16 Jan

President Obama’s Executive Orders On Gun Control Released

The Washington Post:

The President’s plan includes: (1) closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands; (2) banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence; (3) making schools safer; and (4) increasing access to mental health services. Highlights of this comprehensive plan include:

 Require criminal background checks for all gun sales.
 Take four executive actions to ensure information on dangerous
individuals is available to the background check system.
 Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.
 Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.
 Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.
 Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
 End the freeze on gun violence research.
 Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school
counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.
 Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.
 Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.

The President is determined to do all he can within existing authorities, and today, he will announce 23 new executive actions to make progress right away. These actions will: help make sure information about potentially dangerous people who are barred from having guns is available to the national background check system; lift the ban on research into the causes of gun violence; make sure doctors know they can report credible threats of violence by their patients; put more resource officers and counselors in schools; and ensure millions of Americans get quality mental health coverage.

Read more

And Marco Rubio responds:

Rubio, often mentioned as a likely 2016 presidential candidate, said it would have been better if Obama had decided to announce his proposals without being accompanied by children. …

“I think ultimately he has a right to do that, and I understand he has a right to do that,” Rubio said. “I think most of us would have preferred if it just had been a straightforward address to the country because it implies that somehow those of us who do not agree with his public policy prescriptions don’t equally care about children.” …

Rubio called Democrats’ interest in pushing a new assault-weapons ban “misplaced.”

“I think it’s completely misplaced. Because here’s the issue in this public policy debate that’s different from others: There is a constitutional right to bear arms,” Rubio said. “I did not create that and he cannot erase that. It is in the Constitution. If they want to change the Constitution, if they want to believe the Second Amendment should not be in there or if they believe it should be rewritten in the 21st century then let them have the guts to stand up and propose that.”

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

22 Responses to President Obama’s Executive Orders On Gun Control Released

  1. Cynicles says: 1

    “This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, the police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.”

    Adolph Hitler – 1935

    ReplyReply
  2. Cynicles says: 2

    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

    -Thomas Jefferson

    ReplyReply
  3. johngalt says: 3

    The list of EO’s;

    1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

    On the surface, this looks ok. However, it depends on exactly what “relevant data” means, and how it will be included in the federal background checks.

    2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

    “Unnecessary legal barriers”. What exactly are those? And how can you address them, by EO, or Presidential decree, or agency policy, without it becoming new law? My guess is that more regulations, by regulatory agency fiat, will be issued. Constitution trampled on again.

    3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

    Much like the above #2, any “incentives” to states will be in the form of new law, which the President cannot issue, nor his executive branch, without the approval and direction of Congress. Constitution trampled on again.

    4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks

    It’s fine to review those categories, and then recommend to Congress what legislation the President and Exec branch would like to see to address those. However, if the AG reviews the categories, and makes rule changes, without the approval of Congressional action, on limiting someone’s rights under the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution will be trampled on again.

    5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

    That’s fine. As long as Congress creates the legislation necessary. Otherwise, the Constitution is trampled on again.

    6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers

    Providing guidance is fine. However, if there are repercussions issued when the “guidance” isn’t followed, then the Constitution is trampled on again.

    7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

    No problem with this. Although I think this is ill-advised, much like the “war on drugs” campaign, or “war on poverty” campaigns, from previous officeholders.

    8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

    I see this as having a definite possibility of being easily abused. Negative campaigning against what is otherwise good and safe products for gun-owners is likely.

    9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

    If this is limited to federal crimes, then it’s fine. Anything more requires Congressional approval, as it creates new law and not just federal inter and intra-agency policy. We’ll see how far they go on this.

    10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

    Again, if it’s related to federal crimes, then no problem with this. If they demand state and local compliance, especially with threats of withholding otherwise legal funds to states, then it is unConstitutional.

    11. Nominate an ATF director.

    I thought we had a head of the ATF. If this is a new Cabinet position, or a czar, then I find this repugnant, as a believer in smaller, more efficient government.

    12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

    On the surface, I don’t have a problem with this, as many institutions likely have non-existent, or weak, response directives and training. However, if they suggest the same kind of idiocy that led to naming “gun-free” zones, then it will be a huge failure.

    13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

    Gun-owners and gun-rights advocates have been suggesting this for years. Because of that, I doubt that any real enforcement efforts, especially with Holder as AG, will come to fruition. In effect, it is simply doing their job. They haven’t shown any propensity to do this before, regarding gun crime, so I’ll believe it when I see it.

    4. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

    I dislike this one heavily. Why? Because the likelihood of it becoming a political football, like AGW, is high. Wrong conclusions based on faulty and misleading assumptions and facts are the likely result. Anyone disagree?

    15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

    Judging by this AG’s performance thus far, I see abusive tactics and favoritism playing a huge role in what they “approve” of and what they condemn.

    16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

    If my doctor asks about my firearms at home, then I’m getting a new doctor. I’m betting that many others would feel the same way. My firearm ownership has nothing to do with my health.

    17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

    Ok, fine. But if you think that a realization that telling your head shrink about your anger towards a government entity, that will result in your doctor reporting it to authorities, won’t lead to patients keeping that info to themselves, then you, sir, are an idiot.

    18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

    This seems to me to be a case of the exec branch making law. unConstitutional.

    19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

    Fine, as long as they allow that some of those groups will reject that “model” in favor of other means they feel might be more effective.

    20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

    In light of the facts from Connecticut, this seems to be a “cover your ass” type proposal that will end up costing the taxpayers more and more dollars.

    21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

    The Obamacare monster strikes again.

    22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

    See #21

    23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

    Isn’t this basically letting the patients run the asylum? I contend that Sebelius and Duncan are two of the least qualified people to be discussing mental health issues, as they seem to be suffering from a kind of derangement syndrome most commonly associated with liberal/progressives. If nothing else, whatever they say might be humorous, at least.

    ReplyReply
  4. Nan G says: 4

    4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks

    It’s fine to review those categories, and then recommend to Congress what legislation the President and Exec branch would like to see to address those. However, if the AG reviews the categories, and makes rule changes, without the approval of Congressional action, on limiting someone’s rights under the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution will be trampled on again.

    There are ways of profiling while looking like you’re not profiling.
    This is one of those ways.
    Expand the categories based on every anecdotal incident that is blown up by the media and soon nobody is in a category to own a personal firearm.

    ReplyReply
  5. what about those who are going thru a life disaster so empowering like the AFGHANISTAN SOLDIERS,
    or a death of a love one or same or more, which put the person on a low level of thinking straight,
    BUT THIS IS ONLY TEMPORARY,
    IF THE DOCTOR REPORT THEM AT THE TIME THE PERSON SEEK HELP,
    DOES IT MEAN THAT HE OR SHE WILL NEVER HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE WEAPON,
    AND WILL BE FORCE TO SURRENDER THEIR WEAPON, EVEN THEY RECOVER OF THEIR DOWNFALL?
    OBAMA HAS SIGN DANGEROUS LAWS TO PREVENT IT,

    ReplyReply
  6. retire05 says: 6

    4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks

    Right, the very agency that allowed, no demanded that, legitimate gun dealers sell over 2,000 weapons to straw buyers that the dealers questioned, is now goig to make sure that no one is “slipping throught the cracks.” What a joke that is.

    6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers

    Of course, this is going to come from the same ATF that forced gun dealers to sell to Mexican drug cartel members and Mexican drug cartel straw buyers. Obama must think we are really, really stupid.

    10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

    Yeah, the DoJ did so very, very good in tracking over 2,000 firearms sold that went to the Mexican drug cartels. One straw purchaser bought over 700 high powered rifles. When do we find out where those are?

    16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

    17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

    This puts the onus on medical doctors to report anyone who they think consitutes a “threat.” And what consitutes a “threat.” Will Kathleen Sebilius be the arbitrator of that? Good luck with that. Medical doctors know that the wheels have just been greased for every tort lawyer in the U.S. who will be more than happy to sue the pants off any doctor that is not licensed to practice psychiatric medicine that reports, to any agency, a patient who has no criminal/adjudicated mental illness history as posing a “threat”.

    This also flies in the face of HIPPA laws and doctor/patient confidenciality.

    This may be a feel good list for the left, but it is also meaningless. None of those things, especially giving new responsibilities to the DoJ and ATF, will do anything. Eric Holder will remain as incompetent as ever. Perhaps Obama should have ordered him to release all the information on Agent Brian Terry’s death to Terry’s family, instead of stonewalling. The ATF is broken, and no feel good platitude is going to fix it.

    ReplyReply
  7. retire05 says: 7

    @Nan G:

    Can you imagine a GP reporting to a LE agency that he has a patient that he thinks is a “threat?” He will get his pants sued off if he is not licensed to practice psychiatry. It also makes rats out of doctors, who might be treating a woman who is having some mental issues because she is being/has been stalked. Is anyone who is taking Prozac a threat? How about someone who has been raped and is being treated for emotional distress? Is the doctor required to turn her in?

    ReplyReply
  8. Greg says: 8

    A National Alliance on Mental Illness fact sheet.

    They claim that 1 of every 17 adults in the nation has a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, major depression, or bipolar disorder, and that less than 1/3 of them receive mental health services in any given year.

    ReplyReply
  9. retire05 says: 9

    @Greg:

    Gee, Greggie, the fact that the NAMI receives almost 60% of its funding from Big Pharma, I would have thought you would be the last person to want to use them as a reference.

    Wonder why their report didn’t include how many of the “mentally ill” people are liberals/progressives? Hell, they had a prime study group with the OWS crowd.

    ReplyReply
  10. retire05
    you stole my answer, GREG , no I don’t believe that arithmetic at all.
    if they did that to fit OBAMA’S PAPERS, THEY HAVE A LOT OF NERVE,
    DISCREDITING THE AMERICANS,
    shame on them, they better not send that list to OBAMA, BECAUSE IT IS NOT TRUE,
    those who declare these mental diseases are to dam lazy to search more and deeper in the dept of the behavior of the person, and put a label of mental sickness, that’s too easy and incredible wrong,
    just like a label of felon to all those who commit any illegality , killed or where taken beside a thief
    they even did not know he was one, and more of,
    so that list is to be discredit as not true, by everyone.
    further more the AMERICANS ARE SICK AND TIRED YOU KNOW WHY?
    IT’S BECAUSE THE LEADERSHIP IS SICK AND DEMONIZE ALL THOSE AROUND HIM AND DIVIDE THE PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT NATION, HE HUMILIATE THEM AND SCARE EVERYONE BY HIS AROGANTS LECTURES AND WARNING, HE MAKE THE PEOPLE SICK OF HIM,
    BECAUSE HE IS A MENTAL SICKO HIMSELF NOT THE AMERICANS, he like to pick on them all the time on everything he can find.

    ReplyReply
  11. Greg says: 11

    @retire05, #9:

    So, you want more people to be armed, and fewer people to be on their medication?

    ReplyReply
  12. retire05 says: 12

    @Greg:

    So, you want more people to be armed, and fewer people to be on their medication?

    Is that what I said?

    I just though you would be interested in the fact that NAMI is getting a good chuck of its funding from Big Pharma which has an interest in pushing psychotropic drugs.

    But hey, according to you, and Obama, if a firefighter, who has no criminal record and no history of violent behavior, has a problem sleeping because he keeps dreaming of the little girl that was screaming in a burning house and he couldn’t get to her to save her, he should be reported as a “threat” who shouldn’t be able to purchase a firearm for his family’s protection.

    I’m sure the tort lawyers are just salavating at the prospect of suing doctors all over the nation for violating a patient’s confidentiality. Yeah, there was a reason that Obama dragged in over $42 million in campaign donations from lawyers/law firms. Nevermind that Obama’s E.O.s were in direct conflict with HIPPA laws.

    ReplyReply
  13. Nan G says: 13

    @Greg:
    Greg, the vast majority of people who seek out professional help about suicidal thoughts and violent thoughts are in law enforcement.
    But put the onus on doctors (even the right doctors) to tell the gov’t to take away his guns because he is in therapy over suicidal or violent thoughts and where will our law enforcement be in 5 years?
    I mentioned the other day how my niece’s husband forced a police officer to kill him (suicide by cop).
    I met with that officer.
    He went into therapy over that incident.
    But, no thanks to Obama, he is still a cop today and a great one.
    IF Obama’s standards become policy people like that officer will have to change careers.
    OR they will have to muscle through tough situations like that without therapy….or by being dishonest with their therapist.
    Isn’t that great?

    OTOH, the big thug in school who is in forced therapy many times, drops out and joins a gang, then needs a gun.
    Do you think for one second he will have any difficulty getting one with all Obama’s hoops to jump through?
    They will not stand in his way because criminals don’t obey laws.

    ReplyReply
  14. Ditto says: 14

    @johngalt:

    Re: #1:

    On the surface, this looks ok. However, it depends on exactly what “relevant data” means,

    Bureaucrat to applicant: (1) “Are you a member of the political elite, a body guard, or just a voter?” (2) Are you a Republican or a Democrat?

    Re #2:

    “Unnecessary legal barriers”. What exactly are those?

    Congress? The Supreme Court? The Constitution?

    Re #3: state “incentives”

    Using the typical Chicago usage of the term “incentive”, it means Obama will “give them an offer they can’t refuse”

    Re #4: “dangerous people”

    Define: “Dangerous people” (Perhaps: “people who cling to their guns and religion”?)

    Re: #5: . “Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”

    Sure, that way they will be without a gun until the “full background check” is performed (how ever long it takes). But, we have to wonder, why was the gun “seized” in the first place?

    Re #6.

    Providing guidance is fine. However, if there are repercussions issued when the “guidance” isn’t followed, then the Constitution is trampled on again.

    Obama: Define “Guidance” and point out what part of the law has ever required a private owner seek guidance before selling their personal stuff.

    Re #7: Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

    Obama: first define what should be considered “safe and responsible gun ownership” (It could be rather extreme if written by the “Brady bunch.” Like: “All guns will be stored entombed in concrete to protect the children.”)

    Re #8. “safety standards for gun locks and gun safes”.

    Obama: safety standards by, …whom and in what respect? Rather vague there don’t you think. (Funny, I don’t remember hearing anything about the mass shooters use of gun locks or gun safes.)

    Re #9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

    Well now that’s just silly. Why trace around a gun it when you can just take a picture.

    Re #10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

    Well isn’t that nice of the DOJ, trying to help us recover our lost or stolen guns.

    11. Nominate an ATF director.

    Shouldn’t that really be on Obama’s “to do” list? I didn’t think he needed to give himself an executive order.

    Re #12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

    In “gun free zones”? What, like teach them to catch bullets with their teeth?

    Re #13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

    Um, …why weren’t they already doing this with present laws?

    Re #14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

    OK, Obama lost me on this one. Where does this fall under the definition of “disease” or the established mission of the CDC?

    Re #15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

    Like magic spells and prestidigitation. Or maybe force fields and stasis guns.

    Re #16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

    Geez! That’s tough! I haven’t a clue about what kind of guns my doctor keeps in his home.

    Re #17: Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

    Hey we could make a whole list of things that no federal prohibits them from doing.

    Re #18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

    Another Chicago “Offer you can’t refuse”

    Re #19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

    I think most models would be rather useless in emergency response situations. What with those high heels and designer clothes, I just don’t think it would work out.

    Re #20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

    Nagging won’t help.

    Re #21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

    All those pages of Obamacare and that wasn’t included?

    Re: 22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

    Redundant. Geez Obama, can’t you even remember what you just wrote? (Then again, maybe Biden penciled that one in.)

    Re #23. (Which should be #22) Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

    OK. So, Obama puts Sebelius on the east coast, and Duncan on the west coast, gives them really big megaphones, and we get to listen to them yell at each other. Could be fun to watch.

    ReplyReply
  15. Ditto
    that is great, It tell us everything we want to understand,
    I really like what YOU DESCRIBE,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  16. liberal1(objectivity) says: 16

    Again, where are the right-wing solutions? Or does the situation deserve a solution? Is it important that innocent people have to die because of gun violence?

    ReplyReply
  17. retire05 says: 17

    @liberal1(objectivity):

    Why do you want “right-wing” solutions. You would simply dismiss them out of hand simply because they came from conservatives.

    ReplyReply
  18. LIBERAL1
    YOU TELL YOUR VIEWS at the wrong place,
    go and tell that to the criminals,
    because here it’s all good law abiding conservatives gun owners,
    they are on the side of getting rid of those criminals,
    and while you are close go tell OBAMA TO STOP LETTING IN THE ILLEGALS AND KISSING THEIR AZ AND CLOSE THOSE FUCKEN BORDER.

    ReplyReply
  19. johngalt says: 19

    @liberal1(objectivity):

    “Right-wing” solutions fall on deaf ears, lib1, even when they have been proven to work. Take the very liberal(general definition, not the political one) CCW laws and allowances in several states, for instance. The decrease in violent crime in areas where CCW laws allow more people to carry around a firearm is apparent to anyone who does the research. Yet, a liberal/progressive will still claim that more guns equals more gun violence, even when the statistics do not favor that viewpoint.

    “Assault” type weapons are used in no higher percentage, to commit crime and murder, than their makeup of all firearms owned by the general public. But the liberal/progressives do not care about those statistics, and instead, call for the banning of such weapons based on emotional fear of them that is completely irrational.

    High capacity magazines are no more responsible for the numbers of people killed during mass-shooting events than the type of weapon, as shown in the VaTech shooting, where handguns, holding 10-round magazines, were used to kill 32 people and wound 17 others. Yet, liberal/progressives suggest, without any statistical evidence, that limiting magazine capacity will reduce the numbers of people killed.

    None of the solutions presented by the liberal/progressives are based on logical conclusions derived from the factual and accurate statistics surrounding firearms, crime, and murder. It is enough that the part of We, the People, that actually use logic and thought, have rejected the liberal/progressive ideas as stupid, ineffective, and politically motivated. The liberal/progressive “solutions” are NOT “common sense” gun control solutions. They are the exact opposite, derived from emotional, Pavlovian responses to specific events, and not rooted in logical argument.

    And if you cannot see our solutions being presented, that is because you, yourself, are more inclined to believe the irrational emotional rhetoric rather than OBJECTIVELY look at the evidence presented and use logic to come to a sensible conclusion.

    ReplyReply
  20. retire05 says: 20

    @johngalt:

    And what exactly did Obama’s 23 bullet points executive orders do to address the guns that are already in the hands of those who have/will commit criminal acts with them? Not one damn thing. Those bullet points orders were nothing more than pablum to be feed to liberal babies. Just feel good rhetoric that will not do one thing to reduce the crime in his own home city, Chicago, which has some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation.

    Yesterday, Obama surrounded himself with children as he signed his useless EOs. He said:

    “This is our first task as a society; keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged. We can’t put this off any longer.”

    But take this into consideration:

    “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is preceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

    Guess who wrote that.

    ReplyReply
  21. johngalt says: 21

    @retire05:

    I’m not suggesting that Obama’s EO ideas, soon to be issued, have any effect, or will have any effect, on any criminal activity going on. In fact, on the surface, most of them appear innocuous. That is a trick that liberal/progressives have learned quite well. Suggest something that doesn’t alarm the masses, and then take that something and make it hell for the citizens.

    Take #8, for example;

    8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

    On the surface, it seems sensible enough. As in, let’s all make sure that our guns are kept in the safest manner, away from our children, or held steadfast enough that a burglar cannot abscond away with our guns. Sensible, right?

    But what happens when the suggestions coming from that commission tell us that the current design and supply of gun safes, trigger locks, and the like, are too weak. Too easily defeated by even the most simple-minded of criminals. What then? Will the “recommendations” determine what products we will be offered in the future? Will it make your gun so difficult to get to in an emergency, that it defeats the purpose of even having a firearm?

    Or, will liberal/progressives involve themselves in a gun-safe, or trigger-lock company who will be identified as the preferred supplier, to where federal law and legislation will favor that manufacturer, enriching those in power even more?

    Abuses are bound to happen. It is a natural tendency of those who are in power and make law, in fact. And I really don’t see this particular suggested EO being any different.

    And the masses that make up We, the People, are generally too stupid to realize when we’ve been had. Like I said, on the surface, that EO seems innocuous enough. Full of common sense even.

    Too bad it’s not.

    ReplyReply
  22. IT made me think that the WHITE HOUSE IS PUSHING THE ABORTIONS BY GIVING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO HELP PARENTHOOD,
    WHAT DOES IT SAY TO A YOUNG PERSON WHO HEAR OFTEN OF ABORTIONS,
    AND IF HIS JUDGEMENT IS NOT WELL OPERATING, HE IS IN THAT AGE OF THE SEX REVOLUTION
    TORMENT, HE HEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGREE TO ABORTION
    AND PARTICIPATE IN IT BY FINANCING IT WITH MILLIONS ON TOP OF MORE MILLIONS JUST LATELY,
    IF THAT YOUNG PICK UP THE MESSAGE THAT IT’S OKAY TO KILL THE CHILD IN THE WOMB BEGINNING HIS STRUGGLE , THEN HE MUST THINK IT’S OKAY TO KILL THEM ALL SO TO FOLLOW THE NEW TRENDS,
    AND IT TELL US THAT THE LEADER OF AMERICA MIGHT HAVE ENHANCE THE KILLING DECISION OF THAT YOUNG MAN , AND BE RESPONSIBLE BY ASSOCIATION AND GUILTY OF HIS CAMPAIGN SPEECHS PROMOTING OPENLY ABORTION, IS IT IT THE WAY HE GOT TO HAVE THE YOUNG WOMAN
    ON HIS TAIL ALL AROUND THE USA, SEEKING THE OKAY TO HAVE SEX UNLIMITED BECAUSE OF THE ACCESS OF THE PILL,
    WE KNOW THE DEVIL ONLY WIN THE SOUL BY SUGGESTIONS
    THAT IT’S OKAY TO JOIN HIM

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>