|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
AZ: Border Agent Brian Terry statue unveiling ignored by Obama and Holder
Submitted by:
Anonymous
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"The unveiling of a new statue built to memorialize the murdered U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on Saturday at the Homeland Security Department's Brian Terry Border Patrol Station in Bisbee, Arizona, received minimal news coverage by the nation's media except for the Fox News Channel ... In fact, no official from the Obama government attended the event and the sycophants in the legacy media made certain not to cover the story."
"'That iconic image of Brian carrying his BordTac team member on his shoulders represents everything good about Brian, his strength, his determination ... and his love for his fellow agents,' Terry's cousin, Robert Heyer, told FNC's anchor Arthel Neville while standing next to the image of the hero cop." ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(3/3/2015)
|
| Not "unsurprising" ! Agent Terry stood for law and justice. Mr. Holder and our president stand for political opportunism. In that conflict some - at remote levels - see some "casualties" as "acceptable losses" . Brian Terry willingly wrote our government a blank check that included his life. Seems our government cashed that check for peanuts. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
