bill, I saw blogs and articles where the majority of the comments were just that – mocking of the left and saying, essentially, “get over it (HR347)”

    Like

    • March 15, 2012 8:31 pm

      You are probably right about that TGY, but I was just as critical of the Congress for passing this bill, and I took the Tea Party to task for signing up for it, because while I disagree with much of what OWS is sayin I also understand they have the right to say it…..for now.

      Like

  16. ghost62us permalink
    April 18, 2012 9:55 am

    What will it take to get the supreme court to overturn this illegal law? 1st amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” And that is exactly what this law is trying to do. come on secret service arrest me for telling the truth!

    Like

    • April 18, 2012 7:59 pm

      Well, right now the Secret Service is too busy getting serviced to do anything to you. 🙂

      Like

    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      April 19, 2012 9:10 am

      The righteous indignation doesn’t work when it’s based on a faulty understanding of the law.

      Like

  17. April 19, 2012 11:34 am

    Righteous indignation aside. This law is nothing more than an incremental move towards amnesty for illegals. The intent is far different from the eventual resullt.

    This bogus “waiver” law is a test to see where the ignorant American electorate can be prodded – and as hoped, by the so called progressiv lberals, the public once again stands by like a bunch of sheep, confused a usual unable to understand why the country is in a downward spiral….WM.

    Like

    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      April 24, 2012 8:43 am

      Sorry, William – with all due respect, it’s clear to me that you really don’t understand what this regulation is intended to do, or to whom it applies. One more time – it applies only to those people here without authorization, who entered legally, who have family here who are actual citizens, who are not breaking any other laws (that means they’re not employed) who have started the process of becoming legal residents and are therefore in the system. Those people must leave this country and apply at the US Consulate in their home country for a visa. This process, sometimes requires that they remain outside the US for 3 – 5 years. This regulation expedites the process for them, reducing the amount of time they have to remain outside the US.

      I have a friend who fell in love with a Canadian woman. She travelled here with her daughter and married him. The daughter enrolled in high school here in Georgia. I don’t know all the details, but the daughter is now back in Canada, living with relatives (I think she got homesick). She now cannot return to the US until 2015. She’s 16.

      The law requiring an extensive absence for people who have basically fulfilled all the other requirements of legal residency is, IMO, stupid. It’s too late for her to graduate with her class now, but she should be able to return and complete her senior year soon, rather than break up a family like that.

      Take good care and may God bless us all!

      TGY

      Like

    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      April 24, 2012 8:50 am

      William, for some reason your comment on the waiver regulation is here on a post about HR 347; knowing what it was you were talking about, I compounded the error by responding here.

      Steve, apologies. Not trying to hijack one thread with comments about another!

      Also – I got an alert in my email about a response to this post – the response had to do with the US Flag code – but I cannot find it here. Any ideas what happened to it?

      Take good care, and yes, may God bless us all!

      TGY

      Like

  18. March 24, 2013 8:57 am

    We are a gaggle of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community.

    Your site offered us with useful info to work on.
    You’ve performed a formidable task and our entire neighborhood will likely be grateful to you.

    Like

    • April 3, 2013 6:39 pm

      LOL, Steve, it looks as if an insurance agency somewhere in the UK is spamming your site!

      Like

  19. October 18, 2013 3:54 pm

    Place your vote better next time……or we may not have the privilege to talk as we feel anywhere ! Sad day in America….Pray for our country…May God still bless this land.

    Like

  20. May 18, 2015 7:41 am

    Someone entered a new comment in this thread, and I got alerted, as I suppose many did.

    Looking over it today, it’s interesting to note all the dire predictions. To my knowledge, none have come to pass.

    Take good care, and may God bless us all!

    TGY

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Is This the Hope and Change You Voted For? « Freedom Is Just Another Word…
  2. Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (Losing our liberties edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: