Obama’s “Signature Achievement”

07 Dec

Obama Signs Another "Signature Achievement" [courtesy Google Images]

Obama Signs Another “Signature Achievement”
[courtesy Google Images]

The Washington Times reported on President Obama’s reaction to the San Bernardino terrorist attack in “White House says stricter gun laws can prevent terrorist attacks”.

Oh, please.  That contemptible s.o.b. is exploiting the deaths of 14 people to try to advance his ridiculous gun-control agenda.


Despite mounting evidence that Islamist terrorists were responsible for the mass slayings in California, the White House said Thursday that stricter gun control could have prevented the attack and vowed to keep “scrubbing” the nation’s laws for ways that President Obama can take executive action to restrict gun ownership.”

Gun control is President Obama’s solution to every problem.

Got global warming?  Cure it with more gun control.

Falling leaves clogging your gutters?  Cure it with more gun control.

Unseasonably warm, cold or moderate weather choking the economy?  Gun control will solve your problems.

Hemorrhoids, bunions, or dandruff?  Get Dr. Obama’s patented “Gun Control Elixir”.

Gun control—it’s the panacea the world’s been waiting for.

At least, that’s what President Obama would have you believe.

In fact, Barack Hussein Obama is a shameless, tin-horn, lying Kenyan who can’t even produce a birth certificate to prove he’s eligible to work as a White House butler.

In fact, there’s no way that “stricter gun control” would’ve prevented the 14 deaths and 21 injuries caused by the shooters in San Bernardino.  To claim otherwise is a blatant, bold-faced and shameless lie.


•  How ‘bout we have stricter candidate control for the Presidency? How ‘bout we criminalize running for the Presidency if you’re not born in one of the States of the Union?  How ‘bout we make the political parties civilly liable for, say, $20 million, if they nominate an unconstitutional candidate for the White House—and $40 million if they manage to elect another one?

The American people would get more protection and greater safety out of “stricter candidate control” than they ever will out of “stricter gun control”.

Stricter gun control laws won’t work any better than stricter drug control laws.  Drugs are here in abundance and the government can’t or won’t do anything to stop it.  There’s no reason to suppose that stricter gun control laws will work any better to defeat criminal activity.

In fact, no one seriously believes that stricter gun control laws would have stopped the Jihadists from acquiring guns to kill 14 and wound 21.  True, stricter gun control might have caused the Jihadists to spend two months acquiring their guns rather than two weeks—but they were Muslims and motivated by their faith to launch an attack.  They were profoundly patient, persistent and unperturbed by gun control.  They could not have been stopped by more gun control laws. If they had to smuggle guns in from Saudi Arabia, they would’ve got their guns.

Some elements of government are tasked with trying to detect and stop the import of nuclear weapons into this country by ISIS or similar “terrorist” organization.  I guarantee that if it’s even conceivable that nuclear weapons can be smuggled into this country, it’s a snap for terrorists to smuggle in sniper rifles and full–automatic rifles.  Increased gun control will not stop terrorists from acquiring guns in this country.

However, increasing restrictions on access to guns helped render the 14 who were shot and killed defenseless.  Increased gun control regulations made owning and carrying a firearm inconvenient and difficult for law-abiding people.  Therefore, existing gun control laws in California–one of the nation’s most draconian, anti-gun states–left the 21 who were wounded, defenseless.  The 35 victims died or were wounded largely because they obeyed California’s existing and rigorous gun control laws.  Their resulting inability to defend themselves got them killed.

What if the Jihadists had known that 2, 3 or 10 of the people who they planned to kill were packing heat?  What if they’d known that even if they showed up with two AK-47s, they’d have to face off against ten people packing 9mm pistols or .45 caliber semi-automatics?

More gun control would not have saved the San Bernardino victims.  It’s gun control that got them killed.


•  That opinion is not radical hyperbole.

In fact, the English magazine The Economist implicitly agrees with that opinion and has published evidence to support that agreement.

Here are excerpts from an article published by The Economist several months ago that were more recently described by The Washington Examiner (“The Economist Speaks on U.S. gun control”):


“Gun sales have doubled under President Obama while the gun murder rate has been cut in half since 1993, making America “a much safer place,” according to a new Economist analysis. . . .  Over 16 million new guns entered the U.S. marketplace in 2013, up from about 7 million [per year] when Obama was elected in 2008.

“America has become a much safer place over the past two decades, but public sentiment has yet to catch on to the fact.  In 1993, near the peak of America’s crime wave, seven out of every 100,000 people aged 12 and up were gunned down. That number has since halved,” it said.


The obvious lesson in The Economist’s report is that more guns in the hands of more people actually make people safer.

The 14 who died and the 21 who were wounded in San Bernardino weren’t the victims of gun control laws that were too weak—they were the victims of gun control laws that were too strong.  If half a dozen of those 38 victims had had their own guns with them, the death and injury toll would’ve been smaller and the terrorists would probably died on the spot..  It’s even possible that, if the Jihadists had known they were bringing their weapons into a venue where their intended targets were also armed, those Jihadists might not have dared to attack.

The 14 people who died in San Bernardino didn’t die simply because the Jihadists had guns.  The victims died because they didn’t have guns.

If Barack Hussein Obama really wanted to protect the American people from gun violence he’d help pass laws that mandated people to own fire arms and also allowed and encouraged people to carry those firearms in public.

It may be counter-intuitive for many to suppose that more guns result in fewer gun deaths, but that’s only because we’ve been conditioned by government propaganda to believe gun control is a rational agenda that serves the public interest.

Despite government’s propaganda, the evidence is clear.  Over the last 22 years—and especially during the Obama administration—the number of guns sold annually in this country has at least doubled and the number of killing attributed to guns had fallen by half.  I’d like to see that treasonous whore Obama talk his way around those facts.

Gun control advocates are, at best, ignorant—at worst, treasonous.  Whether they know it or not, the “gun control nuts” are working to make this nation and its people less safe.


Punch Line:

Yahoo! Finance reports in “Gunmaker Smith & Wesson up almost 100% in 2015,” that:


“One stock that continued to rise through much of Thursday and throughout gun-related violence headlines this year? Gunmaker Smith & Wesson—which clocked in over $500 million in sales last year—up 93% since January.”


So, was ObamaCare the “signature achievement” of President Obama’s administration?


Obama’s “signature achievement” has been to almost single-handedly double the annual sale of firearms—and thereby reduce the number of gun-related murders.

Congratulations, President Obama!  Maybe that Nobel Peace Prize you received for being black wasn’t quite as stupid as it seemed. By inadvertently causing an increase in gun sales, you’ve played a big role in diminishing gun deaths and increasing public safety. Maybe increasing public safety is one of the criteria for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. You might not want to take credit for that result, but it must still be your true, “signature achievement”.

Makes me laugh.

God, guns and gold.  Is this still a great country, or what?

Maybe so.



•  Here’s a video of Billy Joel singing the Gun Control Song.  It’s extremely well done.  Makes you laugh.  Makes people see that “gun control” is for buffoons and treasonous whores

Video   00:04:11


It’s not only true that Obama is a buffoon; it’s true that more and more Americans are agreeing with that opinion.

During your administration, President Obama, your gun control propaganda precipitated the additional sales of about 40 million firearms.  Couldn’t’ve have sold all those extra firearms without you, Barack.  Couldn’t have made millions of Americans safer without your anti-gun propaganda.

Thank you, Obama, for your . . . “signature achievement”.

Heh, heh, heh.


Posted by on December 7, 2015 in 2nd Amendment, Despotism, Lies, Obama, Terrorism, Treason, Tyranny, Video


Tags: , , , , , , ,

9 responses to “Obama’s “Signature Achievement”

  1. Dennis Naanes

    December 8, 2015 at 9:11 AM



    PJB: America and France Turn Right

    LINK: (



  2. palani

    December 8, 2015 at 9:15 AM

    Rather than media and talking heads condemning the fact (if it is a fact) that two guns were used to kill 14 people why not celebrate the fact (this one might be closer to reality after all) that 300 million guns killed no one.

    If you went to Vegas with odds like this would you bet on the long shot or the favored scenario?

  3. palani

    December 8, 2015 at 9:19 AM

    I propose a national affordable violence protection insurance program in which non-gun owners take the money they should have used to defend themselves and instead apply these funds to a national tontine with annual payouts prorated on the length of time one decides to rely upon police for protection … sort of like a social insurance program intended to make ’em either put up or shut up.

  4. palani

    December 8, 2015 at 9:20 AM

    I hope you realize that the last posting was tongue in cheek … an analogy to the affordable healthcare act (aka ‘bama care).

  5. Oliver Medaris

    December 9, 2015 at 12:13 AM

    Good one, Palani. I’ll keep my guns. Who knows. Radcal Islam may try to kill us in Texas. That should slow down their murderous ways. Maybe they will find G-d and check out that verse in Exodus about murder. I, for one, think He was being serious.

  6. Felipe

    December 9, 2015 at 2:50 PM


    Check this out, I think you will find it informative as this guys seems to understand how the present system of usury is carried out:

  7. Chex

    December 9, 2015 at 6:37 PM

    Felipe the FRN is an international debt note does not make it American because it has dead presidents on it. It is printed privately for international bankers under private international law.

    Ships fly flags correct?

    Congressman William Louis Fiesinger, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, and Congressman James Traficant on Congressional Record the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress, published by the United States Government Printing Office told us this. Not one of today’s politicians will tell you this and there is a reason they won’t.

    Who would the corporate United States of America, Inc. borrow from and who would they get to pay for their inter -national debt bills from their inter-national contract?

    More importantly whose obligation is it?

    18 U.S.C. § 8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined.
    The term ”obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

    Federal Reserve notes, shall be obligations of the United States, INC.

    31 U.S.C. § 3124. Exemption from taxation
    (a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except –
    (1) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another non-property tax instead of a franchise tax, imposed on a corporation; and
    (2) an estate or inheritance tax.

    More importantly let me ask you or ask iamsomedude how did it become your responsibility or So how can your State tax those Federal obligations (notes)?

    It has to be the contract you signed. It takes two signatures to have a valid contract, and maybe a witness (notary) hearsay won’t cut it.

    As of July 1, 2013, the bankruptcy of the corporate United States of America, Inc. I heard it was a request from the 266th and current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church asked or ended it, and all debts of this private, for-profit, mostly foreign owned governmental services corporation were settled and discharged. And did the media report this?

    Rubio “The power of the IRS is directly related to the complexity of the tax code. Guess who writes the tax code, can’t disappoint the stockholders can we now? Better yet who are they when the public can’t invest either.

    You think anyone of these candidates running for president running today would have brought this subject matter up? Everyone thinks the FRB is all American, it’s not. In tax court you’re international court on dry land.

    The bottom line its usury for the usufruct. or

    Open letter to Jack Lew Secretary of the Treasury

    Now its bitcoin. You created something popular and famous so we raid your house so we can steal your intellectual property. Or is this all a ruse to pin one of their puppets’ faces to bitcoin so that they can gain control?

    Some stockholders think just because of the McFadden Act their entitled everything that contains commerce.

    • Felipe

      December 10, 2015 at 3:33 PM


      I am a bit slow, could you explain a little further? What does it all mean?


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s