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:
political assassination
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivers remarks at the State Department in Washington on the deaths of U.S. embassy staff in Benghazi in this September 12, 2012 file photo. Clinton said December 19, 2012, she accepted the findings of an independent panel that faulted the State Department over the deadly September attack. REUTERS/Gary Cameron/Files (UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST)

“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 political assassinationactivity. 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 political assassination“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?”
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.

Your Life WITHOUT Your Constitutional Rights

Joe Biden recently said, “No ordinary American cares about their Constitutional rights.”

I beg to differ.  In fact, if you were to ask any ordinary American if they would accept the following infringements upon their rights, I guarantee you that more than 95% of them would respond with a huge “HELL NO!”

1.  The government would establish a single religion; alternatively, they would ban religion altogether, including the People’s freedom to practice their own religion.

2.  The government would restricts or removes the ability of the People to speak or write freely about any issue.

3.  The government would restrict the right of all media to report the truth, and instead feed them the government’s version of the truth.

4.  The People would no longer be free to assemble.  They would be require to obtain permits for all events outside gatherings of immediate family members.

5.  The People would no longer be allowed to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms, the most powerful defense against despots and governmental tyranny.

6.  The Government would force the People to house and feed armed “peacekeepers” any time the government so orders.

7.  The Government would no longer require a warrant to stop the People, search their persons, vehicles, and homes, and  seize anything they so desired, without a warrant or any legal recourse whatsoever.

8.  People would be held against their will, indefinitely, to answer for a serious crime merely on the whim of the government.

9.  People could be tried for the same crime over and over again, no matter how many times they were acquitted.

10.  People would be compelled to bear witness against themselves.

11.  People would be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.  Forfeiture of private property and its sale to add to the government coffers would become routine.

12.  People could await trial indefinitely, particularly if the government thinks they “have their man” — even when they don’t — but their case is so weak it wouldn’t hold up.

13.  People could be tried in absentia, that is, they would have no right to a legal defense.

14.  People could sue one another without any right to a jury trial.

15.  The government could impose as high a bail as they wished, including $inifity.  Try paying that one as you wait for your trial who’s date has been pushed out to the edge of forever.

16.  The government would deny or disparage all remaining rights of the People at will.

17.  The government would usurp all states rights and abolish all state governments and programs.

This list is merely from the Bill of Rights.  There are 17 other amendments out there, along with hundreds of precepts written into the Constitution itself in order to prevent tyranny here in America.

The idea of “benign totalitarianism” is a MYTH.  There never has been a “benevolent dictator” throughout all of history.

Rights are NOT “Privileges” and are NOT lawfully subject to license or licensing requirements

I wrote the following letter to my state representative.  I’ll share the response with you when it arrives, and will let you know if it doesn’t.

I’m writing you today concerning a point of Constitutional law I recently uncovered that appears to put much of Colorado’s licensing efforts in a dim light.  In particular, I’m licensed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office to carry a concealed handgun, and fully understand all the privileges and restrictions associated with that permit.  However, I’m also a student of both the words and wisdom of our Founding Fathers, and know full well they never intended any right be reduced to a privilege or subject to license.

I recently came across two U.S. Supreme Court decisions along these lines and wanted to run them by you:

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

Here’s our Founding Father’s take on the issue:  “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)  That seems abundantly clear to me.

Here’s my take on the issue:  All concealed carry “permits” are licenses of a right (liberty).  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) that such licenses are illegal.  Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) that citizens “can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”  Combined with fact that the Second Amendment clearly states the act of keeping and bearing arms is a right seems to withdraw all wiggle room for law enforcement to behave otherwise, unless the legal examiner or legislator ignores either the Constitution or the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Thus, my question to you:  Which States are willing to stand by the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions which support it?  More specifically, when will Colorado stop violating the U.S. Constitution and these U.S. Supreme Court decisions and instead correctly join with the ranks of those states who have passed “Constitutional Carry” laws?

As of July 1, 2015, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming are considered constitutional carry states. In Wyoming’s case, permitless carry is for residents only; non-residents must have a permit to carry a concealed handgun in that state. Maine will join the list in October 2015.

If I’m not mistaken, these decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court cover the much large issue of licensing efforts in general.  What other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are illegally treated as “privileges” under Colorado law?  What steps will you take to restore Colorado law to a more lawful basis commensurate with “the supreme Law of the Land?” (Article VI, U.S. Constitution)


Addendum:  Our Founding Fathers had GOOD REASON to ensure that our Second Amendment was ratified WITHOUT RESTRICTION.  In fact, as it stands, it specifically PROHIBITS ANY AND ALL restrictions:  “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

Second Amendment – NO RESTRICTIONS!


Why?  Because it says so.  That’s why.  Out.

Common Law, Psychological Harm, and Tyranny

What does the face of tyranny look like?

A pregnant woman recently carried a Union Jack in Oldham in the United Kingdom.  She was arrested because some blithering idiot found the flag “offensive” and more blithering idiots had been brainwashed into mistaking patriotism as a crime.

Common law has a thousand-year history based on the principal that everything is permissible unless it causes injury.  By “injury,” the law recognized real, measurable, and adverse physical and financial harm.

When the law is twisted by political perverts to recognize psychological harm, ALL freedoms become subject to control by a police state.

That isn’t freedom.  It’s TYRANNY.

Is This “The Press” in Our First Amendment?

What is “the press?”  Is it limited to large news agencies?  Does the press include small town news papers?  How about a college student who hammered out a weekly one-page paper highlighting some of the goings on in the dormitory?
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that clamping down on ANY kind of speech or the press, including, if not especially that which others find distasteful or objectionable, constitutes a direct and heinous violation of our First Amendment rights.
the pressLet’s review: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
The “freedom of speech” part applies to everyone, regardless of the platform or message. The “press” part applies to the press, but what, really, is “the press?”
At 12, Benjamin Franklin became an apprentice to his brother James, a printer, who taught Ben the printing trade. When Ben the presswas 15, James founded The New-England Courant, which was the first truly independent newspaper in the colonies. Was that “the press?” Absolutely.
Fifteen years ago, my first professional article was published in a The Press Roomwell-known journal of the IT industry. Was that “the press?” Absolutely.
This very minute, I am writing an article expressing my opinion about our First Amendment’s protection of our rights to freely express our opinions about anything.
So…  Is this “the press?”


Even if it weren’t, Congress is still prohibited against making any law that abridges the freedom of speech.  Rest assured, however, this blog is most certainly “the press” as mentioned in the Constitution.

Freedom vs Tyranny vs Cakes vs Firearms

I had begun my comment by stating, “These decisions by non-elected “councils” are blatantly un-Constitutional. The key precept behind our Founding Father’s concept of freedom is that no man should be forced to do anything that violates his conscience.”
On respondent mentioned hate.  Another mentioned cakes.
Neither one matters.  This isn’t about what’s more or less hateful. It’s about freedom, and forcing others to do that which violates their conscience.
This isn’t about hate or bad parenting. This is about government forcing citizens to do things that violate their good conscience. That’s an OFFENCE against freedom. No matter how many layers you use to wrap that fish, it’s still a fish, and when you peel those layers, it stinks.
Let’s bring this home: I routinely open carry. I frequented one store for a good 18 months before the owner unceremoniously placed a “NO FIREARMS” sign on the door. I was halfway through the door before I spotted the sign, so I simply turned around and left.
The owner, clearly incensed, stuck his head through the door and said, “Oh, what? I can’t make my own rules in my own store?”
I paused for a minute as I responded by saying, “Of course you can,, Sir, and I respect your right to do so. Please respect my right to refuse to do business with those who do not respect our right to keep and bear arms.”  He was dumbfounded.  I left.
Did I sue him? No. Did some state agency force him not to “discriminate?” No.
He made a decision commensurate with his conscience.
I made a decision commensurate with my conscience.
THAT’S what this is all about. We were both free to make our own decisions. That’s FREEDOM.
The cake scenario has a bunch of government pinheads sticking their noses into everyone’s business, telling then what they can or cannot do, or even what they have to do.
That’s not freedom. That’s TYRANNY.

Un-Constitutional? Just say “NO!”

Regardless of your station in life, if you encounter something which is un-Constitutional, just say, “NO.”  It’s the absolute best thing you can do for your country!

If it’s un-Constitutional, just say, “NO.” After all the Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land.” Any federal, state, county, or municipal law which violates the Constitution is null and void.

If it’s un-Constitutional, just say, “NO.” The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that no citizen is under any obligation to follow any law which violates the Constitution. In fact, you have a duty to oppose it any way you can.

If it’s un-Constitutional, just say, “NO.” Each and every civil, military, and law enforcement officer throughout the land has a sworn duty to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” That duty is higher than all other duties. If a law is un-Constitutional, you not only have the option to ignore it. You have a duty to ignore it. You have the duty to refuse to enforce it, even under direct orders to the contrary.  That’s WHY you swore your oath of office, so that you would be one of the many checks against tyranny in our country.

We the People remain free only because we’ve stood firm against tyranny, countering attempts to control us in violation of our Constitutional rights.  Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to incorporate many checks and balances against tyranny throughout our society, above and beyond the tricameral system at the top.

Here’s an example:  Let’s say Congress passes a blatantly un-Constitutional law, the President signs it, and the Supreme Court claims it’s Constitutional, even though We the People clearly see right through their tyrannical hijinks.

What can we do?

First, if you’re a citizen, refuse to follow it.  The Supreme Court has already ruled you’re under no obligation to follow it.

Second, if you’re a law enforcement officers, refuse to enforce it.  In fact, it’s your sworn duty to refuse any action which violates the Constitution.

Third, if you’re a voter, change your vote to someone other than whoever passed and signed that law.  Better yet, find someone who will overturn it.

Forth, educate others.  Share this message of hope and freedom with others!

Fifth, if the bastards refuse to follow the rules, if they attempt to take tyrannical, unlawful, un-Constitutional control of our government, move in and move them out.  While all defeated incumbents should have the grace to vacate their office, we might come upon a time when they won’t, at least not without a little encouragement.

Above all else, remember:  This is OUR country.  Our government works for us, not the other way around.  We remain a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people.

It’s high time we started acting like it.