Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'president obama'.
Found 2 results
By: Marshall Ramsey II, Worthy News U.S. Correspondent WASHINGTON, D.C. -- (WorthyNews) On January 5, 2016, President Obama announced new gun control measures that are being put into effect that are supposed to help reduce gun violence, especially mass shootings. What you may not realize is that as part of his effort to "reduce gun violence" he is quietly asserting that American citizens who are gun owners are to be denied their citizenship. In paragraph 17 of his speech, President Obama makes a distinction between gun owners and American citizens. While the average person will dismiss this as simply a slip of the tongue, it reflects the attitude of President Obama in this speech, that Americans should not be able to own guns. So we’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check. That doesn’t make sense. Everybody should have to abide by the same rules. Most Americans and gun owners agree. And that’s what we tried to change three years ago, after 26 Americans -– including 20 children -– were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary. (Bold type and italics mine.) Notice how he makes a distinction between American citizens and gun owners? Again, in paragraph 12 of the same speech, he attempts to deny Americans the right to gun ownership by saying that the Constitution of the United States of America only guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms. Here is a copy of paragraph 12: Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start -- and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do -- I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around -- I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this -- (applause) -- I get it. But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment. As you can see in the highlighted section, (highlighted and italicized by me), President Obama is directly saying that Americans do not have the right to own guns, a.k.a. keep arms. Here is what the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Bold type mine.) All this, however, is just another step toward the total disarmament of the American people. In the 1990's, when President Obama was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, he stated to John Lott, Jr., that "I don't think people should be able to own guns." While this may not be an attempt to ban private ownership of firearms, it certainly testifies to President Obama's thoughts then and actions now. What about our military? If President Obama wanted to ban ownership of guns, wouldn't he take away their guns as well? Perhaps; however, President Obama knows that he needs military protection in case we ever rise up against him and that he cannot count on it from foreign countries. President Obama is a clear and present danger to the rights of American citizens, including their lives. His actions are treasonous and it is the duty of Christians everywhere to humble themselves before God, seeking his forgiveness of their sins, and supplicating him for the removal of President Obama from power, and the healing of this land. Of that there can be no doubt. Source articles: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/05/remarks-president-common-sense-gun-safety-reform?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email544-text1&utm_campaign=guns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/author-quotes-then-professor-obama-saying-i-dont-believe-people-should
By: Marshall Ramsey II, Worthy News U.S. Correspondent WASHINGTON, District of Columbia (WorthyNews) -- The United States government, under President Obama, is acquiring chemical weapons from Syria for use in drone strikes. Under the pretense of destroying Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, the United States will begin processing their own chemical weapons on board the MV Cape Ray. Marketed as being used in the destruction of these stockpiles, it conflicts with a report from 2013 that the United States government recently destroyed four chemical weapons incinerators located within the United States. The Pentagon spent $10.2 billion over three decades burning tons of deadly nerve gas and other chemical weapons stored in four states — some of the agents so deadly even a few drops can kill. The United States Army is currently spending $1.3 billion on a project dismantling the incinerators they spent so much money on building and using. The MV Cape Ray was built in 1977 by Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd., Japan, and called the MV Seaspeed Asia. It was acquired by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration April 29, 1991, and named the Cape Ray February 1, 1994. The MV Cape Ray is currently in the Caribbean Sea heading toward the Mediterranean where it will meet up with ships from Denmark and Norway, which will then transfer a portion of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile for use in U.S. drone strikes. The current position of the Cape Ray contradicts press releases from www.afp.com and www.defensenews.com/ which state that the vessel is still two weeks from being seaworthy due to the supposed outfitting of the ship with equipment designed to destroy chemical weapons. The need for the U.S. to acquire chemical weapons from Syria is thrown into question by Frank Kendall, a top Pentagon weapons-buyer, said on Jan. 2. "This is not new technology. This is not a high-risk thing that hasn't been done before. This technology has been used for the past 10 years to destroy our own chemical weapons," he said. In 1993, the United States ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which prohibits the "development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, and transfer or use of chemical weapons." If Mr. Kendall is to be believed, it appears that the United States only started destroying its chemical weapons stockpile in 2003, the same time as the passage of the Syria Accountability Act, signed by then-President George W. Bush. Another piece of information that gives rise to the belief that the U.S. is trying to weaponize and/or use chemical weapons in drone strikes is the cost. According to an unnamed U.S. official, “The system in question is a neutralization system. It is both more expensive and less reliable than incineration due to the need to deal with the millions of gallons of waste product.” If the sea-based hydrolysis system is more costly than incineration, why go through the trouble of building it? A safer guess would be that there is no intention to neutralize these chemicals, but the "increased cost" is the actual cost of building a sea-based chemical weapons production facility. Another suspicious piece of information is the fact that the MV Cape Ray, owned by the United States government, is flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. While it is true that the Marshall Islands were once governed by the United States, they received full autonomy in 1986 under a "Compact of Free Association" with the United States, and have been an independent nation ever since. Syria's chemical weapons stockpile was picked up at the port town of Latakia. Latakia is approximately 53.53 miles from the city of Tartus, which, in 2012, was speculated to be the site of a chemical weapons pickup from Syria by Russia . It was believed at the time that Russia would take possession of the chemical (and biological) weapons and agents from Syria, process them in facilities in Russia, and then deliver them to Syria at a later date. The drones, which are set to carry chemical weapons into battle, are to be used not only in joint military efforts around the world, but also with "combination forces," that is, U.S. and foreign militaries fighting as a single force. Another mystery surrounding the situation is the need for rapid transfer of said weapons into international control. According to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the "amount and type of chemical weapons must be agreed and "rapidly" placed under international control." The amount and type agreed portion of the statement suggests that only certain types of chemicals and weapons were held in interest. That they should be desired for "rapid transfer" to international control, indicates that the United Nations has an interest in acquiring chemical weapons, not for the purpose of destroying them, but for using them, possibly on dissident or rogue nations and/or people. While this conclusion may seen incredible, even conspiracy theorist in nature, it clearly fits the evidence at hand. The only question now is, "Who will be on the receiving end of the wrath of the United States, Russia, and the United Nations?" Source information links can be found at the following website: http://conspiracyprophecyguy.blogspot.com/2014/01/president-obama-acquiring-chemical.html