VIA| Happy first Monday of the new year, y’all and the year begins with an interesting juxtaposition of sorts.

Here in Texas we rang in a new statute. Texas became the 45th state of the Union to allow open carry of firearms, just over 30 states allow that without permit, And some 13 states require an open carry permit. What shall I be doing? I’m fine with being able to carry my weapon concealed, but I’m glad I have the choice — understanding that choice is more than just killing babies. There are still five states that don’t allow open carry in any manner — California, New York, Illinois, New York, and South Carolina.

As reported by, “Despite its reputation as the trigger-happy heart of American gun culture, Texas is late to the open carry party, at least when it comes to handguns. On New Year’s Day, it became the 45th state to legalize carrying a pistol in plain sight.

The relaxed rules passed the GOP-controlled state Legislature only after police groups defeated a provision backed by an unlikely coalition of Tea Party conservatives and Democrats that sought to bar law enforcement from asking Texas residents whether they had a proper license to carry guns that are visible.

But, as the new law looms, some officers are backing off, saying they won’t demand to see a license if they have no other reason to stop a gun carrier. Not doing so could avoid harassment lawsuits – even if would-be criminals could carry guns without fear of getting caught.

Texas had nearly 826,000 concealed license holders in 2014, which ranks among the nation’s highest. Openly carrying a gun will require obtaining the same license concealed weapons holders have – be at least 21, have clean criminal and psychology records, complete a training course and pass a shooting test. Concealed handguns are even allowed inside the Texas Capitol, where license holders can bypass metal detectors.”

This is what the Founding Fathers intended when they stated that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in other words, finding the correct means by which law abiding citizens can have their Second Amendment rights within the parameters of civil society.

And so we have the interesting hypocrisy of President Barack Obama returning from his last holiday season vacay in Hawaii pledging to do just that — infringe on the right to keep and bear arms by way of executive order edict. At least Texas went through the legislative process and the will of the people was expressed. For Obama, it’s simply his will — which is not how the American system of governance is supposed to work — federalism, checks and balances, separation of powers, and coequal branches of government.

As reported by Fox News, “Republican presidential candidates are attacking President Obama’s plan to use his Oval Office powers to try to tighten gun-control laws, arguing his efforts are “unconstitutional” and another attempt to sidestep Congress.

Obama said over the weekend that he’ll meet Monday with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to discuss his options on tightening federal firearms laws to reduce gun violence, after instructing his White House team several months ago to look at what type of “action” he could take. Obama purportedly will use executive action to require small-scale gun sellers to order background checks on prospective buyers and tighten laws for gun sales to those who have committed domestic-abuse offenses.”

What I find interesting is that Obama has renewed his gun control crusade after the Islamic terror attack in San Bernardino. We’ve traced back how Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were able to acquire the weapons they had and the perpetrator who bought them has been arrested. So why does Obama think he has any “mandate” to tackle this issue, truly a manufactured issue? It’s just like his first chief of staff and now mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel would say, “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Except this isn’t a “good” crisis. What Obama is doing would be along the lines of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeking more knife control in the aftermath of numerous Islamic terrorist stabbing attacks.

And in such a disingenuous manner, Obama is attempting to make us believe he REALLY cares about gun violence. First of all, I’ve never seen a gun jump up and kill anyone by itself.

Just look at the list of states that don’t have open carry and as well have some of the most restrictive gun laws in America. San Bernardino is in California. Nothing further implemented by Obama would have prevented the attack. Maybe if Obama and his inept administration had done their job, Tashfeen Malik would not have been allowed into America.

In this case, it’s not about gun control but rather “stupid control.” And if Obama cared about gun violence he’d visit his “hometown” of Chicago in Illinois — another non-open carry state –with restrictive gun laws — and tackle the problems of urban gang violence. Nah, that requires Obama to actually care about the real issue and not just cherry-pick for his ideological agenda.

The real issue is about the lack of quality education, breakdown of the family, and better economic opportunities in the inner cities, which are run by liberal progressives. There’s nothing about the executive order that Obama wants to implement that will get at the real issue in the urban centers, where Obama has been an abject failure, as he likes to rant about his race, which is half-white. He has failed the black community who saw him as some messianic figure — he fooled y’all.

Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado, Jared Loughner… all these incidents had to do with mental illness, not gun control and no executive order by Obama will rectify those situations.

So the logical and reasonable minds deduce that Obama doesn’t care about “gun violence,” a poll-tested messaging ploy. He cares about infringing on the Second Amendment. President Barack Obama wants to seek any means to disarm law-abiding American citizens, and he has pledged, along with delusional Michael Bloomberg, to do just that. What I find absurd is that the people who want to disarm the rest of us are those who are protected by people carrying guns.

Here are my two proposals. First of all, if Obama goes through with an executive order and circumvents our elected representatives, then his Secret Service detail should be defunded. I mean, if it’s all about gun violence, then no guns should be used to shield him. This is the exact same response the Virginia legislative body has proposed for Attorney General Herring’s unilateral declaration not to recognize the reciprocal concealed carry of twenty-five states.

The second proposal is simple: civil disobedience. I think it’s time for the American people, if our elected representatives are too scared, to ignore President Obama’s incessant executive orders that affect our way of life and how we conduct our lives and businesses.

Pundits talk about a lame duck presidency, well, the American people can make that happen. And we need not fear Obama like the politicians do. Obama actually reminds me of the character of Comidus from the movie “Gladiator.” We have been distracted and deceived for far too long with his “games” and manipulations. Heck, we can’t all be arrested, and actually think about it, most law enforcement wouldn’t lift a finger to support the Obama administration. And I can attest that most of our military certainly would not.

You know, the civil rights movement used civil disobedience to bring about a new birth of freedom and liberty in America — why not now?

Doggone, how many federal government employees owed back taxes, and nothing was done to them? It’s time the American people realize their power and as the saying goes, “just say no.” So Barack, go ahead and do your executive order to infringe on our Second Amendment right — we say NO!

Molon Labe, dude!