Executive Orders Archives - Run Your Own Country

Is Hillary Planning a Political Assassination?

In 2008, Hillary Clinton let slip a very serious line of thought with respect to the potential political assassination of then Senator Barack Obama:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.” – Hillary R. Clinton. (May 23, 2008). Argus Leader editorial board interview.

Did Hillary really mention the possibility of Senator Obama being assassinated as was Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968? It appears so. Was she really hoping for Obama’s assassination as a means of accessing the top spot in the Democrat primaries? Well, we know for a fact that Bobby Kennedy’s assassination ended his presidential candidacy:

“The assassination of Robert Francis “Bobby” Kennedy, a United States Senator and brother of assassinated President John F. Kennedy, took place shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968, in Los Angeles, California, during the campaign season for the United States Presidential election, 1968.” – Wikipedia. (February 29, 2016). “The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy”

If you think we’re making this up, think again. Here’s the video:

Fast-forward to 2016, and ask yourself, “Who is on Hillery’s hit list now?”

As the 2008 article mentions:

“It’s all about her path to the nomination. A possible assassination of Senator Obama. Yep. This is what it’s come down to.” – Bob Cesca. (May 31, 2008; updated May 25, 2011). Worst Person in the World. Huffington Post.

More recently, examination of the e-mails she illegally kept on her server appear to indicate she discussed murder for hire aka assassination hits against more than a half a dozen individuals who have historically proven to be the greatest thorn in her side with respect to her political career, including Stew Webb and his attorney, Thomas Heneghan, and Mary Schneider.

Is it Bernie Sanders? Is it Donald Trump?” Perhaps she’s thinking about taking them both out at once, “somehow,” and blaming it on Islamic

activity. Better yet, figuring out a way to get some Muslim to push the button. Perhaps she’s in league with Obama, but almost assuredly she remains fully in league with the Democrat Party. Obama’s draconian and blatantly un-Constitutional “executive orders” that give him near totalitarian authority over every aspect of American business, economic, commerce, law enforcement, and military operations in times of “national crisis” appears to pave the way for a 2016 takeover of the entire federal government, thereby establishing a permanent situation of “national crisis” that amounts to a de-facto dictatorship with him at the top. Could an assassination build the case for Obama seizing such control?

Hey, folks – this is NOT anywhere close to being out of the realm of possibility:

1. Political assassinations have been happening since Ug ran against Og for Oog and the biggest cave around, beating Og with his club to secure the election with Oog at his side.

2. Four U.S. Presidents have been assassinated in our nation’s history; two in the 19th Century, and two in the 20th Century.

3. A whopping fourteen members of Congress (both House and Senate) have been assassinated while in office, and nine others suffered serious injuries during assassination attempts.

4. As for the Clintons, just Google “Hillary Clinton death trail” or “Clinton body count” to see various lists, including one with more than 90 such

“persons who have died in suspicious circumstances who

had connection to the Clintons or the Clinton’s dealings. The length and breadth of this list is disconcerting. It is beyond credibility that very many of these cases are coincidences.”

So, the bottom line question of the day is: “Is Hillary Clinton and/or the Clinton regime and/or the Democrat Party and/or any other regimes that back any of the above planning to assassinate Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump this summer?”

Hmm…

Given some forty years of accumulated statistics surrounding the Clintons, along with her bizarre comments during her 2008 campaign, I think at least some of these events are entirely possible, particularly when you compare the Clinton’s very long list of unacceptable behavior to the minimal and even nonexistent lists of other members of Congress and even U.S. Presidents.

Obama gives Army executive orders to build a weapon that prevents accidental discharge

On January 4, 2016, Obama issued an “executive order” directing the Pentagon to find ways to make not so much more lethal firearms, but safer ones” “Obama comes along and tells the Army that, in this administration, money is going into small arms to build — not a deadly weapon, not an effective weapon, not a dominant weapon, not a lifesaving weapon, not a technological cutting-edge weapon — but a weapon that prevents accidental discharge.” – Story

Yeah, I know. Stupid, right?

A White House fact sheet states: “The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.”

I have previously covered the absurdly dangerous idiocy behind so-called “smart guns.” Suffice it to say that they’re as ridiculously idiotic as so-called “gun free zones.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/05/memorandum-promoting-smart-gun-technology/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/31/obamas-gun-control-executive-order-directs-pentago/

By itself, this would only constitute a misuse of taxpayer dollars. As most people are well aware by now, however, this is a part of Obama’s plan of issuing more “executive orders” to make such technology mandatory, an action that far, far oversteps the bounds of Presidential authority while simultaneously and directly infringing on the Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Just because Obama says his “executive orders” are legal doesn’t make them legal. Even if 51% of Congress agreed with him and said they were legal, it would NOT make them legal. In fact, even if 100% of Congress agreed with Obama, it would STILL not make Obama’s executive orders legal. They would REMAIN ILLEGAL.

The reason is simple: Congress can NOT amend the Constitution. They can only propose an amendment. Only the States ratify the amendment[SUP]1[/SUP], thereby transforming the proposal into an amendment.

And until such an amendment appears, giving the President authority to issue executive orders, all executive orders are ILLEGAL.

Here’s why:

1. Our Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Thus, to see whether or not a U.S. President has the Constitutional authority to issue executive orders, we need merely examine the U.S. Constitution. Therein we find only one instance in which he can issue an order to a civilian. Article II, Section 2 states, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices…”

That’s it.

His duties as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States” involve members of the military, not civilians. He can, however, “Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

His authority to make treaties requires “the Advice and Consent of the Senate … provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

He has the authority to nominate “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,” but no appointment is final without “the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

He can fill up vacancies during Senate recess, but those commissions expire a the end of the next session.

He is authorized to “give to the Congress information of the State of the Union” including his recommendation of measures for their consideration.

On “extraordinary Occasions,” he can convene one, the other, or both houses of Congress. If he disagrees with their solution during these conventions, all he can do is adjourn them for a while.

He can receive “Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”

THAT IS ALL, people. Neither Obama nor ANY U.S. President has the power or authority to issue “executive orders” dictating what We the People can and cannot do. The “supreme Law of the Land” () and its Tenth Amendment are exceeding clear on this point, and that’s all I need to tell Obama to take his executive orders and shove ’em.

[SUP]1[/SUP]Amendment Process:

[B]Two-Thirds Rule[/B]: Proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution require two-thirds consensus of either both houses of Congress (2/3 of the House AND 2/3 of the Senate) OR two-thirds consensus of the legislatures of the States.

[B]Three-Fourths Rule[/B]: Ratifying amendments to the U.S. Constitution (making them legal parts of the Constitution) require three-fourth’s consensus of the legislatures or conventions of the States.

Until they are properly ratified, they are NOT amendments. They are proposals.

His action directing the Army to do the research into a lamer, less effective firearm is entirely within his authority as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.” As a retired military officer, I think it’s insanely stupid, not to mention a waste of valuable military resources, as it is at odds with the military’s mission.

He can even take the results and submit them to Congress for their consideration.

What he can NOT do, however, is to mandate the use of such weapons or restrict the use of civilian firearms to such weapons, as that would be a direct and flagrant violation against the Second Amendment’s prohibition against any infringement on the right of the People to keep and bear arms. Such a change would require a fundamental change to the Second Amendment itself, and that requires consent of either three-fourths of the state legislatures or a convention of three fourths of the states.

I don’t see that happening.

Until then, all civilian, military, and law-enforcement officers remain bound by their oaths of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic,” INCLUDING sitting U.S. Presidents who, for whatever reasons of megalomania, insanity, or criminal activity, think they’re somehow above or beyond the law.

UN Arms Trade Treaty

A lot of fear-mongers are claiming the UN Arms Trade Treaty “takes effect” today (Christmas Eve). In fact, this “treaty” has absolutely zero effect on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Here’s why:

1. Our Constitution mandates treaties adhere to a simple yet rigorous legislative and governmental process. No matter who in our government signs a treaty, if the treaty didn’t go through the appropriate review and approval process, it is NOT binding in any way shape, fashion, or form.

2. Our nation remains sovereign. No treaty may usurp any portion of our Constitution without a Constitutional amendment to that effect. Thus, even if a treaty were to go through the appropriate review and approval process, if that treaty violates the Constitution, the treaty remains null and void.

Finding evidence which supports these claims is both simple and straightforward. In fact, we need look no further than the Constitution itself.

The Treaty Review and Ratification Process

Article. II. Section 2. of the U.S. Constitution governs the process by which the President can make a treaty:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

Did the President seek and obtain both the advice and the consent of the Senate? Did two-thirds of the Senate concur? Both of these requirements must be present before the President or his designee can legally sign a treaty. On the day John Kerry signed this treaty, the Senate had been consulted, and their advice was a big fat “NO,” with a majority voting in opposition to the treaty. Thus, neither Kerry nor Obama had obtained the consent of the Senate. Furthermore, not only did two-thirds of the Senators present not concur, the majority of the Senators vehemently opposed the treaty.

In addition, there is serious doubt among Constitutional scholars that the President can appoint anyone to sign a treaty on his behalf without express, written authorization to do so. General Douglas MacArthur had such authorization. On September 2, 1945, MacArthur accepted the formal Japanese surrender aboard the battleship USS Missouri, thus ending hostilities in World War II. John Kerry most certainly did not have any such authorization.

Regardless, neither Obama nor Kerry had either the consent or the a two-thirds concurrence of the Senate. Therefore, Kerry’s signature on the treaty is invalid, null and void, and without any lawful authority or substance.

The Amendment Proposal and Ratification Process

Article. V. of the U.S. Constitution governs the process by which Amendments are proposed and ratified:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Put simply, this clause requires the following for all Amendments to the Constitution:

1. Two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress (or two-thirds of the state legislatures)

2. Ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures (or three-quarters of a Constitutional Convention).

3. All Amendments are valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution.

Thus, even if Obama and Kerry had the advice and consent, along with a two-thirds concurrence of the Senate, the treaty would still be invalid simply because it violates our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. As the Second Amendment clearly states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The UN Arms Trade Treaty infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is therefore Constitutionally null and void.

The key thing to remember here is to never allow anyone to tell you otherwise. When the entire populace of the United States of America knows its Constitution and the rights and freedoms respected and protected therein, no amount of government chicanery can take that away from them.

Know your rights! Stand up for them, not merely often, but always!

It’s called FREEDOM, people, and it is very, very good.

Net Neutrality: Obama vs Ted Cruz

I was originally opposed to Ted Cruz on this point, as it appeared he was railing against Net Neutrality.

NOT TRUE.

He’s railing against Obama’s very warped version of it. Put simply, Obama’s version of Net Neutrality isn’t Net Neutrality AT ALL.

Here’s what Net Neutrality has looked for the last 30 years, since the mid-1980s, back when the Internet was known as Darpanet:

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) charged one price for each bandwidth tier. For example, $30 for 3 Mbps; $65 for 25 Mbps, etc.

The put reasonable caps on total bandwidth per month, which was ok, such caps prevent abuses and keep the prices lower for the rest of us.

Prices are set by the market, and free market competition keeps prices reasonable. When prices become outrageous, it opens the doors to more competition, which usually appears as either more bandwidth for the same price, or the same bandwidth at lower prices, while maintaining the same quality at lower prices.

Obama’s version of Net Neutrality, however, is to “reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act,” and he would have to power to back up his restrictions with the long arm of the Department of Justice.

Title II outlines the granting and licensing of broadcast spectrum by the government, including a provision to issue licenses to current television stations to commence digital television broadcasting, the use of the revenues generated by such licensing, the terms of broadcast licenses, the process of renewing broadcast licenses, direct broadcast satellite services, automated ship distress and safety systems, and restrictions on over-the-air reception devices.

Obama wants strict controls and regulations on content providers, but he’s not limiting his aspirations to traditional Internet sources. He wants to control mobile devices, too, and he wants to control all aspects of what you can see and hear on your mobile device, as well as what you can send.

Under Obama’s plan, each and every individual in the United States of America, if not the world, would be regulated as a “broadcaster.” The business ramifications of this would be extreme:

As noted by J.D. Tuccille (2014), “In a 2001 examination of decades of antitrust policy for the Cato Journal, George Bittlingmayer, now at the University of Kansas, wrote that “It turns out that whatever the ability of antitrust to lower prices and increase output in theory or in isolated circumstances, one actual effect of antitrust in practice may have been to curtail investment.” In particular, he attributed low investment in the late 1950s and early 1960s to “aggressive antitrust and related initiatives””

Much of the incredible innovation that has occurred over the last twenty years would grind to a halt. Many of the current services you enjoy may very well become illegal if Obama gets his way, and because they would fall under the strong arm of the FCC, if ISPs refused to comply with the new rules, they would simply be shut down.

As Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier noted, “This changes a relentlessly innovative and growing part of our economy into one that must wait for permission for any new ideas.” Most companies cannot afford to sit idly by, waiting on approval from the federal government. That’s largely what killed the U.S.S.R. Companies would bail left and right for greener pastures. Put simply, the Internet would start looking like a redneck road sign at the end of a lean hunting season.

The deleterious impact on innovation, however, isn’t the half of it. Since every producer of content, including those who blog or video blog would now be regulated by the FCC, they would be as subject to abuse by the FCC as conservative groups have been abused by the IRS in recent years. Although Obama specifically stated some limits in his proposal, five years of history have clearly and rather incessantly reminded us of the miniscule value of Obama’s promises.

Before implementing yet another Obama”care” fiasco, take a look around you. Sure, ISP prices are higher than we want. Their revenue models have reached the end of their useful lives, and they’re beginning to make some changes. However, alternative sources of programming blitzed pass them like a kid chasing down an ice cream truck on a hot August afternoon. Both Google and AT&T are laying the infrastructure for the future in the form of fiber. We are not in trouble here, folks. For around $25 a month, I enjoy programming from the top three on-demand sources: Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. That’s far more content that would ever have time to watch. My Ooma IP phone allows me to make unlimited local and long-distance calls for $3.85 a month. E-mail services are robust and free, as are some blogs and website hosting services.

It doesn’t GET any better than this, folks. We are enjoying the benefits of unbridled innovation in the form of reasonable prices and a massive selection of content and services.

Obama wants to change all that. Whatever you do, don’t let him!

References

Tuccille, J. D. (2014). Obama’s scheme to regulate the U.S. into ‘net neutrality’ nirvana could kill broadband. Reason.com. Retrieved from http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/13/obamas-scheme-to-regulate-us-into-broadb

UN: Control Ebola or Face an “Unprecedented Situation”

As reported by Fox News on October 15, 2014, the United Nations has issued an ultimatum to the United States of America: Control Ebola or face an unprecedented situation.

What the UN means by “unprecedented situation” can be found on the UN website (http://un-influenza.org/?q=content/un-response), in their response plan for the Avian Flu, under Objective 6: Continuity Under Pandemic Conditions: “Ensuring the continuity of essential social, economic and governance services, and effective implementation of humanitarian relief, under pandemic conditions.”

Reading between the lines, as well as observing their response throughout other nations, this includes the mandatory implementation of the UN’s other agendas, most notably confiscating all firearms for the “safety of all response workers.”

Similar indications can also be found on the World Health Organization’s website, in their Global Alert and Response (GAR) page (http://www.who.int/csr/en/): “Coordinate and support Member States for pandemic and seasonal influenza preparedness and response.”

Again, reading between the lines, the WHO brings the doctors, while it’s parent organization, the UN, brings the muscle.

This is further echoed in their August 28, 2014 Ebola Response Roadmap (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131596/1/EbolaResponseRoadmap.pdf?ua=1).

This document clearly states it’s purpose on page 5: “To assist governments and partners in the revision and resourcing of country-specific operational plans for Ebola response, and the coordination of international support for their full implementation.”

While they tie their “country-specific operational plans” to the “Ebola response,” the fact remains that an OPLAN is an OPLAN. It’s an Operational Plan. That’s military lingo for how an organization intendeds to accomplish its mission, and their specific intent for the United States of America comes through rather glaringly in Objective 2 on the same page:

2. To ensure emergency and immediate application of comprehensive Ebola response intervention in countries with an initial case(s) or with localized transmission.

The key activity of Objective 2: “Coordinate operations and information across all partners, and the information, security, finance and other relevant sectors.

The most alarming aspect of this document, however, involves their definition of “security:”

Security: where necessary, and particularly in areas of intense transmission and short term extraordinary containment measures, national/local authorities must plan for and deploy the security services necessary to ensure the physical security of Ebola facilities. National/local authorities must give particular attention to ensuring the security of the staff working in Ebola treatment centres, Ebola referral/isolation centres, laboratories and, if required, for teams working at the community level to conduct surveillance, contact tracing and safe burials.”

I have no problem with ensuring the security of Ebola treatment facilities. The question is, under Obama’s management, will it ever stop there? What legislation is in place to prevent overbearing law enforcement from pulling the same crap as the New Orleans Police Department pulled on American citizens immediately following Hurricane Katrina?

Since Day 1 at their training academies, American law enforcement officers have been taught to “control, control, control.” When you put them into a widespread situation, many of them are overwhelmed. They fall back on their training without any regard for the Constitutional implications that what they’re doing is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. It might be suitable for a localized riot. It is NOT suitable for widespread chaos. This was most dramatically exhibited when SWAT teams busted down door after door after door in Boston immediately after the marathon bombing.

Did they respect our Constitutional rights? No. THEY BLEW RIGHT PAST THEM.

Again: What U.S. Federal Legislation is in place to ensure that NEVER happens again? What penalties are in place for local, county, state, and federal law enforcement officers, as well as augmenting forces like the National Guard, to prevent them from crossing the line?

Comments within the document such as “repurpose existing programmes [sic] to support control efforts” with respect to “security” indicate they have ZERO intention of respecting our Constitution.

What’s next? The widespread confiscation of firearms “for your safety?”

Here’s a thought: Instead of assuming Americans are idiots, let’s try another route: Education. Let Americans do what we do best: Control ourselves.

In 2012, immediately following the Mountain Shadows flare-up of the Waldo Canyon fire, I and all other residents of my apartment complex were denied access to our domiciles for five full days, despite the fact that residents in homes on either side of us were allowed to return after just TWO days. We were told it was for our “safety,” despite the fact we were no less safe than those homeowners.

THAT CRAP HAS GOT TO STOP.

Again, Congressman Lamborn: What legislation, specifically, do you have in place to ensure these rampant denials of our Constitutional rights NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN?

With few exceptions, We the People are perfectly capable of controlling ourselves. We’re well aware of the risks to both ourselves and others, regardless of what Obama is saying to the contrary.

All we need are clear and unambiguous guidelines. We don’t Obama lying to us in pathetic and misinformative attempts to calm our nerves. Older generations grew up during the Cold War. Younger generations watch The Walking Dead every week. Let’s get real!

As a retired USAF Officer, I remain well-trained in CBRNE operations. Most of my neighbors do not have my training, but given the fact this is a military town, there are a LOT of us scattered throughout the community who do.

Even those who are untrained, however, know the risks. If they’re told to limit travel for food and work, use hand sanitizer or wear and discard gloves, keep their shoes in the garage, and wipe down all doorknobs and other touched surfaces with a soap/water/bleach solution, I’m pretty darn sure they can handle that!

I can’t help but wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the United States of America.

By refusing to close our borders and by bringing in infected individuals, Obama is INVITING a UN takeover of our country. He’s long been looking for a way to either ditch or circumvent our Constitution, and I believe he may very well have found it.

UNLESS, of course, laws exist which clearly limit the scope of his many executive orders, most of which were drafted during his first term, yet clearly targeted to give him absolute dictatorial authority over our nation in times of crises — whether those crises were unavoidable, or, as many of us believe, manufactured by Obama himself.

On October 15, Dr. Ben Carson said, “We’ve known for a long time that [Ebola] has this kind of potential. That’s the reason that several weeks ago I said it was a real mistake to bring infected people in to this country in any way.”

Indeed it was. Yet Obama continues to allow it.

My question to you, Sir, is WHY?

Sincerely…

Ebola: Accident, or engineered?

The recent outbreak of Ebola in the U.S. looks like a perfect and possibly engineered segway to martial law, making horrible use of all those FEMA camps and their mass-body containers, excuse after excuse for Obama to enact many of his blatantly anti-Constitutional “executive orders” taking complete control over all utilities, water, food, and transportation, and even delay the 2016 elections.

Indefinitely.

In fact, it makes me wonder whether vaccinations for Obama and other elitists who’ve obviously sided with him haven’t already taken place.

Could this be engineered genocide? Was it engineered by Islam to wipe out most of the 150 Million gun owners and even the unarmed Christians in America who stand in their way?

In the meantime, here’s my Top Ten Things You Need to Know About Ebola, instead:

1. It’s a virus, so forget about alcohol-based wipes and hand sanitizers. You need chlorine, as in bleach. Clorox wipes work, too, as they contain n-alkyl-dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride.

2. Clean your hands BEFORE entering your vehicle or home, not afterwards.

3. Don’t forget your shoes! If someone coughed in Walmart, the virus can be present in spots of phlegm on the floor. Walk on it, now it’s on your shoes. Step into your car, track it into your home… Or, wear slick-bottom shoes and use those wipes on your shoes before stepping into your car.

4. Don’t forget the bottoms of your shopping bags, sliding all over the counters… Buy and use a rubberized or vinyl mat or bin for your bags. Wipe it down often with a rag soaked in soapy, bleachy water, particularly before your kids get in the car, or better yet, right after removing your bags.

5. Don’t remove the bags to your kitchen. Remove the groceries to your kitchen. Remove the bags to your garbage can, and not the one in your house.

6. Wipe down all outer and inner door handles to your home and car on a regular basis.

7. Getting back to bleach… Keep a bucket full of water next to each entrance, with a couple drops of Dawn and a quarter cup of bleach per gallon. Everyone entering your home should rinse their hands in the water. They can rinse the soapy bleach solution after they enter your home.

8. As a virus, it can be transmitted any time any bodily fluids, including sneeze droplets, are transmitted.

9. Simple paint masks are somewhat effective in catching sneeze droplets. Surgical masks are more effective. If you’ve ever visited S. Korea, China, or Japan, you’ll know what I’m talking about when I say many citizens walk around all winter, sometimes in the summer, wearing masks.

10. Watch your eyes. Those airborne sneeze droplets can enter your system by making contact with your eyes. If you love wearing contacts, consider going back to glasses. They offer at least marginal protection against sprayed droplets.

Bye-Bye Obama, Hello Freedom! If only…

“The Alabama Supreme Court May Collapse Obama’s House Of Cards,” or so reads one headline, celebrating the possibility of finding a judge to hear Obama’s eligibility case. But what would that mean for America? What changes might we expect?

Well, for one, Obama would no longer be in the White House. However, there are many more ramifications which few people have considered. I’ll highlight a few here, just to whet your appetite:

1) Obama and family removed from the White House, possibly to face federal charges for knowingly defrauding the American People. That includes Michelle, for her lavish vacations. Bye-bye Obamas!

2) Obamacare would become instantly null and void, as Obama had no business being a part of its creation. Bye-bye massive government fraud against the people!

3) Biden would NOT become President, as he ran on Obama’s ticket. It’s not like Obama resigned. It’s that he wasn’t eligible to run in the first place, and you can’t have a VP in office on an illegal ticket. Biden would face similar charges of defrauding the American People. Bye-bye Biden!

4) Each and every Executive Order Obama signed, whether he created them or not, would become null and void. Bye-bye martial law, socialism, and his dictatorship!

5) Each and every piece of legislation he signed into law would become null and void. Bye-bye NDAA! At least for now.

6) Each and every one of his appointees, including two in the Supreme Court, and the ENTIRE cabinet, would become null and void, as he wasn’t authorized to appoint them. Bye-bye Kerry!

7) Every treaty or resolution he ever made with another country would be rendered null and void. Bye-bye U.N. Gun Ban!

And then?

HELLO FREEDOM!!!