You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Constitution’ category.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What the NRA is proposing: that every man become his own enforcer of his own view of ”constitutionality” by having his own masses of whatever firepower he so chooses, … is the exact opposite of being well regulated. As we see with every new report of shootings, it promotes anarchy.
If we assume that a civilian population is required to keep arms to protect itself from tyranny, then by the words of the Constitution itself,… we have to regulate those very arms…
We can regulate them by banning assault rifles. We can regulate them by banning high capacity clips. We can regulate them by registering every firearm to a single owner, and holding that single owner accountable for whatever accident befalls that gun. We can regulate them by requiring insurance, and if there are those who refuse to abide by the constitutional regulations, we can incarcerate them and be done with them.
The Constitution allows for firearms, only IF THEY ARE WELL REGULATED….
So, in order to validate the Constitution, let’s regulate all firearms….. Failure to do so, is a violation of the Founding Father’s own principles, and is unconstitutional….
It says so right there in the Second Amendment. Care to read it?
Courtesy of Fox Productions.
On a Conservative blog which I won’t name to keep up the appearance of respectability, some amazing comments were posted. When you approach them in remembering that we are dealing with a school shooting, a theater shooting, and a congressperson shooting, (as well as a mall, a church, another school.) none of the comments deal with that reality.
Instead the conversation becomes one on a made up topic, in this case, … that they were going to lose their guns….
The framing of their thought process begins with this: since we are at war with our own government (going on long before the shootings) keeping all weapons in individual’s hands is our first priority, it is the one worth fighting for. Children?” What children? Oh, those? Children die of natural causes all the time. (plus they don’t vote, they do “suck up” their parents resources, and they want things “given” to them, so they don’t matter..)
Here is how their brains work…. Pretend it is you starting the conversation and you need to talk to your spouse, bf, etc, about finances….
“Hey, … we need to talk… This check book is not having its totals kept up….”
“Oh, my Goodness….. Just like that? It’s over just like that?”
“No, No, No… I want to talk to you about our finances….”
“They are younger than I am, isn’t it.. I gave you everything and you are tossing me away. I got wrinkles for you. I sacrificed for you!” I hate you…” (the shrill”screaming begins…)
“No, Calm down. Please. Don’t … Relax… I just need to talk to you about our finances. Look, it’s about the checkbook…”
“OH MY GOSH!… are you closing our bank account? How will I live. You are taking a vacation with them, aren’t you… You stole all our money and you are leaving today, aren’t you!…”
“No, once again. I’m not mad at you. I love you. .. I always love you… I just want to make sure we are on the same page on this checkbook, that is all.”
“Oh, now you are blaming me, huh? It’s all my fault! I never did you wrong and this is how you treat me… I’m calling mom…”
“Mom! I just got thrown out of the house… Yes, he’s taking a vacation with some vixen, I guess he knows her at work. The kids? He didn’t say. I guess he’s keeping them tonight. Can I come over? I’m a mess, I hurt, I can’t stand up. I’m in shock. Hold on, Mom, here he comes….”
“GET AWAY! GET AWAY! STAY AWAY! DON’T GO THREATENING ME! Mom, quick call the police….”
LOL… That is what talking to a conservative about guns is like… They can’t reason. They attack you for doing the worst thing to them when you just wanted to discuss a minor adjustment. They are psycho….
Oh, so now I’m exaggerating? Ha, ha… Look at these excerpts… Now these came from party chairs, county chairs,… former state-wide Republican candidates, … this is a high touting thread… none of their comments deals on the topic of Sandy Hook, or any other mass murder across our nation, caused by assault weapons and high capacity clips….
Here is what they say…..
Obama is going to take guns away.
The military is going to take guns away.
Democrats want to grow government bigger and bigger.
Obama is a statist pure and simple.
Does government have the power to reverse the existence of evil in the world.
World’s first murder occured thousands of years before the first gun was invented.
You want to take/eliminate/control over 300 million weapons but you oppose any effort to control illegal immigrants numbering about 12 million who are in plain sight.
Unlawfully armed criminals will have their way with you and your family at will. When every second counts, the police are only minutes away.
Government will do whatever it can to suppress freedom and liberty
You really think government will willingly submit to the electorate IF that electorate possesses no means to physically defend and enforce their own rights.
You have no real knowledge of how many military personnel includig officers would side with the people if the people were forced to take up arms against a tyrannical government.
Capabilities possessed by our government (much of them) would quickly line up alongside the armed citizens and against elected leaders
The Soviet Union collapsed for one and only one reason: The military (much of it) would not carry out orders to fire on their own countrymen.
If the people put up some serious resistance, they would quickly be joined by at least half, probably a majority, of the military of the United States.
All the officers fighting for the South and the North were allpreviously the military of one unified United States of America.”
If 500,000 armed men and women take to the streets with weapons to fight tyranny, the military for at least half of it will support the people
The progressive liberal government will use any excuse (Sandy Hook) to further their goal of disarming the American Public. The only thing standing in their way is the Second Amendment
I used a quick reasonable number of people who are armed. Even the ones that didn’t come out on the streets are in their homes armed.
The people are not going to fire on the military for the same reason that the military is not going to fire on the people.
The Soviet tyrants fell when the people marched on the legislature
Military would be ordered to go and disarm the people in clear violation of the Second Amendment…. and the military would simply refuse.
Liberals tried to teach the military to DISOBEY unlawful orders ever since the FAKED atrocities in Vietnam trumpeted by liar like John Kerry.
Maybe we should have IQ tests at the polls, too.
When guns are taken from law-abiding citizens, only criminals and law-enforcement will be armed.
The military would disobey an order to fire on an armed population marching on a tyrannical Congress or White House.This would work only BECAUSE the people are armed.
ONLY because the people are heavily armed would the US military feel confident disobeying orders and siding with a legitimate and proper Second American Revolution.
The Nazis murdered 11 million people — not battlefield deaths, outright murder — BECAUSE they disarmed the people.
The only role that guns played in those 6 million deaths were that the Nazis had ‘em and the Jews didn’t..If those 6 mllion Jews had been armed,…
If evil and murder have been rampant for thousands of years BEFORE the invention of the gun, why are you focusing on the gun?
The Military would feel more strongly about joining an armed insurrection that was shooting them as opposed to unarmed protesters they were being ordered to murder
It isn’t the military the people would be shooting.
Let’s remember, folks: IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THE MILITARY TO OPERATE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES
US military were involved in any way inside the borders of the USA, that itself would be unlawful and a reason for the military to disobey orders.
The armed insurection you postulate would be marching on the Congress — not attacking army bases.
nobody ever suggests that the First Amendment has to be justified by questions about “WILL IT WORK?”
A skilled bowman can kill people just as fast or faster with a cross bow
What about Fertilizer and other chemicals killed 168 people and injured 680 others. Not a single gun involved.a person who walks a bundle of 12 sticks of dynamite into a school auditorium or shopping mall?
4 million Jews went to the gas chambers because they did NOT have guns.
How many guns were involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in which 3000 people died?
The 2nd amendment is not perfect but stands as a major deterent to our Government becoming a dictatorship of any kind.
You can pass all the laws you want to start the process of disarming the civilian population, instead of enforcing the laws that are on the books and the result will be the same.
If and when there comes a time when our Government attempts to take away million of legally owned firearms beware of what they will try and take away from you next i.e. your freedom.
Wandering around a school looking for victims, like at Virginia Tech (which involved an ordinary pistol), a skilled crossbow fighter (1) could kill more people because no one would hear gun shots and react or run, and (2) could kill as many people. Are people less dead if it takes 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes?
It does not matter if American civilians are armed or not, the military won’t fire on them.
So if the US military were ordered to fire on US civilians, they would probably turn around and ARREST the person giving them the order.
Liberals imagine soldiers to be these stupid, mentally-retarded robots who don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh or Fox News.
If there were a Second American Revolution as Thomas Jefferson strongly recommended, it would follow a series of clearly illegal acts — such as confiscating guns in violation of the Second Amendment, violating the debt limit illegally, etc.
If there were an impending confrontation, a delegation would go under a white flag to appeal to the police or military to obey their Constitutional oath and sit this one out or join them.
Peaceful demonstrations never have and never will accomplish anything by themselves — although I have organized and participated in many of them.
I have never felt more threatened and in personal danger than when demonstrating near liberals who go insane with uncontrollable anger when conservatives are involved in a peaceful demonstration that disagrees with the liberals.
How did the peaceful demonstrations work out for the Chinese in Tiannemen Square? A demonstration only works IN COMBINATION WITH THE IMPLIED THREAT BACKING IT UP.
In the USA, the demonstration has an impact ONLY because it can motivate the voters TO THROW THE BUMS OUT on election day.
First, there is NOTHING the government can do, to eliminate mass killings across America.
Trying to ask the question “What should we do?” presupposes that there IS ANYTHING that the government can do. That threshold question has not been addressed… because it cannot be addressed.
Jack the Ripper killed a lot of people in London without a gun.
What about a nut job walking a bundle of dynamite into a school auditorium assembly? What about a bomb made from fertilizer like in Oklahoma City at the Murrah building?
Second, are there things we as a society could do to rid the society of evil? YES, but not through the government. We need to repent and return to God.
Ban violent video games as OBSCENE. Obscenity — which is DIFFERENT from pornography under the law — can be banned
Stop Hollywood from making extremely violent movies. Movies like “Saw” (continuation of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre) are legally OBSCENE. They should be banned outright.
Punishment for murder should be swift and certain.
Stop excusing criminals who break the law. Punish law-breakers, don’t coddle them.
Get rid of soft on crime judges.
Ban abortion, which encourages murder of children. If it is okay for parents to kill their own infant — now in the tens of millions — what is wrong with a gun man shooting children in a public school?
What is delusional is your belief that attacking army bases is how an uprising to stop a tyrannical government would occur.
The only reason an armed population would go near the military is to RECRUIT THEM..pointing out chapter and verse as to how the government was violating the Constitution and no longer legitimate.
If your 19 year old were in a unit ordered to fire on American civilians, EVEN IF fired upon, he would probably fire into the air and intentionally miss. Not being as stupid as you think soldiers are, he would realize that the conflict was with his commanders, not him, and if he was not confident enough to arrest his commander (not knowing how others in his unit would feel about that), he would most likely discharge his weapon intentionally missing.
So again your argument depends upon assuming only the stupidest possible behavior, rather than a rational sequence of events.
They are the cream of America. They go into the military out of honor and duty for the best interest of the country. If they saw that the government was acting unconstitutoinally, they would be eagerly waiting for the right moment to join the populace without getting shot for desertion.
You are addressing the wishes of a tyrannical government, not what would actually occur.
Would the military or National Guard obey after seeing that the tyrannical government is violating the Constitution and the law?
If the cause is hopeless, because the people have no guns, then the military and Guard would probably just fall in and obey orders, seeing no other choice.
Imagine a soldier contemplating disobeying an order asking the soldier next to him: “Are you with me?” If the other soldier is NOT with him, that soldier would turn him in as a traitor and the first one would face arrest or being shot.
If the American people continue to be armed with 270 million guns, many or most of the military and Guard would simply refuse to show up to defend a tyrannical government.
This is what happened in Moscow. The dissidents approached the soldiers, TALKED TO THEM, APPEALED TO THEM, gave them flowers and shared a drink with them, the soldiers stepped aside, and the dissidents passed through and took control of the national parliament.
You liberals cannot grasp the difference between the military, whom patriots would have no interest in fighting and tyrants usurping the government who are NOT the military.
If there were a need for a Second American Revolution, the guns would be used to arrest the POLITCIANS — not to go looking for good-hearted patriotic soldiers to SHOOT AT for no apparent reason.
The Second Amendment stands. It is the law. Nor do you need guns to overthrow a Government.
But quite often- as was the case in 1776- you do. It was the judgment of our Founders that the right of the people to keep and bear arms — ALL KINDS OF ARMS — shall not be infringed, including to protect liberty against tyranny.
It does not change the Second Amendment or the considered judgment of most other people that having guns in the hands of the people is the surest and greatest protection of our liberties.
You don’t have facts! You have only shown that you have a different opinion.
The end, (for now)…..
Under severe pressure led by US Corporate interest, the British Government has revoked embassy privileges of Ecuador, thereby allowing British police to enter and snatch Julian Assange, who is wanted by the Swedish government on a rape charge made by an accomplice in a consensual relationship gone wrong.
A brief history. Sweden under diplomatic pressure from the United States, prosecuted Assange on charges no other Swede would ever have to face. There is considerable evidence that the person bringing the charge is doing so, only to avoid prosecution and future incarceration themselves. So, if this is valid we have a trumped up charge being made by Sweden.
They have asked Britain to extradite him. How many rapists has the US asked to be extradited back here? None? Britain complied, and Assange took refuge in the Ecuador Embassy and requested asylum. Ecuador yesterday said they would grant it, then, their president said he hadn’t decided yet, after the new feeds were buzzing with the news.
Britain, then revoked Ecuador’s embassy privilege and amassed police in front of the building. Word got out and protesters quickly lined up protecting the building.
At stake is the sanctity of law. Can laws be arbitrarily enforced or not whenever authority feels like it? Obviously yes, if the power to do so is greater than the forces arrayed to stop it. But, the proper question should be…. Can laws be arbitrarily enforced and still maintain their sanctity as law? No, that’s the rub. Having a law that affects one party, but not another, is exactly the same as not having laws at all. If your authority violates a standard law that says diplomats and diplomatic residences have immunity and are treated as foreign soil. then you have no authority to stand behind the Magna Carta. For all will wonder, when will you change your mind about that one too?
There is no difference between the British revoking embassy privileges and taking someone hostage inside, than Iran students doing the same in 78. Britain’s actions just justified Islamic takeovers of every embassy on Muslim soil. We actually went through a Cold War, where we had known spies working out of embassy, and we never, never removed that embassy’s status and moved in taking prisoners. It would be an act of war….
If the Brits move forward, then war needs to begin anew upon corporate America. Yes, don’t get misled by the surrogates who exacerbate the problem, like Crabbe, Goyle and Malfoy. The Voldermort is American Corporate power.
Assange is not a criminal; any more than the New York Times is a criminal for publishing the Pentagon Papers….. He was a publisher, not the person leaking the story. Somehow the British Government by now arbitrarily making up rules like the Ministry of Magic under Cornelius Fudge, shows a Voldermortish dark streak running through it.
That dark streak is the Corporate headlock on American politics, who then use American muscle to pressure Britain into doing something no one really wants to do. Sweden doesn’t want him. Britain doesn’t want him. Ecuador doesn’t really want him. The only people who want him, and they want him hung,… are corporate America.
They are the problem. Not the Dumbledore…. who is made into looking like the bad guy…..
Mitt Romney just put all conservatives in the dust, and took an aggressive stance on abortion that will put President Obama on the defensive. Mitt Romney is for abortion. No if’s…. No and’s…. and no but’s….. The most telling line is:
I have felt this way since the time my mom took that position in the seventies when she ran for Senate.
This makes the Morman Mitt Romney far more liberal on abortion than President Obama since Barack Obama has qualms about third term abortions, yet Mitt Romney’s mother insisted that right must be part of the overall right of women determined by Roe vrs. Wade.
This shocker has Progressives extremely worried that most women will now vote for Romney, instead of Obama. Sarah Palin already announced that was her intention. No comment from Michelle Bachmann has been forthcoming.
With Romney shifting positions, if you the voter, only vote for those who promise to repeal Roe vrs. Wade, then you might as well stay home. There is no presidential candidate now who is against abortion. Every candidate for president thinks abortion should remain legal, as well as do 100% of the American people.
If you have qualms, then Obama is your candidate. He is the most conservative.
The House of Representatives passed CISPA late last night. It passed 248 – 168. Delaware’s John Carney voted for it…
Most of you know it is bad, but don’t know why…
CISPA is a bill to create better collusion between giant businesses and government. The idea came about that if China staged an attack, on banks, water towers, and the Pentagon, with the sharing of information, we would be aware it was a large scale attack in real time, and not, after each department had reported they were down.
The main force behind the bill is that it protects private companies from being sued for turning over information that was so private, it could not have been turned over under previous laws, such as the National Security Act of 1947. It also removes the protections inside the Wiretap Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, that helped keep our private matters private.
The fear is that without lawsuits, there will be no protection with how ones privacy issues get flung around.
Companies like Facebook, Amazon, Google and Netflix (many of which are supporting CISPA) are facing dozens of privacy-related lawsuits — CISPA might be a way to sidestep some of these.
Furthermore, the government could utilize CISPA to remove all civil liberties.
So we have all these negatives, with no positives.
The bill, as most actions passed by Congress these days, falls short in what it is supposed to do…
Obviously if we have less threats and less vulnerabilities, we have a safer Internet. So far the system has worked where if a worm appears, a patch is created to patch that hole. The vulnerabilities continue to exist, but once a patch is created, their effectivness is over.
CISPA takes a different approach. If the current system is defensive, the CISPA takes the offensive approach. The CISPA acts like our CIA, looking through every file, trying to find out as much as it can, and thereby have the patch in advance of the problem…
CISPA allows a knucklehead like me, who thinks he knows everything, to say, you know, Dave Burris has been quiet for a while. He must be up to something. And just on that flimsy pretext alone, everything of Dave’s is captured, stored, and analyzed. In todays corrupt society, all it takes is a dollar of the correct dimension, and Dave’s secrets are now the property of someone else. Dave gets mad, sues, and finds he can’t. Because of CISPA.
Just to be fair, let’s say Jason and Deldem, are both writing less. Both has said incendary things about Republicans… Suddenly, dirt, long buried, long fogotten is getting flung around. Whisper campaigns start and pretty soon, Jason and Deldem are feeling like pariahs. They have no idea why. When they find out, turns out it was over a typo. They didn’t say what they where secretly blamed. They try to sue, and sorry, can’t… it’s CISPA.
The current insurance commissioner has bad feelings about Mitch Crane. She tells the large insurers and they pull pictures out of Mitch’s file from college. Those get published and Mitch spends all his time defending his actions, he never gets to say what a crook the current insurance commissioner is…
Furthermore, as EFF point out, CISPA doesn’t help us average Americans. If a potential threat is discovered, it’s defense, is only good as long as the enemy, doesn’t know we know how to defeat it. Therefore, a patch is made, but, it must be kept secret. Just like when we cracked the code of Hitler, a lot of security went into keeping that fact secret so the code would continue…
What CISPA does, is if it finds a potential threat, it creates a patch and gives it to only a very select few. The rest of us are hung out in the wind, our computers crash, and only those, who have the secret, are up and running.
I’m sure as I’m explaining these implications, you can begin to see why the Obama Administration says it will veto this.
It shifts more power away from us to the corporate and privileged class.
In a nutshell, the principal of this bill is this: China and Russia have been protecting their cyber security for years. The communist establishment moved seamlessly into controlling the Internet of the private sector. We just started. This bill makes us more like China and Russia….
The gut felt antagonism against this bill, …. is that WE don’t want to live like Chinese of Russians….
We’re Americans… This bill will change that….
Contact John Carney here. Let him know that he needs to update himself on cyber-security and not take what he gets told for granted…. He made a mistake. A big one. If you are a Republican reading this, here is your issue. You got him.
If this bill passes, nothing of your’s, mine, or his life, is private anymore.
Thank you Christian Science Monitor for jumping on this so quickly.
Best way to go forward is throw out facts…..
Romney, picked up more than $30 million SuperPAC contributions in 2011, mainly from financial industry executives and hedge-fund managers. (These are the guys who crashed the economy by selling junk as derivatives as well as jacked your $1.40 a gallon gasoline price up to $4.50 in 2008. Most people don’t really like them very much.)
Mr. Gingrich, raised $2.08 million through 2011, nearly half from the daughter and son-in-law of Las Vegas casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson. In January, after the FEC’s reporting window, Mr. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, gave Winning Our Future two $5 million checks – and the capacity to fight on in South Carolina and Florida’s high-cost media markets. (Translated: the Mafia is buying a candidate)….
The Red White and Blue Fund, backing former Sen. Rick Santorum, raised $764,000 in 2011, backed mainly by mutual fund manager Foster Friess ($331,000). (Without this one man, the campaign would have folded months ago)…..
Make US Great Again, a super PAC supporting Texas Gov. Rick Perry, raised $5.3 million, mainly from energy company executives. After he dropped out, one donor, Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons gave $500,000 to Gingrich’s SuperPAC.
GOP hopeful Ron Paul is backed by three super PACs – Endorse Liberty Inc., Santa Rita Super PAC, and Revolution PAC – which have spent $3.7 million supporting his campaign. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel, a founder of PayPal, is the leading donor at $900,000.
Super PACs supporting President Obama, together, raised $3.1 million in the second half of 2011. By contrast, super PACs attacking the president, such as American Crossroads and FreedomWorks for America, report raising $20.3 million over the same period.
Translated: Obama’s supporters don’t have money; Big money wants him out… (And no wonder, he is the last thing protecting us from them)…
But, if we factor in the way things used to be, before all restrictions on campaign giving were lifted, in a straight race for individual campaign contributions, limited by law to $2,500 per donor per election, Mr. Obama vastly outpaces the GOP field. The Obama campaign reports raising nearly $130 million in 2011, compared with $56.9 million raised by the Romney campaign, the top GOP fundraiser.
So, you see, WE the People, have done our part, but are getting outspent…. by at best count… 10 people…..
But a wildcard in the 2012 race is how outside super PACs could tip that balance by giving anti-Obama groups access to unlimited individual and corporate contributions.
As Florida shown, SuperPAC’s can decide the elecion…
Translated, this year our president is being picked by a fight between ten people, each who has a special interest in getting “their” man into that leadership position…..
Thanks to the Citizens-United decision by the Supreme Court, we just actually lost our democracy. It might as well be warlords fighting among themselves to be King……
I’m calling on every citizen to ignore both TV and ads this time around, and read the damn papers instead……
It is our last chance.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
380 U.S. 51
Argued November 19, 1964
Decided March 1, 1965
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
“First, once the censor disapproves the film, the exhibitor must assume  the burden of instituting judicial proceedings and of persuading the courts that the film is protected expression. Second, once the Board has acted against a film, exhibition is prohibited pending judicial review, however protracted. Under the statute, appellant could have been convicted if he had shown the film after unsuccessfully seeking a license, even though no court had ever ruled on the obscenity of the film. Third, it is abundantly clear that the Maryland statute provides no assurance of prompt judicial determination. We hold, therefore, that appellant’s conviction must be reversed. The Maryland scheme fails to provide adequate safeguards against undue inhibition of protected expression, and this renders the § 2 requirement of prior submission of films to the Board an invalid previous restraint.
But a model is not lacking: In Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, we upheld a New York injunctive procedure designed to prevent the sale of obscene books. That procedure postpones any restraint against sale until a judicial determination of obscenity following notice and an adversary hearing. The statute provides for a hearing one day after joinder of issue; the judge must hand down his decision within two days after termination of the hearing.
Justice Black tags onto the end with this comment.
“For the reasons there stated, I do not believe any form of censorship–no matter how speedy or prolonged it may be–is permissible. As I see it, a pictorial presentation occupies as preferred a position as any other form of expression. If censors are banned from the publishing business, from the pulpit, from the public platform–as they are–they should be banned from the theatre.”
To that we add… the Internet.
Censoring anything (the Internet) before having a hearing in which the person being censored is present and has been given the opportunity to argue his case before the court into why his first Amendment right should not be suppressed, …. hereby violates the First Amendment of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.
SOPA effectively allows the state to remove a person’s right to free speech, without his side being aired at a hearing.
This story is making it’s way up the charts… It is about the perils of navigating the private insurance labyrinth, being kicked out, and finding salvation in what?…… A government run Health Care Program.
Bottom line… Private Insurance ain’t what it was under Clinton’s 1990′s… If you haven’t gotten sick lately, then talking smack about Governmental Healthcare, makes you a stupid-ass hypocrite.
Photo Courtesy of the horse’s mouth
Closing remarks of FDR’s declaration of war:
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese government also launched as attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As commander in chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us. .