In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Paul Joseph Watson prisonplanet
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
A bombshell article in today's edition of the New York Times lifts the lid on how the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a suspected kingpin of the country's booming opium trade, has been on the CIA payroll for the past eight years. However, the article serves as little more than a whitewash because it fails to address the fact that one of the primary reasons behind the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was the agenda to reinstate the Golden Crescent drug trade.
"The agency pays (Ahmed Wali) Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.'s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai's home," reports the Times.
An October 2008 report from the Times reveals how, after security forces discovered a huge tractor-trailer full of heroin outside Kandahar in 2004, "Before long, the commander, Habibullah Jan, received a telephone call from Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai, asking him to release the vehicle and the drugs."
In 2006, following the discovery of another cache of heroin, "United States investigators told other American officials that they had discovered links between the drug shipment and a bodyguard believed to be an intermediary for Ahmed Wali Karzai."
The Times article out today also discusses how the CIA uses Karzai as a go-between between the Americans and the Taliban. He is also directly implicated in the manufacturing of phony ballots and polling stations that were attributed to the President's disputed election victory.
"If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck," the American officer said of Mr. Karzai. "Our assumption is that he's benefiting from the drug trade."
Officials quoted by The Times described Karzai as a Mafia-like figure who expanded his influence over the drug trade with the aid of U.S. efforts to eliminate his competitors.
The Afghan opium trade has exploded since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, following a lull after the Taliban had imposed a crackdown. According to the U.N., the drug trade is now worth $65 billion. Afghanistan produces 92 per cent of the world's opium, with the equivalent of 3,500 tonnes leaving the country each year. Other figures put the number far higher, at around 6,100 tonnes a year.
The New York Times expos? pins the blame on Karzai, but fails to explain that one of the primary reasons behind the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was the United States' agenda to restore, not eradicate, the drug trade.
Before the invasion, the Taliban collaborated closely with the U.N. to reduce opium production down to just 185 tonnes, a figure at least 2000% below current levels. The notion that the "Taliban benefits from the drug trade" and that the U.S. is trying to stop it, as both Bush and Obama claimed, is the complete opposite of what is actually happening.
As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA's drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.
The Times implies that the drug lord Karzai being on the CIA payroll is little more than an embarrassing coincidence, when in reality he is just a middle manager for the U.S. military-industrial complex's control of the drug trade in Afghanistan which stretches back decades and was only interrupted when the Taliban came to power.
"Heroin is a multibillion dollar business supported by powerful interests, which requires a steady and secure commodity flow. One of the "hidden" objectives of the war was precisely to restore the CIA sponsored drug trade to its historical levels and exert direct control over the drug routes," writes Chossudovsky.
"As revealed in the Iran-Contra and Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) scandals, CIA covert operations in support of the Afghan Mujahideen had been funded through the laundering of drug money. "Dirty money" was recycled -through a number of banking institutions (in the Middle East) as well as through anonymous CIA shell companies-, into "covert money," used to finance various insurgent groups during the Soviet-Afghan war, and its aftermath."
Within two years of the CIA's covert operation in Afghanistan, "CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests."
This is the history of the Afghan opium trade that the Times won't tell you, and in failing to do so today's article serves only to whitewash the true scale of the agenda behind the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.
"When Obama took the position of Chairman of the UN Security Council. he violated Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 by accepting leadership in an organization that is clearly at odds with the Constitution for the United States of America."
"The instant the United Nations starts amending the Constitution by treaty power is the day that the United Nations should be carved off of the East Coast and floated out past the continental shelf and sunk in 2 miles of water, for good."
This is a link to the health care bill in full. I can not give the direct link and it is difficult to read. 111th Congress can kiss my *. http://www.infowars.com/feds-post-monster-obamacare-bill/
Scroll down just under that nasty picture and click.
U.N. plans for a new 'government' are scary. wallstreetjournal
By JANET ALBRECHTSEN
We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven't heard about it, that's because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media.
Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change-a rough draft of what could be signed come December.
So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen.
The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."
And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.
To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.
Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn't even called the draft "treaty." Instead, it's labelled a "Note by the Secretariat."
Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said "this is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start-that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do."
Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his expos? of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that "in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever." Yet his critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says.
Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.
Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let's hope he is right. And thank you, America.
Ms. Albrechtsen is a columnist for the Australian.
Three More Children Injected Against Parents' Wishes
Paul Joseph Watson prisonplanet
Monday, November 2, 2009
When does yet another "mistake" become a flagrant official disregard for parental rights? Another three children have been injected with the swine flu vaccine against their parents' wishes as schools institute mass inoculation programs with little concern about consent.
A girl in Brooklyn suffered an allergic reaction to the H1N1 shot after nurses injected her with the vaccine without the consent of her mother, Naomi Troy.
6-year-old Nikiyah Torres-Pierre takes medicine to control her epilepsy and for this reason her mother was waiting on doctors' advice before signing the H1N1 consent form.
However, nurses administered the shot without even checking the girl's name against a register of pupils who had received parental consent.
"My stomach was hurting, and I was itching," Nikiyah said after she was released from the hospital," reports the New York Post.
Officials at Public School 335 in Crown Heights then tried to get Troy to sign a consent form after the fact in a crude attempt to hide their culpability.
"I was insulted. I was really angry. `You just incriminated yourself even more,'" Troy recalled thinking.
The NY Post report also reveals that less than half of parents in New York City have consented to have their kids vaccinated, underscoring the widespread rejection of the swine flu shot despite a $16 million dollar federal government propaganda campaign to coerce people into being inoculated.
In a follow-up report yesterday, the NY Post highlighted another two separate cases where children had been vaccinated against their parents' wishes.
Last week we reported on a boy in Ohio who received the swine flu vaccine despite the fact that his mother clearly refused consent for her child to be inoculated because of previous bad reactions to medicine.
We also highlighted the case of a 7-year-old boy in Montgomery County, who was given the nasal spray version of the H1N1 vaccine despite his father's objections that his son should be exempted because of underlying health problems.
Despite the fact that a majority of people across the world are now refusing to be duped by the fearmongering surrounding swine flu and rejecting the vaccine, they are being lynched by officials as "extremists" who are harming public health efforts.
In reality, people are refusing to be injected because the vaccine itself, loaded with mercury, squalene and cancerous cells, is a threat to public health. The fact that privileged members of the elite have requested and been given access to vaccines that don't contain these toxic additives proves that a two tier system is in place - one for the idiot public who the pharmaceutical companies will happily inject with poison because they have government protection against adverse reaction lawsuits, and another for members of the establishment who will propagandize all day long about the safety of the public version of the vaccine yet will refuse to take it themselves.
Urgent Action Needed to Save Audit the Fed campaign for liberty
November 2, 2009
Dear Friend of Liberty,
We have all worked so hard to make an Audit of the Federal Reserve a reality. Together, we have led the fight to get congressional hearings, 308 cosponsors, and unprecedented attention around the country.
Now, you and I face our biggest challenge yet. And Ron Paul needs your help!
Mel Watt (D-NC), Chairman of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee, has sided with banking interests and is working to gut substantial audit provisions from H.R. 1207. The bill Congressman Watt has sent to the full Financial Services Committee contains no audit of the Fed's monetary policy-making authority or transparency of the Fed's secret agreements with foreign central banks.
Without these provisions, a so-called "audit" of the Fed would be worthless.
The full Financial Services Committee is likely to vote on this bill either later this week or early next.
Congressman Paul will offer an amendment to restore the provisions contained in H.R. 1207 to audit monetary policy and activity with foreign central banks. Thirteen of the 41 Democrats and all 29 Republicans on the Committee have cosponsored H.R. 1207, and if they hold the line, we will have the votes to win and restore our audit.
Dr. Paul has shot a YouTube video for Campaign for Liberty explaining the situation in more detail. Click here to watch the video.
Pressure on the Democrat House Financial Services Committee members is critical! Below is a list of Democrats who have cosponsored. Please call them and urge them to vote "Yes" on the Paul Amendment.
When contacting these members, remember that up to this point, these members have been allies on this issue. A civil yet firm tone should be kept during these calls. They should be thanked for their cosponsorship, told that Mel Watt's changes to the bill are unacceptable, and urged to hold the line and honor their promise to support transparency at the Fed by voting "Yes" for the Paul amendment.
It is also important that we contact Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and urge them to schedule a standalone, up or down vote on the real Audit the Fed bill.
Rep. Barney Frank: (202) 225-5931
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: (202) 225-0100
Now is a crucial time for Audit the Fed. If these 13 Democrats hold the line, Ron Paul and C4L can win this battle. But, they must vote "Yes" on the Paul amendment when the full committee votes.
Together, you and I can win this fight.
In Liberty,
John Tate
President
the link will take you to a 6 min Ron Paul clip explaining more
Ammo sales, prices skyrocket. upi
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- U.S. firearms owners have bought an estimated 12 billion rounds of ammunition during the past year, gun industry analysts said.
The figure far outstrips the 7 billion to 10 billion rounds sold in a typical year, The Washington Post reported Monday. The spike in sales began when people started to take seriously warnings from the gun lobby that with Democrats controlling the White House and Congress there would be new restrictions on gun ownership, the newspaper said.
As consumers stepped up purchases, supplies tightened, prices went up and a shortage developed. The shortage has begun to ebb and gun-control advocates are expressing concern about the record amount of stockpiled ammunition, the Post said.
"We've had people buy ammunition for calibers they don't even have the gun for: 'Oh, I want to get this gun eventually. And when I get it, ammunition may be hard to get,'" Michael Tenny, who runs an Internet sporting goods store based in Fort Worth, Texas.
U.S. taxes on guns and ammunition -- which are used to fund wildlife conservation -- increased after Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 and after Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. At the current rate those tax receipts will set a record in 2009.
Estulin: G-20 Meeting in Scotland this Week about Dumping U.S. Dollar infowars
November 3, 2009
Best-selling author Daniel Estulin states that the key issue to be discussed this week at the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting, being held in St. Andrews, Scotland, is how to bring down the present world financial system through dumping the US dollar. Estulin first reported on this initiative as being deliberated at the most recent Bilderberg meeting held in Greece in May 2009. Estulin says that the success or failure of this callous plan hinges on the ability of the US and UK representatives to convince the Russian, the Chinese and other national governments to go along with their scheme.
Estulin maintains that if the co-conspirators succeed, such sudden devaluation of the US dollar would result in the sinking of the world economy through a chain-reaction collapse of the entire world's financial system. As discussed during the Bilderberg Group's super-secret conclave back in May, this breakdown would then be used as an excuse to launch a new world monetary system. G20 leaders are aware that those who run the monetary markets, the monetary system, control the world. That is why today, the world is run through a dominant one-currency monetary system and not by national credit systems.
A severe breakdown crisis would affect every corner of the world and be a prelude to instability, wars and general hostility along financial, geographical and geopolitical lines, affecting not only particular countries but also societies, cultures and whole continents. Such a breakdown could result in a consolidation of the world's monetary system.
Estulin declares that the creation of the new world currency is the true meaning of globalization, which is nothing but an empire. It is the elimination of the nation-state, the degradation of individual national liberties and the depredation of civil rights.
Collapsing the US dollar, first of all, is an assault on the structure of the United States economy toward the creation of a "World Company." This concept, Estulin states, was initially discussed at the April 1968 Bilderberg Group meeting, held in Canada at Mont Trembland, by George Ball, a senior Lehman Brothers banker and former undersecretary for economic affairs for Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
The aim of this World Company, as explained by Ball was "to eliminate the archaic political structure of nation-state" in favor of the more "modern" corporate structure. Ball also called for further political integration in Europe, and then the rest of the world, as a precondition for expanding the power of a World Company, thus putting the financiers on the same levels as governments.
This initiative, the moving away from the US dollar as a world currency, is the true intention of the G20 meeting November 6-7 at St. Andrews in Scotland, the site of the 1998 Bilderberg conference, Estulin asserts.
Make no mistake: Our Founders were onto something when they enshrined the right to keep and bear arms as the Second Amendment to our nation's founding document, the United States Constitution.
Because the Second Amendment is part of our nation's supreme law, attacking gun rights means attacking the very foundation of the country.
The gun grabbers know they have to deal with this supreme law at some point if they're going to push their radical agenda through.
And so they've decided to rewrite the Bill of Rights to best suit their plans.
That's right. In an attempt to circumvent our nation's fundamental law, Barack Obama has rewritten his own version of the Bill of Rights and posted it on the White House website.
According to Obama, "The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."
I don't know about you, but my right to defend myself comes from my Creator - not from government, not from some bureaucrat or politician, but from my very nature as a human being.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that redefining a fundamental right as a privilege is a very dangerous path to start down.
A right is inherent in our humanity and can never be taken away.
A privilege can be removed at the whim of one's rulers.
But the President's redefinition of our nation's fundamental law isn't enough for some anti-freedom zealots.
Gun grabbers in our government-run education system are now seeking to brainwash your children into accepting their anti-gun agenda - also by rewriting the Bill of Rights.
Lesson plans in Garland, Texas, (Texas?! Really?!) now teach the Second Amendment by summarizing as follows, "Amendment 2: We can get permission to own weapons to protect ourselves."
This couldn't be any further from what the Second Amendment clearly states!
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I want you to call the White House and the Garland Independent School District and demand they restore the original language to the Second Amendment.
The White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111
GISD Superintendent Curtis Culwell: 972-487-3023
Tell them you will not stand for revisionist history or the weakening of our nation's fundamental law. The Founding Fathers wrote it that way for a reason!
I have written an article for your knowledge and distribution as you deem fit about my dealings with Congressman's Brad Sherman's office. This is an issue of national importance as it relates to our national security. If you watch the short video's below then read the PDF documents in the order listed you will get a very clear picture of what is going on.
This is the first article I've ever written so please be easy on me. It is primarily for your education and publication if you deem it neccessary. Personally there are several worthy and bigger stories within this article. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
This video is a must see. You can actually hear the explosions very clearly. youtube
The video below is John Gross (one of the lead NIST investigators) telling a physics teacher that he knows of no evidence of molten metal found in the WTC site in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. It is important to point that when John told this teacher to send him the NASA images showing temperatures reaching in excess of 2000 degrees, he later refused to give him his email address to send him the pictures. youtube
This is a video interview of Barry Jennings talking about the explosions her heard while being trapped inside building 7. youtube
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the speaker will not allow the final language of the health care to be posted online for 72 hours before bringing the bill to a vote on the House floor, despite her September 24 statement that she was "absolutely" committed to doing so.
House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example. Pelosi is pushing for a Saturday House vote, and a number of big changes will be introduced, likely less than 24 hours before the vote takes place (if in fact it does). The Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order.
It seems likely that the rule will allow very few, if any, up-or-down votes on amendments on the House floor. Rather, the rule will include a series of amendments that will all be adopted at once if the rule passes.
On September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that she was "absolutely" committed to putting the text of the final House bill online for 72 hours before the House votes:
TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?
PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.
But tonight, when asked if Speaker Pelosi will leave the bill online for 72 hours after we see what's in the rule, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: "No; [the] pledge was to have manager's amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that."
Apparently Pelosi's agreement to leave the "final" bill online "at the very end" of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge.
The End of America happens in the middle of the night infowars
Adam Murdock, M.D.
The Freemen Institute
November 8, 2009
While normal everyday oblivious Americans were preparing their beds to sleep Saturday night their elected officials quietly passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Indeed, the passage of this act deals one of the final death blows to the Constitution and with it our liberties.
Rep. Steve King., R-Iowa, holds a copy of the health care bill over his head after a rally against the health care bill on Capitol Hill in Washington Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009.
As I ponder upon this momentously horrid occurrence it is as if I have just woken up from a nightmare and been thrown directly into the plot of George Orwell's 1984, with no hope of escape. As this thought grabs hold I am lead to ponder more and more about America and I ask myself a few questions.
Since when did the Constitution provide for a health care guarantee? Since when did the Constitution grant the Congress the power to force Americans into a health care dystopia? What good is a Constitution if we choose to ignore it? What good is a Constitution if the Congress simply chooses to create a new one in their own graven socialist image?
Truly, these questions are meaningless now. The Constitution is hanging by the tiniest of threads. Who will save it? Who will come to its rescue?
It is the everyday middle class American that will suffer the consequences of this travesty. Indeed, while the economy is reeling and unemployment pushes depression-era levels the arrogant Congress has decided to pass the biggest expansion of government in the history of the United States. It will create a new tax that will primarily be felt by the middle class, the ones most likely affected by the current depression. This is because as Americans are forced to purchase health insurance, the wealthy will have no problem paying for escalating costs. Nor will the poor feel the burden as they will receive government health insurance subsidies. Yet, the forgotten man will be the middle class working American who now already struggling against the burden of economic ruin will be forced to pay fines or even face possible jail time for not complying with our government's take over of his/her health care. As this tax sinks in, the middle class will be forced downward into the ranks of the working poor and therefore into the ranks of government rationed medical care. Inevitably, government healthcare will swallow the whole of the medical insurance world and there will be no escape.
This dystopian vision will consist of patients waiting in long lines and when they are finally permitted to see their doctor there will be much fruitless begging and pleading for the treatment that they desperately need. But no mercy will be given because the doctor will have become nothing more than a desk-clerk, simply following the government treatment protocols.
"What, you have shoulder pain?" Your doctor asks. "Well, the treatment protocol for this condition provided by our majestic government says you have to wait two years to get a MRI or to see an Orthopedist. I am sorry. Here are a few pain pills. There is nothing more that I can do. Have a nice day."
Such will be the conservation heard in doctor's offices throughout America. Don't believe me? I have personally lived in the socialist countries that we are now trying to emulate. This is the reality in these countries and the people there simply accept it and learn not to complain. We, in America, will also come to learn and accept over time what our benevolent government has chosen to grant us.
And what about our parents? It will not be long before the health care budget spirals out of control and our benevolent government is forced to make cuts. Who will they cut off first? Why, our parents of course. The government will say that the elderly simply cost too much. They will say that the elderly are no longer productive members of society and have only a few years to live anyway so let's just stop providing life-saving surgeries or needed food and water for these no longer useful people. Don't believe me? Just look to these same socialist countries where the elderly are frequently pushed into hospice death programs when they have no terminal illness and denied needed surgeries because they are too old.
I could go on and on. Such is the fury and simultaneously the sorrow I feel for our country. Now is the time for our voices to be heard. Now is the time to make a stand before it is too late.
Adam Murdock, M.D. is the founder of The Freemen Institute, www.freemeninstitute.com
Brady Campaign Exploits Fort Hood Tragedy gunowners.org
November 11, 2009
The anti-gun zealots at the Brady Campaign will not let one tragedy go by without exploiting the victims to further their gun control aims, and the recent shooting at Fort Hood is no exception.
When Brady head Paul Helmke heard of the tragedy at Fort Hood, he says, "we were in the midst of planning a response to the latest dangerous legislative proposal from the gun lobby in the United States Senate-language to automatically restore access to guns to veterans designated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department as `mentally incapacitated' or `mentally incompetent.'"
Actually, the legislation in question, S. 669, would only safeguard two of the most fundamental of American's Constitutional rights: due process of law and the right to keep and bear arms
Since 1999, over 100,000 U.S. military veterans have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights on the basis of psychiatrists' opinions for issues such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
(Incidentally, the alleged Ft. Hood shooter was an Army psychiatrist, one of the very people in a position to deem others too troubled to possess a firearm.)
S. 669, sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), simply requires that a veteran cannot lose his or her gun rights "without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others."
In other words, the bill would put an end to the practice of psychiatrists subjecting veterans to a lifetime gun ban. Helmke and the Brady Bunch apparently have as much respect for the Fifth Amendment (No person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") as they do for the Second.
Helmke continues: "America has seen an epidemic of horrific gun violence at churches and synagogues, workplaces, health clubs, high schools, universities, police stations and now Army bases. This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places. Enough is enough."
There have, indeed, been a number of violent acts at places of worship and other locations. But guess what? Many of these places are gun free zones. There is a federal "gun free schools zones" law; many states prohibit firearms in churches; law-abiding adults can carry concealed firearms in 48 states, but are prohibited from carrying a gun for self-defense in most state universities.
While it may have come as a surprise to many, the military creates its own disarmament zones. After the Ft. Hood tragedy, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone reminded reporters, "[W]e don't carry weapons here, this is our home." Military bases are for the most part gun free zones, where only military police and other security personnel are allowed to carry firearms.
The government cannot legislate where a criminal attack will occur. It could be a school, a hospital, church, or even an Army base. Various levels of government have only succeeded in producing a morass of mandatory victim zones.
Helmke got one thing right; "Enough is enough." Criminal safety zone laws should be repealed immediately, starting with the dangerous anti-gun policies on military installations.
The foundation liberals have finally done it. They have managed to get Lou Dobbs removed from CNN. On November 11, Dobbs announced his resignation, effective immediately.
Dobbs is a gentleman, so he didn't mention the gunfire directed at his home - the sort of thing you'd expect in a thugocracy like Mexico, not the United States - and he didn't mention the concerted effort spearheaded by Presente, the National Council of La Raza, and other pro-illegal immigration groups to get him thrown off the air. Media Matters, MoveOn.org, and the Southern Poverty Law Center have consistently agitated to have Dobbs removed.
Soros and the left-cover side of the global elite have realized a victory. Dobbs kept hammering on the broken border and this irritated the elite who want open and unchecked borders in order to drive down wages and destroy the living standards of middle class Americans. Dobbs was a roadblock in the elite's plan to turn the planet into a unified slave labor plantation.
Lou Dobbs has few options. He may retire. Or he may go over to Fox News. But that is not much of an option. Fox News is part of the controlled opposition. Rupbert Mordoch is a one-world minion who supported the political campaign of Hillary Clinton. Fox programs push the global warming agenda.
Fox News is the flipside supposedly in opposition to the "liberal bias" of CNN and MSNBC. Fox's talking heads and newscasters - with the notable exception of Andrew Napolitano - are neocons masquerading as conservatives. Fox News operatives like Glenn Beck are tasked with destroying Libertarian and constituionalist elements in the Republican Party. Fox News is an integral part of the false right-left paradigm that controls opposition and renders it ineffective.
Napolitano operates from the basement of Fox News. On occasion he sits in for master disinfo agent Beck. His show is broadcast over the internet and is not in Fox's television line-up. Is it possible Fox will do the same to Dobbs? We'll see.
Here is the statement Dobbs made on his last show on CNN:
Tonight I want to turn to a personal note, if I may, and address a matter that has raised some curiosity. This will be my last broadcast here on CNN, where I've worked for most of the past 30 years, and where I have many friends and colleagues whom I admire deeply and respect greatly.
I'm the last of the original anchors here on CNN and I'm proud to have had the privilege to helping to build the world's first news network. I'm grateful for the many opportunities that CNN has given me over the many years. I've tried to reciprocate with a full measure of my ability.
Over the past six months it's become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us. And some leaders in media, and in politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role at CNN and to engage in constructive problem solving as well as to contribute positively to the great understanding of the issues of our day and to continue to do so in the most honest and direct language possible.
I've talked extensively with Jonathan Klein. John's the president of CNN, and as a result of those talks, John and I have agreed to a release from my contract that will enable me to pursue new opportunities. At this point, I'm considering a number of options, and directions, and I assure you, I will let you know when I set my course.
I truly believe that the major issues of our time include - the growth of our middle-class, the creation of more jobs, health care, immigration policy, the environment, climate change, and our military involvement, of course, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But each of those issues is, in my opinion, informed by our capacity to demonstrate strong resilience of our now weakened capitalist economy and demonstrate the political will to overcome the lack of true representation in Washington, D.C.
I believe these to be profoundly, critically important issues, and I will continue to strive to deal honestly and straightforwardly with those issues in the future. Unfortunately, these issues are now defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than by rigorous, empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion.
I'll be working diligently to change that as best I can. And as for the important work of restoring inspiration to our great free society and our market economy, I will strive as well to be a leader in that national conversation.
It's been my great honor to work with each and every person at this wonderful network. I will be eternally grateful to CNN, to Ted Turner, and to all of my colleagues and friends and, of course, to you at home.
I thank you, and may God bless you.
If you click on the link, you can watch him give his resignation. It's a sad day when the government takes arms to your home to keep you from talking. Make no mistake gentlemen, we are at war already. These people will stop at nothing to push thier agenda straight through.
Quick, please finish the research before inviting me into a debate. Recently released f.o.i.a. documents prove that the gulf of tonkin incident was also a false flag op.
Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment
Michael Boldin
Tenth Amendment Center
November 11, 2009
In states around the country, there's a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution - the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.
The latest to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to "Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law"
While the FFA's title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment's limit on the power of the federal government. The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:
"federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state."
NULLIFICATION
Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state `nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or `non-effective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.
A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws - in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Supporters say the growth of such a movement is long overdue.
"For far too long elected officials and unelected bureaucrats at the federal level have passively forgotten or actively neglected the Tenth Amendment that guarantees rights not enumerated in the Constitution be left to the individual states," said Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer, who introduced an FFA in his state. "The willful disregard of the Tenth Amendment in relation to a citizen's right to bear arms isn't the only constitutional infringement that we should be worried about, but it is one that has been singled out by the new administration."
"Enough is enough," urged Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers. "Our founders fought too hard to ensure states' sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don't belong."
LITIGATION
In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).
"We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state," explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. "The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. It's time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts."
Even the most ardent supporters suggest that the real test will come if the federal courts rule against the FFA. Will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country?
The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus - federal agencies who didn't recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005. Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.
Only time will tell if gun rights activists have the same courage.
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
Isnt infowars the same guys who believe bush and the CIA blew up the trade towers, for some collectivist scheme?[:)]
"Political unification in some sort of world government will be required (.). Even though (.) any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable." Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy
As Lord Christopher Monckton pointed out, the Copenhagen conference at the beginning of next month is designed to eliminate national sovereignty in favor of a world government to replace it. With a stroke of the pen all UN-member-states will, by doing so, throw away years of prosperity in order to satisfy the transnational needs of a global elite, hellbent on destroying the last vestiges of freedom around the world in the name of "redistributing wealth".
Make no mistake, if the `world leaders' now announce they will not swallow this pill just yet, be sure that they will in the months after December. After all, they've been ordered to by their masters- who have proven themselves to be both cunning and patient.
After the Club of Rome in the early 1970s outlined its basic premise, that world population must decrease if the earth is to survive, all globalist subdivision started groaning like rusty old engines. In the seventies and part of the eighties, the propaganda was still far from subtle. When one scientist proclaimed that the entire world's population must shrink to the size of a middle-sized country, another shouted that this won't do at all, proposing instead to put a halt to new life completely.
Documents such as Ecoscience must be viewed in this bizarre context. Although dripping with eugenic devilry, these publications at least were quite upfront about it, proclaiming their mind-boggling monstrosities for all to see. At this stage, deciphering cryptic environmental texts was hardly necessary. However undesirable the situation, at least we knew exactly what they were up to because they said so to our face.
Today we find ourselves in quite another situation. As public resistance about these dehumanizing proposals grew steadily thanks to an informed Western middle-class, the eugenicists went underground, replacing their foul garments with seemingly fairer outfits.
With the help of UNESCO's social engineers pouring oil into the machine, the propaganda became more streamlined and smooth throughout the 1990s and the beginning of this century. In the most brilliant move anyone could ever make, an ocean of euphemisms began to engulf the true ambitions of the Malthusians, to the point of classical Orwellian doublespeak and beyond. We are required nowadays to decode the complex linguistic trickery before we can even formulate a move to counter it. A crash course in the unraveling of these euphemisms may help us pierce through this language grid more easily. Bizarrely, the United Nations Population Fund will help us on our way.
In a off-worldly 1999 UNFPA directive- published to make sure journalists will not accidentally slip up and reveal the real deal- the author explains it's better to rephrase the old grammar when it comes to population control issues:
"The term ("Population control") is now out of favor with experts in the field, because it implies force- a negative thing to most. (.). To stress the voluntary nature of the actions sought, experts use terms like "stemming", "stabilizing" or "slowing" population growth. Similarly, "family planning" is preferred to "birth control" a term that dates back to the time of Margaret *'s crusade for women's rights to use contraceptives."
To namedrop Margaret * in this context is very much hitting the nail on the head- although to claim she was a real-deal liberator of minds is absurd. * was a eugenicist first and foremost. How did she define birth control in the Birth Control Review, May 1919, page 12?
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit - that is the chief aim of birth control."
The UNFPA directive goes on to say that it's better to use terms in public communiques such as:
"Birth spacing", "reproductive health" and "women's rights"; boosting "sustainable development"; and improving the earth's "carrying capacity" and the human "quality of life". These terms stress not sheer population numbers but the broader vision of global well-being."
As a paper prepared for the UN's `Expert Group Meeting on Population Dynamics and Climate Change' states:
"everything possible should be done now to ensure that people the world over have access to good reproductive health and that this will be crucial for future generations, in terms of global climate as well as human welfare."
Remember now, that the phrase "reproductive health" is not only being used to facilitate family planning centers around the globe, but also makes possible such things as portable abortion units- as it does in China for example, where women in the name of "reproductive health" are being offered the finest in abortion services the almighty State has to offer, right to their very doorstep.
"Women's rights" is another one. It sounds good, no? Who, after all, would argue the right of women to do whatever they so please? The next line in UNESCO technical papers which usually follows goes something like this: "Climate change is a women's rights issue". Or, as one publication describes it: "The threats of climate change are not gender-neutral."
"Women are key health, education, economic and resource managers", states also the UN's report of the international workshop on population-poverty-environment linkages. "They, and their children, are also those most likely to experience disproportionate effects of poverty and environmental stresses. Integrated programming should ensure that women are empowered to play the requisite managerial and decision-making roles. One entry point for linking population and the environment interventions is via coordinated and gender-sensitive environmental activities (e.g., water supply/sanitation or natural resource management) and reproductive health initiatives."
Here we have it again: "reproductive health". The juggling of words is an art mastered to perfection by the global elite and their willing underlings, that much is clear. Another important item on the agenda of the social engineers is that of integrating population reduction messages into a range of other, seemingly decoupled subject matters. We have for example a report from the UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia, encountering a problem while subjecting a group of students to the propaganda:
"Since the launching of a massive population education programme for the schools, the amount of reading materials alone, not to mention visuals and films, has increased enormously. It is therefore necessary to determine what materials to make available to children at different grade levels."
That's where the educators come in. Children, UNESCO figures, must be brought within its sphere of influence as soon as possible. Otherwise the parents will guide their futures and that would be detrimental to the plan to transform all humans into good `global citizens'.
"We cannot imagine how the people of all nations could move toward a more sustainable world without the contribution of educators from around the globe", states a 2005 UNESCO technical paper.
"Sustainable world" means a world with just as much people the earth can carry. In 1972, another UNESCO document circulated within transnational circles with the creepy title ` Learning to be: the world of education today and tomorrow`. In this publication, promoting the emergence of a "new man for a new world", the authors state their purpose:
"The new man must be capable of understanding the global consequences of individual behaviour, of conceiving of priorities and shouldering his share of the joint responsibility involved in the destiny of the human race."
At the EuroNGO's annual conference in 2008, the director of information and external relations division of the UN Population Fund was mighty glad that the Malthusians are on the rise again:
"(.) the media spotlight on global population has snapped back on in a way we haven't seen in some decades. It dimmed when concerns about "overpopulation" last went out of fashion, but those concerns may now be getting a new lease of life."
The Illinois State Rifle Association www.isra.org has issued a warning to its members of a disturbing trend that is a direct threat to gun ownership.
A new law (PA 95-0564) that requires health care providers to report patients to the state police is playing havoc with Illinois gun owners.
The Law was passed by the Illinois General Assembly in a knee jerk response to the Virginia Tech shooting.
The law requires mental health care providers to report patients that are deemed a threat to themselves or society to the Illinois State Police (ISP) but the new law has taken an unexpected twist.
The ISRA has learned that during certain hospital admission procedures a short interview with a Psychologist maybe part of the admissions process.
The admittance process that triggers an interview with a psychologist may include stress, alcohol treatment or other scenarios.
These seemingly innocent hospital knock and talk interviews are being used by the ISP as a disqualifier for gun ownership.
The ISRA has learned of gun owners being sent notices from the ISP that their FOID card has been revoked after a visit to the hospital.
Apparently Hospitals strapped for cash have included Psychologist interviews as part of their admittents process.
The ISRA is encouraging its members to respectfully decline these interviews if possible.
They are also suggesting that if a member is caught in one of these interviews that they remove their guns from their homes as quickly as possible to a friend or family member with a valid FOID card for safe keeping.
Until the passage of the new law, Illinois and federal gun laws disqualified people from owning a firearm if they had been adjudicated for mental health reasons.
Prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act and the Illinois FOID card law, non-violent felons and people with mental illness were allowed to own guns, yet crime was low.
The health care community understood that the vast majority of people suffering from mental health problems were withdrawn and not a threat to themselves or society.
Plus there was the notion that people could be treated with mental health problems and expect a full recovery.
Will the new law force Illinoisans to put mental health back into the closet or seek alternative means of treatment?
The media loves to associate gun violence with mental illness but ignores the side effects of psychotropic drugs like Prozac and their possible link to violence.
The United States has a long history of guns being given to family members as heirlooms; will that tradition come to an end in Illinois?
If the State of Illinois wants to put Mental Health back into the closet their doing an excellent job.
US Troops Wearing UN Colors
Chuck Baldwin
November 17, 2009
According to a report in World Net Daily, "Troops in the United States' USNORTHCOM ranks appear to have adopted a shoulder patch showing a North American continental design, with an emphasis on United Nations colors, giving evidence of the strength to integrate North America.
"The patch reveals the continent of North America in the orange and blue colors typical to the U.N.
"It also carries the image of a mosque to designate the unit's service in North Africa in World War II."
The report also states, "The design of the patch with the U.S. eagle image superimposed seems to imply a hierarchy in which the U.S. 5th Army exerts its military command under the authority of USNORTHCOM, with its domain defined as all North America, including the U.S., Mexico and Canada, for the United Nations, as implied in the orange and blue motif."
As most of my faithful readers know, USNORTHCOM is a combatant command "created to respond to national emergencies in North America." Readers should also be aware that the US and Canada signed an agreement earlier this year allowing the armed forces from one country to assist the armed forces of the other country during a "domestic civil emergency, EVEN ONE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE A CROSS-BORDER CRISIS." (Emphasis added.)
Creation of a North American Union has long been the goal of the elitists at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and sister organizations. This objective is so far along now that anyone who would question it simply isn't paying attention-or has an ulterior motive for denying it.
In fact, I have chronicled much pertinent information relative to this burgeoning North American Union on my web site. I encourage readers to review (and share) the information I have accumulated on this page. See it at:
Readers will recall that former President George W. Bush, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Texas. The SPP was based upon the CFR's Task Force report entitled "Creating a North American Community," which was issued just prior to the Waco gathering. Remember, too, that the SPP was signed without any knowledge, oversight, or consent of the US Congress-or any Canadian or Mexican legislative body either, for that matter.
As the WND report states, "The unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a North American Union by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA into continental political integration through the creation of some 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, composed of 30 North American business executives-10 each hand-picked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries."
In this regard, it makes absolutely no difference whether a Republican or Democratic President sits in the Oval Office. President Barack Obama is pushing forward with the same internationalist policies as did his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush. (And, no, Martha, nothing would have changed had John McCain been elected last year.)
For the most part, the leaders of both major parties in Washington, D.C., are globalists. With few exceptions, they have all bought into the CFR's philosophy of internationalism. The fact that we even have such a military command as USNORTHCOM-and even more, that the unit is wearing insignia with UN colors and a three-nation, North American patch-without the slightest protest from virtually any US congressman or senator, demonstrates the apathy of Washington elitists regarding America's merger into a multinational governing structure.
Add to the compliance of Washington politicians the US Chamber of Commerce, the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff, the mainstream news media (with the exception of Lou Dobbs, and look what happened to him: CNN reportedly paid him $8 million to leave the network), the National Education Association-along with the vast majority of America's top educational institutions, and even America's leading churchmen (for example: mega-church pastor and Pied Piper author, Rick Warren, and Southern Baptist spokesman, Richard Land, are both members of the CFR). In other words, virtually every major institution in America is betraying our country's sovereignty and independence.
Even Big Labor is, for the most part, silent in its opposition against international unification. Where is the union-led protest of President Obama's policy reversal to continue President Bush's plan allowing Mexican trucks to roll down US highways? Where is Big Labor's opposition to Obama's decision to continue pushing the goals and objectives of the CFR and Chamber of Commerce via the SPP and related supranational agreements?
Without a doubt, the attempted merger of North America is well underway. But this, too, is part of a much bigger picture. The destruction of the dollar, the formation of a global currency, the development of a new UN army (of which USNORTHCOM is the prototype), perpetual war, state-sponsored fear mongering over super-hyped "pandemics" such as the Swine Flu, the push for universal health care, etc., all serve the purpose of collapsing US sovereignty and independence, and creating global government.
Of course, one thing the elitists driving this global merger are counting on is the continued apathy and indifference of the American people. Obviously, an awakened, energized, and angry populace could seriously jeopardize their pernicious plans. They are somewhat rattled at the success of grassroots Tea Parties, etc., but they are counting on the major news media and establishment churches to keep the sheep asleep.
If America's pastors would wake up and begin sounding the clarion call for freedom and independence (as did their brave forebears), they could-almost single-handedly-turn the country around. Until they do, it is left to the rest of us to keep Thomas Jefferson's "spirit of resistance" alive.
As for me and my house, we plan to do our part by pledging no loyalty to the North American Union, the UN, or any other globalist entity.
California outlaws large, power-hungry TVs Yahoo Tech
November 19, 2009
In a move that could spell the end of the plasma TV industry as we know it, the state of California agreed today to enact strict regulations on the amount of power televisions can consume, effectively outlawing most large plasma TVs as of January 1, 2011, with many more televisions set to be banned beginning January 1, 2013.
The state had been concerned that 10 percent of a home's energy use is typically devoted to the TV and its related equipment, and that percentage has been increasing as consumers gain access to larger and larger (and cheaper and cheaper) televisions, which command an ever-increasing hunger for power.
The new rules go into effect a little more than a year from now: On January 1, 2011, televisions will be required to reduce energy consumption by an average of 33 percent. In 2013, a second tier of restrictions will go into effect, with average energy consumption required to be reduced by 49 percent vs. today's levels.
hahaha, just when you think you've heard it all. I can picture trucks bootleggin tvs. I'm sorry but this is too funny. California won't tell you to put solar panels on your house to supplement energy cost but they will regulate the size of your tv? I don't have a tv myself but i choose not to watch that mindless rubish. Anyway, have a good weekend folks.
Obama Allies Want New Tax To Pay For Cost Of Protecting Afghan Opium Fields, Bribing Taliban
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, November 20, 2009
Not content with savaging American taxpayers with two huge new financial burdens during an economic recession, in the form of health care reform and cap and trade, close allies of Barack Obama have proposed a new war surtax that will force Americans to foot the bill for the cost of protecting opium fields in Afghanistan, paying off drug lords, and bribing the Taliban.
Warning that the cost of occupying Afghanistan is a threat to the Democrats' plan to overhaul health care, lawmakers have announced their plan to make Americans pay an additional war tax that will be taken directly from their income, never mind the fact that around 36 per cent of federal taxes already go to paying for national defense.
"Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for," the lawmakers, all prominent Democratic allies of Obama, said in a joint statement on the "Share The Sacrifice Act of 2010 ( PDF), reports AFP.
The move is being led by the appropriately named House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, Representative John Murtha, who chairs that panel's defense subcommittee; and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank.
The tax would apply to anyone earning as little as $22,600 per year in 2011.
The proposal is described as "heavily symbolic" with little chance of passing, but it once again illustrates the hypocrisy of an administration that swept to power on the promise of "change" to the Neo-Con imperial agenda and a resolve to reduce U.S. military involvement overseas. In reality, there are more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now under Obama that at any time during the Bush administration.
At the height of the Bush administration's 2007 "surge" in Iraq, there were 26,000 US troops in Afghanistan and 160,000 in Iraq, a total of 186,000.
According to DoD figures cited by The Washington Post last month, there are now around 189,000 and rising deployed in total. There are now 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, over double the amount deployed there when Bush left office.
What precisely would this extra tax be used to pay for? Namely, bribing the Taliban, paying off CIA drug lords, and protecting heroin-producing opium fields.
Numerous reports over the past two weeks have confirmed that the U.S. military is paying off the Taliban with bags of gold to prevent them from attacking vehicle convoys, proving that there is no real "war" in Afghanistan, merely a business agreement that allows the occupiers to continue their lucrative control of record opium exports while they finalize construction of dozens of new military bases from which to launch new wars.
The Afghan opium trade has exploded since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, following a lull after the Taliban had imposed a crackdown. According to the U.N., the drug trade is now worth $65 billion. Afghanistan produces 92 per cent of the world's opium, with the equivalent of at least 3,500 tonnes leaving the country each year.
This racket is secured by drug kingpins like the brother of disputed president Hamid Karzai. As a New York Times report revealed last month, Ahmed Wali Karzai, a Mafia-like figure who expanded his influence over the drug trade with the aid of U.S. efforts to eliminate his competitors, is on the CIA payroll.
As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA's drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.
Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a "war on terror" that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn't even exist.
That's it for me. I didn't pay my taxes last year and I'm sure as hell not paying them this year. Let them come for me. I no longer care what they think. I don't mean to sound hippie with my next statement but what happened to the antiwar movement. Have we all been silenced or are we just being ignored. It's past time to take the fight to them.
*sidenote* My army buddy has walked through these fields and they are commanded not to destroy. Odd. I would've suggested napalm.
Call Your Senator, Demand Debate On HR 3590 infowars
November 21, 2009
Editor's note: The Obamacare bill, HR 3590, is now in the Senate and faces a "cloture" on the "motion to proceed" today. Call your representative and tell him or her to vote against "cloture" (a motion to bring debate to an end). You can call your Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762. The alternate, non toll-free, number is 202-224-3121.
click the first link to other pdf format file that i couldn't link to.
steve
Read the tax revenue score from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT)
Read the budget and tax score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) PDF of this Document
Individual Mandate Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/$8 bil): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying "qualifying" health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the following schedule
(capped at 8 percent of income)
Single Single +1 Single+2<
2014 $95 $190 $285
2015 $350 $700 $1050
2016 etc. $750 $1500 $2250
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).
Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/$28 bil): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.
If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Page 1979/Sec. 9001/$149.1 bil):
Starting in 2013, new 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans ($8500 single/$23,000 family). Higher threshold ($9850 single/$26,000 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed.
From 2013-2015, the 17 highest-cost states are 120% of this level.
Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Page 1996/Sec. 9002/Min$): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil): No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil): Increases additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
FSA Cap (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14.6 bil): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 1999/Sec. 9006/$17.1 bil): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers
Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Page 2001/Sec. 9007/Min$): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS.
Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008/$22.2 bil): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.
Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009/$19.3 bil): $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items retailing for <$100.
Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010/$60.4 bil): $6.7 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.
Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Page 2034/Sec. 9012/$5.4 bil)
Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil): Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only
$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Page 2035/Sec. 9014/$0.6 bil)
Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Page 2040/Sec. 9015/$53.8 bil): Current law and changes:
Wages
Self-Employment
(Employer/Employee)
Net Income
Current Law and New
Rate on First $200,000
($250,000 MFJ)
1.45%/1.45% 2.9%
New Rate on Amount
Were I plotting to cause a Revolution, I could not formulate a better plan then what we are watching.
God Speed, young gentlemen...the wind is in your sails..you hold ALL the reins of power, America wide.
Ignore the reefs ahead..they do not exist for you...
taken from highball on pg. 1. f'em i know not what else to say
The Road to Copenhagen part III: A "Planetary Regime" in the Making infowars
Jurriaan Maessen
November 21, 2009
"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance." George H.W. Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N, February 1, 1992
The machine of mass media is working overdrive now that the Copenhagen summit is approaching. All major media outlets have by now obviously received their talking-points which have an strangely similar ring about them all across the board. Even a superficial comparative study in the overall reporting reveals not only a stunning disregard for national sovereignty, but a willingness to support carbon-taxes imposed by a- as John P. Holdren puts it- "planetary regime".
Oxford professor Dieter Helm: "I'm in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with - for political economy reasons, to get it in place."
Last month experts told the Second Committee Panel Discussion of the UN General Assembly that "a new regime of governance was under way in the global financial system." The same is being said about global climate measures, global resource management and global development.
The mass media is not only setting the agenda themselves, they more often than not simply parrot the globalists that are being shoved in our face on a daily basis. Many of whom have a Ph.D. behind their name. Under the header `Carbon Tax' is sensible, and perhaps inevitable, advocate says`, the Los Angeles Times quotes Oxford professor Dieter Helm stating:
"(..) I'm in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with - for political economy reasons, to get it in place, (.). Across Europe, my guess is within five years everybody will have a carbon tax."
This, according to Helm, will make sure that the United States will eventually be forced into the global carbon tax policy as well:
"(.) is everybody else doing it? That's a very good protection for politicians. The answer is yes, they are."
Back in December of 2001, the Africa division of the UN Development Programme apparently already seriously considered such a tax:
"The main energy sources that would be affected by a carbon tax include coal, petroleum, kerosene and natural gas. The tax would be reflected in an increase in their price, at a level based on the capacity of each type of fuel to emit carbon dioxide."
Answering the question who would collect the taxes and enforce such a global tax policy, the UN panel was quite clear:
"The panel said a new international tax organization should be created to assume all functions performed by existing institutions. It would serve as a global intergovernmental forum for international cooperation on all tax issues. It would also help resolve conflicts between countries and help them to increase tax revenue by fostering information exchanges and measures that could reduce tax evasion on investment and personal income earned at home and abroad."
This sounds a lot like John P. Holdren doesn't it, exclaiming in Ecoscience that "a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment" could impose global policy and enforce it. "Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime", said Holdren, "could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist."
Furthermore, the UN panel advocated in 2001:
"We thus endorse the Commission's proposal to create a global council at the highest political level to provide leadership on issues of global governance. The proposed council would be more broadly based than the G7 or the Bretton Woods institutions."
In 2007, Reuters quoted Mr. Global Warming Himself, Al Gore as saying that a global carbon trading scheme could be "quite efficient if the world's top polluters, the United States and China, fully joined." Gore also stated that a direct tax on carbon would certainly be "an even simpler and more direct measure."
It was the Bilderberg-appointed Herman Van Rompuy- the new EU-president- who stated recently that "The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet." He also announced that 2009 would be the "first year of global governance." And he's not the first to call for such global management. All people who occupy a position of power in the infrastructure of the New World Order have called for it since its very conception shortly after World War II.
As a preface to the coming Copenhagen summit in December, the United Nations Population Fund in a recently published ` State of the Population 2009` is pushing for global reproductive health services. This means not only universal access to `family planning' but also better access to abortion facilities. Humans, after all, are supposed to be the prime driver of climate change and therefore: less humans means honouring Mother Earth.
In the foreword, the executive director of the UNFPA, Thoraya Obaid addresses the fake global warming hype, saying that "floods, storms and rising seas" will soon envelope the planet if not for quick, decisive and global efforts to combat these calamities.
"A Copenhagen agreement that helps people to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and adapt to climate change by harnessing the insight and creativity of women and men would launch a genuinely effective long-term global strategy to deal with climate change."
Global strategy. That's the talking point we hear over and over again from all agencies, UN or otherwise, who have an interest in profiting from the deal they are proposing. Never mind that all nation-states who sign on to the Copenhagen treaty will effectively forfeit their representative systems to this global authority, deciding which taxes will be paid by which nation-state. In the end, all roads seem to lead to a "planetary regime" envisioned by the elite long before "global warming" was even heard of.
check the link below the header for more links to information and quotes
Ben Bernanke has been scheduled for a confirmation hearing for a second four-year term as Federal Reserve chairman. The Senate Banking Committee will question him on Dec. 3.
Rep. Alan Grayson has come out strongly recently urging an audit of the Fed and has had noteworthy courage to stand up to Bernanke's lies directly in hearings and the giant ongoing criminal fraud that is the so-called `Federal Reserve'.
Thus I suspect fireworks during the confirmation hearing after which powerful special interests will unfortunately again guarantee Bernanke's bogus reconfirmation regardless. This is wrong and needs to be stopped.
The Fed is wildly ineffective and did nothing to prevent the economic crisis. Why then do we continue to let it go on? And with endless printing of fiat money it has also destroyed the dollar and will obviously continue to do so, costing all of us endless inflation tax by design no less.
The Fed is first and foremost a private bank, a criminal cartel and a complete rip-off on everyone. So says Rep. Ron Paul, his new book "End the Fed", Rep. Alan Grayson, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Brad Sherman among many others. Over 300 co-sponsors have signed on for the just passed `Audit the Fed' bill HR 1207.
It is also high time the government took back it's sovereign right to print it's own money and not be forced to borrow from the Fed at interest, the biggest scam of all - only serving to systemically wreck all of our lives and doom them to economic slavery to the elite shadow bankers who actually control the Fed as it already has for many generations.
Reconfirm Bernanke? And do it as they certainly will pretending he is some wonderful economic godsend? This is absurd, dangerous and insane and will only insure things get worse. Much worse.
It is not time to reconfirm Bernanke. It is time to call out this `Federal Reserve' criminal empire for what it really is and end it now.
Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming wall street journal
By KEITH JOHNSON
The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.
The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.
Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.
"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."
In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.
"The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said.
Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views.
A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.
In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call "disinformation" using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.
The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.
The IPCC couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.
Journal Communitydiscuss.." Any group with such a single-minded view (whether they are believers in global warming, global warming rejectionists, liberals, conservatives, whatever) bears close watching and a certain amount of skepticism.
"
.- George Rebovich.
In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was "tempted to beat" up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.
The emails were published less than a month before the opening of a major climate-change summit in Copenhagen.
Representatives of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a large professional organization, expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The association believes "that climate change is real, it is related to human activities, and the need to counteract its impacts is now urgent," said Ginger Pinholster, an association spokeswoman. She added that the association's journal, Science, evaluates papers solely on scientific merit.
John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested."
Mojib Latif, a climate researcher at Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, said he found it hard to believe that climate scientists were trying to squelch dissent. Mr. Latif, who believes in man-made global warming but who has co-authored a paper ascribing current cooling to temporary natural trends, said, "I simply can't believe that there is a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical papers from being published."
Obama Quietly Backs Patriot Act Provisions common dreams
by William Fisher
NEW YORK - With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.
And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.
When a panicky Congress passed the act 45 days after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, three contentious parts of the law were scheduled to expire at the end of next month, and opponents of these sections have been pushing Congress to substitute new provisions with substantially strengthened civil liberties protections.
But with the apparent approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans - and over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois - the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor changes.
Those provisions would leave unaltered the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail in the course of counterterrorism investigations.
The parts of the act due to expire on Dec. 31 deal with:
National Security Letters (NSLs)
The FBI uses NSLs to compel Internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people.
The 'Material Support' Statute
This provision criminalises providing "material support" to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since Sep. 11, this section criminalises a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organisations.
FISA Amendments Act of 2008
This past summer, Congress passed a law that permits the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents' international telephone calls and e-mails.
Asked by IPS why committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and other Democrats chose to make only minor changes, Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defence Committee, referred to "the secret and hypocritical lobbying by the Obama administration against reforms - while publicly stating receptiveness to them." White House pressure, he speculated, "was undoubtedly a huge if lamentable factor".
He added that some committee members were cautious because of the recent arrests of Najibullah Zazi and others.
Zazi , a citizen of Afghanistan and a legal U.S. resident, was arrested in September as part of a group accused of planning to carry out acts of terrorism against the U.S. Zazi is said by the FBI to have attended courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at an al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan.
Leahy acknowledged that, in light of these incidents, "This is no time to weaken or undermine the tools that law enforcement relies on to protect America."
Pitts told IPS, "Short-term and political considerations driven by dramatic events once again dramatically affected the need for a more sensible long-term, reasoned, rule-of-law approach."
"In the eight years since passage of the original Patriot Act, it's become clear that the escalating political competition to appear tough on terror - and avoid being accused of being "soft on terror" - brings perceived electoral benefits with few costs, with vital but fragile civil liberties being easily sacrificed," he added.
In contrast to the Senate, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved a version of the legislation containing several significant reforms. In a 16-10 party-line vote, the committee's version curbs some of the government's controversial surveillance powers.
The Patriot Act, passed by a landslide after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to provide law enforcement and intelligence agencies additional powers to thwart terrorist activities, was reauthorised in 2005.
The legislation has been criticised by many from across the ideological spectrum as a threat to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions. Sections of the original act have been ruled unconstitutional, with certain provisions violating protected rights.
Judiciary Chair John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, said the goal of the new legislation was to "craft a law that preserves both our national security and our national values".
The proposed new legislation would permit the so-called "lone wolf" provision to sunset. This authority removed the requirement that an individual needed to be an agent of a foreign power to be placed under surveillance by intelligence officials and permitted surveillance of individuals with a much lower evidentiary threshold than allowed under criminal surveillance procedures.
It was intended to allow the surveillance of individuals believed to be doing the bidding of foreign governments or terrorist organisations, even when the evidence of that connection was lacking.
The Justice Department maintains that the "lone wolf" authority is necessary, even though there is no evidence that it has been used. Its opponents believe that existing authorities are sufficient to achieve the goals of the lone wolf provision while more effectively protecting the rights of innocent citizens.
The proposed new House legislation would also restrict the use of national security letters. According to a Congressional Research Service report, "National security letters (NSL) are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. Intelligence agencies issue them for intelligence gathering purposes to telephone companies, Internet service providers, consumer credit reporting agencies, banks, and other financial institutions, directing the recipients to turn over certain customer records and similar information."
Under current law, intelligence agencies have few restrictions on the use of NSLs, and in numerous cases, have abused the authority. An FBI inspector general report in 2007 "found that the FBI used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies". The reform provisions seek to create greater judicial scrutiny of NSL use.
The bill approved in the Senate contains much more modest reforms. It would retain the lone wolf provision, and is, in general, much more in line with the wishes of the administration. Should both bills pass and go into conference to be reconciled, it is unclear which approach would prevail.
House and Senate versions still need to be voted on by each body separately and then reconciled into a single bill to send to the president for signature.
Pitts told IPS, "President Obama's flip-flop on Patriot Act issues does as much damage as did his flip-flop on the FISA Amendments Act and telecom immunity last year. But it's imperative that we fight, while we still can, to comprehensively reinsert requirements for fact-based, individualised suspicion, checks and balances, and meaningful judicial review prior to government intrusions."
In a report on the Patriot Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, "More than seven years after its implementation there is little evidence that the Patriot Act has been effective in making America more secure from terrorists. However, there are many unfortunate examples that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violate the rights of innocent people and squander precious security resources."
Senator Gillibrand and Representative McCarthy have introduced the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2009. Ostensibly designed to prosecute gun traffickers, the bill would also deny the Second Amendment to anybody on the so-called terror watch list. The legislation is supported by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, and the Brady Campaign.
The number of unique names on the U.S. terror watch list totals 400,000, newly released FBI data reveals. The Washington Post reported that during a 12-month period ending in March of this year, 1,600 people were nominated daily by the U.S. intelligence community to be put on the list due to `reasonable suspicion.'
In July, 2008, the terror watch list contained well over a million names, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
"Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes and other 'suspicious characters,' with names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become trapped in the Kafkaesque clutches of this list, with little hope of escape," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office in July, 2008. "Congress needs to fix it, the Terrorist Screening Center needs to fix it, or the next president needs to fix it, but it has to be done soon."
Obama did not fix it. Instead, as noted below, his attorney general and two Congress critters from New York are well on their way to making sure over a million Americans are stripped of their constitutional right to own firearms.
PRNewswire-USNewswire
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee November 18th, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda.
"The President of the United States asked that politicians not use the Ft. Hood attack to engage in `political theater.' It appears those committed to attacking gun owners and the Second Amendment simply can't help themselves and are engaged in blaming guns and gun owners on the heels of this terrorist attack. Sadly it looks like `politics as usual,'" said LEAA's spokesperson, Ted Deeds.
After explaining and defending his decision to give enemy combatants constitutional protections and the right to public trial in civilian courts, Attorney General Holder revealed his support for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding that person's name to the terror watch list.
Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we now know:
Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases with those records permanently retained by and shared among law enforcement.
Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess them.
Transcribing General Holder: "The position of the Administration is that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share information about gun purchases." ". [It's not] inconsistent to allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information, for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law enforcement." "It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain people from flying on airplanes because they are on the terrorist watch list and yet we would still allow them to posses weapons." {Emphasis added}
LEAA's Executive Director Jim Fotis said, "Those behind the badge don't believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America's men and women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners!"
From scrapped cars to bloated NGOs, funded by those who aim to profit from carbon, one need only look to the European Union and the UK to see what's planned for America. It's no surprise that the US government, and associated institutions, plan to support "low carbon" strategies for a new world. It takes only a few clicks of the mouse to discover the tentacle-like, death hold the green revolutionaries possess throughout the USA and the world.
While American consumers were gladly handing over their "clunkers", so too, was Canada, the UK, South Africa, Germany, France, Italy and now China.
A myriad of tentacles have been developed which appear to be innocuous non-profits like Transition US, Post Carbon Institute, Carbon Trust, or the Chicago Climate Exchange. Examples of relevant government entities include the US Bureau of Economic Geology, the United Nations Environment Programme, the Global Environment Facility and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, along with their board members' dubious affiliations. Let's not forget the universities who receive research dollars from power hungry, carbon over-lords to develop foundational, and intricately designed systems-modeling data in order to validate the next level of global control, while mystifying most of us with complicated jargon and mathematics.
It's interesting to note that while American consumers were gladly handing over their "clunkers", so too, was Canada, the UK, South Africa, Germany, France, Italy and now China is announcing a similar move. Proponents of this scheme say it will boost sluggish auto sales. So, is this about climate change, or another back door bailout?
Look a little deeper, however, and we find that scrappage schemes really don't work to reduce much of anything. In fact, the United Kingdom Energy Research Centre (UKERC) published findings in June of 2009 specifically addressing vehicle scrappage programs. For clarity's sake the UKERC is a government appointed consortium of academia from 15, UK academic institutions. In their research and data study they find that vehicle scrappage does nothing to reduce carbon emissions; has little impact on sustaining vehicle efficiency and may actually have the reverse impact by increasing miles driven because people now have new cars. See their findings at this web location: http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page=VSS-Detail
Yet despite the UK's own scientific information, the scrappage program which began April 22, 2009, was extended on September 28, 2009: The Government today announced a ?100M increase to the vehicle scrappage scheme to build on the success of the scheme in boosting consumer demand. http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/sectors/automotive/scrappage/page51068.html
If these programs are found to be questionable, especially without the acquisition of real data, then this futile exercise begs the question: What is this about? The author will hypothesize that this particular program and the implementation thereof, is a piloted demonstration of governments acting as one, single, global entity.
Scrapping vehicles is a hyped sell to consumers to accomplish several things: create a precedent for a united, carbon-guised, global effort; line the pockets of the automakers, shareholders and data makers; bolster the image of environmental concern, securing a healthy, well-indoctrinated voting block. Perhaps most importantly, to set a "carbon budget precedent" as a local and individual control mechanism.
What does this have to do with Copenhagen? Since our president has already demonstrated his willingness to align himself with the UK, and ultimately the EU/UN by ushering in his "cash for clunkers" program, let's look at other items on his agenda. This from ABC's Z. Byron Wolf: "While not originally expected to attend the event, Mr. Obama will take the opportunity in an international venue to lay out his road map to achieving the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emission 83 percent by 2050, with benchmarks of achieving a 30 percent reduction from 2005 emission levels in 2025 and a 42 percent reduction off those levels by 2030, according to officials and a memo released by the White House".
This same article quotes, "Sen. Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works committee passed a more ambitious bill that would seek to cut emissions 20 percent by 2020. The White House seems to endorse the more modest House approach by saying the President will announce reducing emissions "in the range of 17% below 2005 levels."
Interestingly, our government proposals are taken directly from, "UK's National Strategy for Climate and Energy: Transition to a Low Carbon Society". This document specifically states, "The UK is calling for an ambitious global agreement at UN talks in Copenhagen in December 2009#8243;. The plans shared in this document include: To drive this transition the government has put in place the world's first ever legally binding target to cut emissions at least 80% by the year 2050 and a set of 5 year carbon budgets to 2022 to keep the UK on track".
What else should we be expecting in America? How about Smart Meters, Personal Carbon Allowances, and other quite shocking programs designed to thwart our freedoms. The real business of carbon regulation is a matter of global sychronicity while controlling our mobility and freedom without actually have to expose themselves to challenge, or debate. After all, the science has been purchased, as have the politicians and the corporations.
Confoundedly, proponents of programs and policies geared toward carbon budgeting are presented as good stewards of this planet and they may even believe they are. The disarming aspect of "carbon-nation" is that no one seems to notice the evolution of this slow, seemingly painless, asphyxiation which the carbon paradigm presents to our sovereignty as a nation.
This summer, legislators from several states met to discuss the steps needed to restore our Constitutional Republic. The federal government has ignored the many state sovereignty resolutions from 2009 notifying it to cease and desist its current and continued overreach. The group decided it was time to actively counter the tyranny emanating from Washington D.C.
From those discussions it became clear three things needed to happen.
State Legislatures need to pass 10 key pieces of legislation "with teeth" to put the federal government back in its place.
The people must pass the legislation through the Initiative process if any piece of the legislative agenda fails.
County Sheriffs must reaffirm and uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
With the advent of the Tea Party Movement, many people have been asking how exactly we can make the above reality. What follows is Part I of the outline of that plan regarding state legislation, the action steps any concerned citizen can take to see this legislation to fruition, and the brief history and justifications behind each.
Step 1: Reclaim State Sovereignty through Key Nullification Legislation
Our Constitutional Republic is founded on a system of checks and balances known as the "separation of powers." Rarely, however, are the states considered part of this essential principle.
Nullification is based on the simple principle that the federal government cannot be the final arbiter of the extent and boundaries of its own power. This includes all branches of the federal government. In the law this is known as a "conflict of interest."
Additionally, since the states created the federal government the federal government was an agent of the states; not the other way around. Thus, Thomas Jefferson believed that, by extension, the states had a natural right to nullify (render as of no effect) any laws they believed were unconstitutional.
"co-States, recurring to their natural right.will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories."1
Alexander Hamilton echoed this sentiment in Federalist #85 "We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." 2
It is clear then that State Legislatures can stop the unconstitutional overreach of the Obama administration through nullification. Here is a list of proposed nullification legislation to introduce in all 50 States.
Nullification of Socialized Health Care [current efforts] [ example legislation]
Nullification of National Cap and Trade [ example legislation]
Federal Enumerated Powers Requirement (Blanket Nullification) [details]
Establishment of a Federal Tax Escrow Account [ example legislation]
If imposed, socialized health care and cap and trade will crush our economy. These programs are both unconstitutional, creating government powers beyond those enumerated by the Constitution. If those programs are nullified, it will give the individual states a fighting chance to detach from a federal budget in freefall and save the economies of the individual states.
Next, blanket nullification.
The Federal Government, particularly the House of Representatives, needs to abide by its own rules. In particular, House Rule XIII 3(d) specifically states that:
"Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or resolution." 3
Needless to say, this rule is generally ignored. The idea behind blanket nullification is that if the Congress does not specify the enumerated power it is using according to its own rules, or the power specified is not one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the United States Constitution, then the "law" is automatically null and void.
Lastly, the federal government cannot survive without money. I know that seems obvious but many states are missing the opportunity to use money as an incentive for the federal government to return to its proper role. Most visibly, states help collect the federal portion of the gasoline tax. That money should be put into an escrow account at the state level and held there. The Escrow Account legislation includes a provision that all consumer, excise, and income taxes payable to the federal government would go through this account first. This would do two things. First, it would give states the ability to collect interest on that money to help offset revenue shortfalls. Second, it would allow states to hold that money as long as needed as an incentive for the federal government to return within the enumerated boundaries of its power.
Step 2: Erect an impenetrable wall around the County Sheriff and the 2nd Amendment.
As recently stated in the famous Heller opinion by the United States Supreme Court, the right to bear arms "is an individual right protecting against both public and private violence" and "when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized they are better able to resist tyranny." 4
Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment not only protects the right to self-defense but that right extends to defending oneself against tyranny. As with any historical attempt to establish a dictatorship weapons must be seized or severely regulated. 5
Here is a list of legislation to prevent this from happening, some of which has already been introduced in states around the country:
Sheriff First [ model legislation]
Extension of the Castle Doctrine (right to protection) [ sample legislation]
Prohibition of Gun and Ammunition Tracking [see above]
Firearms Freedom Act [current efforts] [ model legislation]
The county Sheriff is the senior law enforcement officer both in terms of rank and legal authority in a county. This comes from a tradition of over 1000 years of Anglo-Saxon common law. Anglo-Saxon communities were typically organized into "shires" consisting of approximately 1000 people. 6
The chief law enforcement officer of the shire was the "reeve" or "reef." Hence, the modern combination of the two words, as we know them today, "shire reef" or "Sheriff." 7
Consequently, the Sheriff's pre-eminent legal authority is well established. This was confirmed in Printz v. United States. 7 Justice Scalia quotes James Madison who wrote in Federalist 39:
"In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere."9
Sheriff 1st legislation would formally declare that all federal agents and officers must give notice of, and seek permission before, any arrest, search, or seizure occurs. Thus, federal agents and officers seeking to enforce unconstitutional laws must go through the county Sheriff first.
Extending the castle doctrine to one's person would go a long way toward eliminating the arbitrary "no carry" areas. Like Virginia Tech, it is these areas where guns for self-defense are most needed.
Many gun and ammunition tracking schemes have been, and are still being, attempted. The intended purpose of "reducing gun related" crime is never realized. Instead, law-abiding citizens are punished with regulatory burdens and fees. Quite simply we need transparency in government not in the people.
Montana started the firearms freedom act to rein in the federal government's use of the Commerce Clause to regulate everything within the stream of commerce. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate commerce between states not within states as Professor Rob Natelson points out in his 2007 Montana Law Review article.10
The Montana FFA simply returns to that original understanding regarding firearms made, sold, and kept within a state's borders.
This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it does contain some immediate steps that can be taken toward freedom and restoring our God honoring Constitutional Republic. Hitler's laws of January 30 and February 14, 1934, should serve as a stark reminder of what happens when state sovereignty is abolished.
In the coming few weeks I will publish the next part of the plan.
Matthew Shea [send him email] is a State Representative in Washington's 4th District. He's the author of HJM4009 for State Sovereignty. Visit his website.
Copyright c 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
NOTES:
1. Kentucky Resolution of 1798, Thomas Jefferson, Adopted by Kentucky Legislature on November 10, 1798.
2. Federalist No. 85, Publius (Alexander Hamilton), August 13 and 16, 1788.
3. Rules of the House XIII 3(d), "Content of Reports," Page 623, 110th Congress.
4. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (Actual Pages 11, 13) (2008)
That last one on "steps to restoring the republic" was great. I like it better than my idea of "a few, storming the gates". Guess mine would be better as a last resort.[;)]
Do you post these anywhere else on the net? Even over in GD would get more coverage than in here, but this one should be posted on every conservative forum on the net!
The latest chapter in a saga over an easement for a pipeline ended with Jeremy Engelking going to jail.
Jeremy Engelking will appear in Douglas County court this afternoon to face a trespassing charge. But here's the kicker: The Superior man allegedly trespassed on his own property.
Engelking, 27, aimed to hunt deer Wednesday morning when he noticed a pipeline crew on his land. He hopped on his ATV and told workers they had no right to be on his property because he had received no compensation from Enbridge Energy Partners L.P. for an easement.
Engelking said workers told him he was in an unsafe place and asked him to come to an equipment staging area, where he continued to argue his case.
But just as he was turning to leave, Engelking said an officer from the Douglas County Sheriff's Department arrived on the scene and approached with a Taser drawn.
"He ordered me to 'get down on the ground now!' And he said that I was being arrested for trespassing," Engelking said.
When Engelking protested, pointing out that he was on his own property, he said Sgt. Robert Smith told him: "It doesn't matter. You're going to jail. You can tell it to a judge tomorrow."
Engelking offered no resistance, but Smith placed him in handcuffs then transported him to the Douglas County Jail. After posting a $200 bail bond, Engelking was released that afternoon. He also had to pay about another $100 to recover his impounded ATV.
The incident report says Engelking parked his ATV in front of pipeline equipment, stopping workers. Engelking said it wasn't his intention to physically block work.
Lorraine Grymala, a community affairs manager for Enbridge, said access to work sites is restricted in the interest of safety.
"We can't have people in the right of way without an escort and the proper gear," she said. "People could get hurt."
Engelking's arrest Wednesday is the latest episode in a long disagreement he and his father, Jerry Engelking, have had with Enbridge, dating to the company's last pipeline expansion in 2002.
Jerry Engelking, who owns 200 acres next to his son, said he refused to sign off on changes proposed to the original 1949 easement across his property because he felt the revisions put too many restrictions on how he could use his property. That original easement said future pipes laid along the same route would require payments in advance.
According to court documents, Enbridge sent a $15,000 check to Jerry Engelking and also tried to hand-deliver payments, but Engelking refused to accept them.
Engelking said that to claim the money he would have had to broaden the scope of the existing easement across his property, so he turned the checks down. When the latest pipeline project came along, the Engelkings again refused to modify the original 1949 right-of-way agreement.
The family sought a restraining order against Enbridge on Sept. 24, arguing the company intended to use the pipeline for transporting petroleum products other than those originally allowed, protesting that they had not been paid and citing damage to property.
Douglas County Circuit Court Judge George Glonek granted a temporary injunction but lifted it the following day, saying the company's plans for the pipeline were appropriate and efforts had been made to pay the Engelkings.
Jerry Engelking said the fight's not finished yet.
Officers reported no similar incidents along the path of the Enbridge pipeline construction in Douglas County, said Lt. Gerald Moe of the Douglas County Sheriff's Department.
Grymala said that Enbridge has worked with about 1,500 landowners as part of the pipeline project.
"We recognize construction is an inconvenience to people; people want access to their land," she said. "We strive to be respectful of that, to have a good working relationship."
Is your name the same as, or similar to, that of someone on the FBI's "terrorist watchlist?" Or, have you been erroneously placed on the watchlist?
You can't find out because the FBI won't say exactly why people get watchlisted, won't say who has been watchlisted, and therefore doesn't offer watchlisted people the chance to clear their names immediately. In fact, small children, federal air marshals, military personnel who have fought terrorists overseas, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, members of Congress, and many other good Americans have even been stopped from boarding commercial aircraft for this reason. The government has reported that there were 700,000 names in the watchlist as of April 2007, and the ACLU estimates that the number has since risen to 1.3 million.
Obviously, these people are not all terrorists. However, politicians who hate the Second Amendment know that some of the good Americans who are erroneously on the list, or who get incorrectly flagged by the list, are gun owners. And, because the FBI won't reveal its watchlisting criteria, those politicians think that more gun owners can be placed on the list over time, by like-minded bureaucrats making arbitrary determinations about who ought to have guns.
One such politician is Michael Bloomberg, whose hobbies include being mayor of New York City and raising intellectually deficient complaints about gun laws. Never one to concern himself with the facts when there is a chance to get his name in the paper, Bloomberg recently claimed that the recent murders on Ft. Hood would have been prevented if the FBI hadn't been required to erase NICS-approved gun purchase records after 24 hours.
Mischaracterizing events related to the Ft. Hood murders for political reasons shows disrespect to the lives that were lost there and is crass to the extreme. That said, the reason that the FBI didn't know about the Ft. Hood suspect's gun purchase is not that his NICS record was erased after 24 hours. Rather, it's that he wasn't on the watchlist in the first place, as NICS checks the list and alerts the FBI if a listed person tries to buy a gun.
Another such politician is Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), author of legislation Bloomberg supports (S. 1317, H.R. 2159 in the House), which would allow the Attorney General to stop watchlisted people from buying guns through NICS. It would also prevent those people from contesting their rejections in a full and open hearing in court. Obviously, that scheme would violate not only the Second Amendment, but also the Fourteenth Amendment's protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
This week Lautenberg introduced a separate bill (S. 2820), calling for NICS firearm transaction records to be retained for 10 years on a person suspected of being a member of a terrorist organization. That, however, is a smokescreen for another provision in the same bill, to retain NICS records of approved firearm transfers for 180 days for other gun buyers.
While Lautenberg introduced S. 2820 in the wake of Ft. Hood (with terrorism fresh on Americans' minds), gun control supporters have wanted NICS records retained for longer than 24 hours since NICS' inception. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the Lautenberg bill, argued in favor of a 180-day retention back in 2001. After all, the Brady Act, as passed by Congress, required that NICS "destroy" the records of approved firearm purchases.
Along with the Lautenberg bills described above, gun control supporters are concurrently campaigning for a law to force all private gun sales to be run through NICS. Connecting the dots is a simple task. The goal shared by gun control supporters and by government entities for whom no amount of knowledge about American citizens is too much, is to incrementally increase the amount of information the government possesses on gun owners who, through no fault of their own, end up on a secret government list.
Action: Please call your U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose S. 1317 and S. 2820. You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.
A caller to the Alex Jones Show today said he was asked to give the last four digits of his Social Security number in order to attend the Tanner Gun Show in Denver, Colorado. The caller said he was asked to surrender his SS number after he had paid to attend the show and had a stamp put on his hand. He also said federal agents were circulating the gun show looking for weapons capable of firing in full automatic mode.
The Tanner Gun Show is Colorado's oldest and largest gun show, featuring nearly 700 available tables of guns, knives, and accessories such as ammunition, hunting and fishing equipment, military surplus, gun safes, and many more unique items, according to its website.
The Alex Jones Show called the Tanner Gun Show to confirm the caller's accusation. The organization had not responded at the time this article was posted.
Numerous callers said following the call from Colorado that they had been asked to give social security and drivers license numbers at gun shows or while purchasing ammunition at stores around the country.
Under the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, firearm dealers with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) were prohibited from doing business at gun shows and were restricted to selling firearms at the address listed on their license. The law changed with the enactment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which allows FFLs to transfer firearms at gun shows provided they follow the provisions of the GCA and other pertinent federal regulations. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reports that between 50% and 75% of the vendors at gun shows possess a Federal Firearms License.
Last month New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced a bill to regulate the sale of firearms. The Gun Trafficking Prevention Act would provide funding for the BATF to hire 1,500 agents and investigators. Gillibrand said the measures outlined in the bill would cost $370 million over five years.
In October, California governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 962 requiring ammunition to be kept behind the counter where customers cannot access it without assistance. It also requires gun shop owners to thumbprint people who buy handgun ammunition, as well as record their identification and provide that information to police.
The BATF falsely claims gun shows are the source of more than 30% of all illegally trafficked guns in the country.
In October, vehement gun-grabber and critic of the Second Amendment, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, ran an undercover operation at gun shows. Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, used the skewered results from Bloomberg's sting operation to encourage the federal government to enact more restrictive gun laws.
Studies reveal, however, that less than 2% of felons incarcerated for crimes involving guns had acquired those guns at gun shows.
Helmke's Brady Campaign not only wants intrusive background checks on gun sales at gun shows but on all gun sales. "Our national policy should be: no background check, no gun, no excuses," states the Brady Campaign.
Bloomberg's roving gun show sting is part of a wider effort by federal and state governments to characterize gun shows as the source of illegal guns in America - used by gangs and drug cartels - and thus shut them down and further restrict the sale of legal firearms to Americans.
As part of the federal government's jihad against gun shows and the Second Amendment, earlier this year Obama said that "[m]ore than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States." U.S. officials have erroneously claimed that 90% of guns recovered from criminals in Mexico came from the United States.
In November, the BATF said that a large percentage of guns that are smuggled into Mexico come from gun shows.
In fact, as Bill Conroy reports, much of the weaponry used by drug cartels in Mexico is sold to them by an emerging military weapons cartel and not bought at gun shows in the United States. The United States, under State Department license, sells military-grade weapons to the Mexican government.
In addition to attempting link legal gun sales to the drug cartel business in Mexico, the corporate media has engaged in a propaganda campaign to demonize gun owners as domestic terrorists.
For instance, Max Blumenthal, in Gun Show Nation, characterizes gun show attendees as a "heavily armed, tightly organized movement incited by right-wing radio to a fever-pitched resentment of President Obama and his allies in Congress." He attempts to link this "movement" to the murder of police officers. Blumenthal writes:
On April 4, a neo-Nazi wannabe named Richard Poplawski murdered three Pittsburgh police officers with a high-powered assault rifle. By all accounts, Poplawski was an avid follower of right-wing talkers including Alex Jones and Glenn Beck who "grew angry recently over fears Obama would outlaw guns."
The Department of Homeland Security, in its now infamous report on "rightwing extremism," has warned that federal and state laws designed to destroy firearm possession and undermine the Second Amendment "may be invigorating right-wing extremist activity, specifically the white-supremacist and militia movements." The report also sounds a clarion call over returning veterans who it claims are being lured into this putative domestic terror movement controlled by white supremacists.
The color of law requirement put into effect at the Tanner Gun Show in Colorado reveal how the government is actively engaged in a covert war of intimidation and harassment of legal gun shows and gun owners. If the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act and other legislation is enacted around the country and the BATF receives additional funding, we can expect the level of harassment and intimidation to increase exponentially in the months and years ahead.
Addendum
An email received by Infowars states that people attending the Tanner Gun Show were asked for their zip code. The email writer wonders if the man mentioned in the story, who said he was asked for his Social Security number, might be mistaken. However, more than a dozen callers to the Alex Jones Show specifically stated that they were asked for Social Security numbers and driver's licenses.
Comments
Paul Joseph Watson
prisonplanet
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
A bombshell article in today's edition of the New York Times lifts the lid on how the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a suspected kingpin of the country's booming opium trade, has been on the CIA payroll for the past eight years. However, the article serves as little more than a whitewash because it fails to address the fact that one of the primary reasons behind the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was the agenda to reinstate the Golden Crescent drug trade.
"The agency pays (Ahmed Wali) Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.'s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai's home," reports the Times.
An October 2008 report from the Times reveals how, after security forces discovered a huge tractor-trailer full of heroin outside Kandahar in 2004, "Before long, the commander, Habibullah Jan, received a telephone call from Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai, asking him to release the vehicle and the drugs."
In 2006, following the discovery of another cache of heroin, "United States investigators told other American officials that they had discovered links between the drug shipment and a bodyguard believed to be an intermediary for Ahmed Wali Karzai."
The Times article out today also discusses how the CIA uses Karzai as a go-between between the Americans and the Taliban. He is also directly implicated in the manufacturing of phony ballots and polling stations that were attributed to the President's disputed election victory.
"If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck," the American officer said of Mr. Karzai. "Our assumption is that he's benefiting from the drug trade."
Officials quoted by The Times described Karzai as a Mafia-like figure who expanded his influence over the drug trade with the aid of U.S. efforts to eliminate his competitors.
The Afghan opium trade has exploded since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, following a lull after the Taliban had imposed a crackdown. According to the U.N., the drug trade is now worth $65 billion. Afghanistan produces 92 per cent of the world's opium, with the equivalent of 3,500 tonnes leaving the country each year. Other figures put the number far higher, at around 6,100 tonnes a year.
The New York Times expos? pins the blame on Karzai, but fails to explain that one of the primary reasons behind the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was the United States' agenda to restore, not eradicate, the drug trade.
Before the invasion, the Taliban collaborated closely with the U.N. to reduce opium production down to just 185 tonnes, a figure at least 2000% below current levels. The notion that the "Taliban benefits from the drug trade" and that the U.S. is trying to stop it, as both Bush and Obama claimed, is the complete opposite of what is actually happening.
As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA's drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.
The Times implies that the drug lord Karzai being on the CIA payroll is little more than an embarrassing coincidence, when in reality he is just a middle manager for the U.S. military-industrial complex's control of the drug trade in Afghanistan which stretches back decades and was only interrupted when the Taliban came to power.
"Heroin is a multibillion dollar business supported by powerful interests, which requires a steady and secure commodity flow. One of the "hidden" objectives of the war was precisely to restore the CIA sponsored drug trade to its historical levels and exert direct control over the drug routes," writes Chossudovsky.
"As revealed in the Iran-Contra and Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) scandals, CIA covert operations in support of the Afghan Mujahideen had been funded through the laundering of drug money. "Dirty money" was recycled -through a number of banking institutions (in the Middle East) as well as through anonymous CIA shell companies-, into "covert money," used to finance various insurgent groups during the Soviet-Afghan war, and its aftermath."
Within two years of the CIA's covert operation in Afghanistan, "CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests."
This is the history of the Afghan opium trade that the Times won't tell you, and in failing to do so today's article serves only to whitewash the true scale of the agenda behind the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.
"The instant the United Nations starts amending the Constitution by treaty power is the day that the United Nations should be carved off of the East Coast and floated out past the continental shelf and sunk in 2 miles of water, for good."
JTCoyote.
infowars
Scroll down just under that nasty picture and click.
U.N. plans for a new 'government' are scary.
wallstreetjournal
By JANET ALBRECHTSEN
We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven't heard about it, that's because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media.
Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change-a rough draft of what could be signed come December.
So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen.
The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."
And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.
To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.
Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn't even called the draft "treaty." Instead, it's labelled a "Note by the Secretariat."
Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said "this is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start-that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do."
Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his expos? of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that "in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever." Yet his critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says.
Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.
Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let's hope he is right. And thank you, America.
Ms. Albrechtsen is a columnist for the Australian.
Paul Joseph Watson
prisonplanet
Monday, November 2, 2009
When does yet another "mistake" become a flagrant official disregard for parental rights? Another three children have been injected with the swine flu vaccine against their parents' wishes as schools institute mass inoculation programs with little concern about consent.
A girl in Brooklyn suffered an allergic reaction to the H1N1 shot after nurses injected her with the vaccine without the consent of her mother, Naomi Troy.
6-year-old Nikiyah Torres-Pierre takes medicine to control her epilepsy and for this reason her mother was waiting on doctors' advice before signing the H1N1 consent form.
However, nurses administered the shot without even checking the girl's name against a register of pupils who had received parental consent.
"My stomach was hurting, and I was itching," Nikiyah said after she was released from the hospital," reports the New York Post.
Officials at Public School 335 in Crown Heights then tried to get Troy to sign a consent form after the fact in a crude attempt to hide their culpability.
"I was insulted. I was really angry. `You just incriminated yourself even more,'" Troy recalled thinking.
The NY Post report also reveals that less than half of parents in New York City have consented to have their kids vaccinated, underscoring the widespread rejection of the swine flu shot despite a $16 million dollar federal government propaganda campaign to coerce people into being inoculated.
In a follow-up report yesterday, the NY Post highlighted another two separate cases where children had been vaccinated against their parents' wishes.
Last week we reported on a boy in Ohio who received the swine flu vaccine despite the fact that his mother clearly refused consent for her child to be inoculated because of previous bad reactions to medicine.
We also highlighted the case of a 7-year-old boy in Montgomery County, who was given the nasal spray version of the H1N1 vaccine despite his father's objections that his son should be exempted because of underlying health problems.
Despite the fact that a majority of people across the world are now refusing to be duped by the fearmongering surrounding swine flu and rejecting the vaccine, they are being lynched by officials as "extremists" who are harming public health efforts.
In reality, people are refusing to be injected because the vaccine itself, loaded with mercury, squalene and cancerous cells, is a threat to public health. The fact that privileged members of the elite have requested and been given access to vaccines that don't contain these toxic additives proves that a two tier system is in place - one for the idiot public who the pharmaceutical companies will happily inject with poison because they have government protection against adverse reaction lawsuits, and another for members of the establishment who will propagandize all day long about the safety of the public version of the vaccine yet will refuse to take it themselves.
campaign for liberty
November 2, 2009
Dear Friend of Liberty,
We have all worked so hard to make an Audit of the Federal Reserve a reality. Together, we have led the fight to get congressional hearings, 308 cosponsors, and unprecedented attention around the country.
Now, you and I face our biggest challenge yet. And Ron Paul needs your help!
Mel Watt (D-NC), Chairman of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee, has sided with banking interests and is working to gut substantial audit provisions from H.R. 1207. The bill Congressman Watt has sent to the full Financial Services Committee contains no audit of the Fed's monetary policy-making authority or transparency of the Fed's secret agreements with foreign central banks.
Without these provisions, a so-called "audit" of the Fed would be worthless.
The full Financial Services Committee is likely to vote on this bill either later this week or early next.
Congressman Paul will offer an amendment to restore the provisions contained in H.R. 1207 to audit monetary policy and activity with foreign central banks. Thirteen of the 41 Democrats and all 29 Republicans on the Committee have cosponsored H.R. 1207, and if they hold the line, we will have the votes to win and restore our audit.
Dr. Paul has shot a YouTube video for Campaign for Liberty explaining the situation in more detail. Click here to watch the video.
Pressure on the Democrat House Financial Services Committee members is critical! Below is a list of Democrats who have cosponsored. Please call them and urge them to vote "Yes" on the Paul Amendment.
1. Rep. John Adler, NJ (202) 225-4765
2. Rep. Travis Childers, MS (202) 225-4306
3. Rep. Steve Driehaus, OH (202) 225-2216
4. Rep. Alan Grayson, FL (202) 225-2176
5. Rep. Rub?n Hinojosa, TX (202) 225-2531
6. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, FL Toll Free: 1-877-956-7627
7. Rep. Dan Maffei, NY (202) 225-3701
8. Rep. Brad Miller, NC (202) 225-3032
9. Rep. Walt Minnick, ID (202) 225-6611
10. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, CO (202)-225-2645
11. Rep. David Scott, GA (202) 225-2939
12. Rep. Brad Sherman, CA (202) 225-5911
13. Rep. Jackie Speier, CA (202) 225-3531
When contacting these members, remember that up to this point, these members have been allies on this issue. A civil yet firm tone should be kept during these calls. They should be thanked for their cosponsorship, told that Mel Watt's changes to the bill are unacceptable, and urged to hold the line and honor their promise to support transparency at the Fed by voting "Yes" for the Paul amendment.
It is also important that we contact Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and urge them to schedule a standalone, up or down vote on the real Audit the Fed bill.
Rep. Barney Frank: (202) 225-5931
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: (202) 225-0100
Now is a crucial time for Audit the Fed. If these 13 Democrats hold the line, Ron Paul and C4L can win this battle. But, they must vote "Yes" on the Paul amendment when the full committee votes.
Together, you and I can win this fight.
In Liberty,
John Tate
President
the link will take you to a 6 min Ron Paul clip explaining more
upi
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- U.S. firearms owners have bought an estimated 12 billion rounds of ammunition during the past year, gun industry analysts said.
The figure far outstrips the 7 billion to 10 billion rounds sold in a typical year, The Washington Post reported Monday. The spike in sales began when people started to take seriously warnings from the gun lobby that with Democrats controlling the White House and Congress there would be new restrictions on gun ownership, the newspaper said.
As consumers stepped up purchases, supplies tightened, prices went up and a shortage developed. The shortage has begun to ebb and gun-control advocates are expressing concern about the record amount of stockpiled ammunition, the Post said.
"We've had people buy ammunition for calibers they don't even have the gun for: 'Oh, I want to get this gun eventually. And when I get it, ammunition may be hard to get,'" Michael Tenny, who runs an Internet sporting goods store based in Fort Worth, Texas.
U.S. taxes on guns and ammunition -- which are used to fund wildlife conservation -- increased after Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 and after Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. At the current rate those tax receipts will set a record in 2009.
infowars
November 3, 2009
Best-selling author Daniel Estulin states that the key issue to be discussed this week at the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting, being held in St. Andrews, Scotland, is how to bring down the present world financial system through dumping the US dollar. Estulin first reported on this initiative as being deliberated at the most recent Bilderberg meeting held in Greece in May 2009. Estulin says that the success or failure of this callous plan hinges on the ability of the US and UK representatives to convince the Russian, the Chinese and other national governments to go along with their scheme.
Estulin maintains that if the co-conspirators succeed, such sudden devaluation of the US dollar would result in the sinking of the world economy through a chain-reaction collapse of the entire world's financial system. As discussed during the Bilderberg Group's super-secret conclave back in May, this breakdown would then be used as an excuse to launch a new world monetary system. G20 leaders are aware that those who run the monetary markets, the monetary system, control the world. That is why today, the world is run through a dominant one-currency monetary system and not by national credit systems.
A severe breakdown crisis would affect every corner of the world and be a prelude to instability, wars and general hostility along financial, geographical and geopolitical lines, affecting not only particular countries but also societies, cultures and whole continents. Such a breakdown could result in a consolidation of the world's monetary system.
Estulin declares that the creation of the new world currency is the true meaning of globalization, which is nothing but an empire. It is the elimination of the nation-state, the degradation of individual national liberties and the depredation of civil rights.
Collapsing the US dollar, first of all, is an assault on the structure of the United States economy toward the creation of a "World Company." This concept, Estulin states, was initially discussed at the April 1968 Bilderberg Group meeting, held in Canada at Mont Trembland, by George Ball, a senior Lehman Brothers banker and former undersecretary for economic affairs for Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
The aim of this World Company, as explained by Ball was "to eliminate the archaic political structure of nation-state" in favor of the more "modern" corporate structure. Ball also called for further political integration in Europe, and then the rest of the world, as a precondition for expanding the power of a World Company, thus putting the financiers on the same levels as governments.
This initiative, the moving away from the US dollar as a world currency, is the true intention of the G20 meeting November 6-7 at St. Andrews in Scotland, the site of the 1998 Bilderberg conference, Estulin asserts.
Dudley Brown
infowars
November 4, 2009
Make no mistake: Our Founders were onto something when they enshrined the right to keep and bear arms as the Second Amendment to our nation's founding document, the United States Constitution.
Because the Second Amendment is part of our nation's supreme law, attacking gun rights means attacking the very foundation of the country.
The gun grabbers know they have to deal with this supreme law at some point if they're going to push their radical agenda through.
And so they've decided to rewrite the Bill of Rights to best suit their plans.
That's right. In an attempt to circumvent our nation's fundamental law, Barack Obama has rewritten his own version of the Bill of Rights and posted it on the White House website.
According to Obama, "The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."
I don't know about you, but my right to defend myself comes from my Creator - not from government, not from some bureaucrat or politician, but from my very nature as a human being.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that redefining a fundamental right as a privilege is a very dangerous path to start down.
A right is inherent in our humanity and can never be taken away.
A privilege can be removed at the whim of one's rulers.
But the President's redefinition of our nation's fundamental law isn't enough for some anti-freedom zealots.
Gun grabbers in our government-run education system are now seeking to brainwash your children into accepting their anti-gun agenda - also by rewriting the Bill of Rights.
Lesson plans in Garland, Texas, (Texas?! Really?!) now teach the Second Amendment by summarizing as follows, "Amendment 2: We can get permission to own weapons to protect ourselves."
This couldn't be any further from what the Second Amendment clearly states!
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I want you to call the White House and the Garland Independent School District and demand they restore the original language to the Second Amendment.
The White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111
GISD Superintendent Curtis Culwell: 972-487-3023
Tell them you will not stand for revisionist history or the weakening of our nation's fundamental law. The Founding Fathers wrote it that way for a reason!
In Liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
Ed Brotherton
infowars
November 3, 2009
I have written an article for your knowledge and distribution as you deem fit about my dealings with Congressman's Brad Sherman's office. This is an issue of national importance as it relates to our national security. If you watch the short video's below then read the PDF documents in the order listed you will get a very clear picture of what is going on.
This is the first article I've ever written so please be easy on me. It is primarily for your education and publication if you deem it neccessary. Personally there are several worthy and bigger stories within this article. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
This video is a must see. You can actually hear the explosions very clearly. youtube
The video below is John Gross (one of the lead NIST investigators) telling a physics teacher that he knows of no evidence of molten metal found in the WTC site in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. It is important to point that when John told this teacher to send him the NASA images showing temperatures reaching in excess of 2000 degrees, he later refused to give him his email address to send him the pictures.
youtube
This is a video interview of Barry Jennings talking about the explosions her heard while being trapped inside building 7.
youtube
John McCormack
weeklystandard
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the speaker will not allow the final language of the health care to be posted online for 72 hours before bringing the bill to a vote on the House floor, despite her September 24 statement that she was "absolutely" committed to doing so.
House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example. Pelosi is pushing for a Saturday House vote, and a number of big changes will be introduced, likely less than 24 hours before the vote takes place (if in fact it does). The Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order.
It seems likely that the rule will allow very few, if any, up-or-down votes on amendments on the House floor. Rather, the rule will include a series of amendments that will all be adopted at once if the rule passes.
On September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that she was "absolutely" committed to putting the text of the final House bill online for 72 hours before the House votes:
TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?
PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.
But tonight, when asked if Speaker Pelosi will leave the bill online for 72 hours after we see what's in the rule, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: "No; [the] pledge was to have manager's amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that."
Apparently Pelosi's agreement to leave the "final" bill online "at the very end" of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge.
infowars
Adam Murdock, M.D.
The Freemen Institute
November 8, 2009
While normal everyday oblivious Americans were preparing their beds to sleep Saturday night their elected officials quietly passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Indeed, the passage of this act deals one of the final death blows to the Constitution and with it our liberties.
Rep. Steve King., R-Iowa, holds a copy of the health care bill over his head after a rally against the health care bill on Capitol Hill in Washington Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009.
As I ponder upon this momentously horrid occurrence it is as if I have just woken up from a nightmare and been thrown directly into the plot of George Orwell's 1984, with no hope of escape. As this thought grabs hold I am lead to ponder more and more about America and I ask myself a few questions.
Since when did the Constitution provide for a health care guarantee? Since when did the Constitution grant the Congress the power to force Americans into a health care dystopia? What good is a Constitution if we choose to ignore it? What good is a Constitution if the Congress simply chooses to create a new one in their own graven socialist image?
Truly, these questions are meaningless now. The Constitution is hanging by the tiniest of threads. Who will save it? Who will come to its rescue?
It is the everyday middle class American that will suffer the consequences of this travesty. Indeed, while the economy is reeling and unemployment pushes depression-era levels the arrogant Congress has decided to pass the biggest expansion of government in the history of the United States. It will create a new tax that will primarily be felt by the middle class, the ones most likely affected by the current depression. This is because as Americans are forced to purchase health insurance, the wealthy will have no problem paying for escalating costs. Nor will the poor feel the burden as they will receive government health insurance subsidies. Yet, the forgotten man will be the middle class working American who now already struggling against the burden of economic ruin will be forced to pay fines or even face possible jail time for not complying with our government's take over of his/her health care. As this tax sinks in, the middle class will be forced downward into the ranks of the working poor and therefore into the ranks of government rationed medical care. Inevitably, government healthcare will swallow the whole of the medical insurance world and there will be no escape.
This dystopian vision will consist of patients waiting in long lines and when they are finally permitted to see their doctor there will be much fruitless begging and pleading for the treatment that they desperately need. But no mercy will be given because the doctor will have become nothing more than a desk-clerk, simply following the government treatment protocols.
"What, you have shoulder pain?" Your doctor asks. "Well, the treatment protocol for this condition provided by our majestic government says you have to wait two years to get a MRI or to see an Orthopedist. I am sorry. Here are a few pain pills. There is nothing more that I can do. Have a nice day."
Such will be the conservation heard in doctor's offices throughout America. Don't believe me? I have personally lived in the socialist countries that we are now trying to emulate. This is the reality in these countries and the people there simply accept it and learn not to complain. We, in America, will also come to learn and accept over time what our benevolent government has chosen to grant us.
And what about our parents? It will not be long before the health care budget spirals out of control and our benevolent government is forced to make cuts. Who will they cut off first? Why, our parents of course. The government will say that the elderly simply cost too much. They will say that the elderly are no longer productive members of society and have only a few years to live anyway so let's just stop providing life-saving surgeries or needed food and water for these no longer useful people. Don't believe me? Just look to these same socialist countries where the elderly are frequently pushed into hospice death programs when they have no terminal illness and denied needed surgeries because they are too old.
I could go on and on. Such is the fury and simultaneously the sorrow I feel for our country. Now is the time for our voices to be heard. Now is the time to make a stand before it is too late.
Adam Murdock, M.D. is the founder of The Freemen Institute, www.freemeninstitute.com
gunowners.org
November 11, 2009
The anti-gun zealots at the Brady Campaign will not let one tragedy go by without exploiting the victims to further their gun control aims, and the recent shooting at Fort Hood is no exception.
When Brady head Paul Helmke heard of the tragedy at Fort Hood, he says, "we were in the midst of planning a response to the latest dangerous legislative proposal from the gun lobby in the United States Senate-language to automatically restore access to guns to veterans designated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department as `mentally incapacitated' or `mentally incompetent.'"
Actually, the legislation in question, S. 669, would only safeguard two of the most fundamental of American's Constitutional rights: due process of law and the right to keep and bear arms
Since 1999, over 100,000 U.S. military veterans have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights on the basis of psychiatrists' opinions for issues such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
(Incidentally, the alleged Ft. Hood shooter was an Army psychiatrist, one of the very people in a position to deem others too troubled to possess a firearm.)
S. 669, sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), simply requires that a veteran cannot lose his or her gun rights "without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others."
In other words, the bill would put an end to the practice of psychiatrists subjecting veterans to a lifetime gun ban. Helmke and the Brady Bunch apparently have as much respect for the Fifth Amendment (No person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") as they do for the Second.
Helmke continues: "America has seen an epidemic of horrific gun violence at churches and synagogues, workplaces, health clubs, high schools, universities, police stations and now Army bases. This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places. Enough is enough."
There have, indeed, been a number of violent acts at places of worship and other locations. But guess what? Many of these places are gun free zones. There is a federal "gun free schools zones" law; many states prohibit firearms in churches; law-abiding adults can carry concealed firearms in 48 states, but are prohibited from carrying a gun for self-defense in most state universities.
While it may have come as a surprise to many, the military creates its own disarmament zones. After the Ft. Hood tragedy, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone reminded reporters, "[W]e don't carry weapons here, this is our home." Military bases are for the most part gun free zones, where only military police and other security personnel are allowed to carry firearms.
The government cannot legislate where a criminal attack will occur. It could be a school, a hospital, church, or even an Army base. Various levels of government have only succeeded in producing a morass of mandatory victim zones.
Helmke got one thing right; "Enough is enough." Criminal safety zone laws should be repealed immediately, starting with the dangerous anti-gun policies on military installations.
Kurt Nimmo
infowars
November 12, 2009
The foundation liberals have finally done it. They have managed to get Lou Dobbs removed from CNN. On November 11, Dobbs announced his resignation, effective immediately.
Dobbs is a gentleman, so he didn't mention the gunfire directed at his home - the sort of thing you'd expect in a thugocracy like Mexico, not the United States - and he didn't mention the concerted effort spearheaded by Presente, the National Council of La Raza, and other pro-illegal immigration groups to get him thrown off the air. Media Matters, MoveOn.org, and the Southern Poverty Law Center have consistently agitated to have Dobbs removed.
Soros and the left-cover side of the global elite have realized a victory. Dobbs kept hammering on the broken border and this irritated the elite who want open and unchecked borders in order to drive down wages and destroy the living standards of middle class Americans. Dobbs was a roadblock in the elite's plan to turn the planet into a unified slave labor plantation.
Lou Dobbs has few options. He may retire. Or he may go over to Fox News. But that is not much of an option. Fox News is part of the controlled opposition. Rupbert Mordoch is a one-world minion who supported the political campaign of Hillary Clinton. Fox programs push the global warming agenda.
Fox News is the flipside supposedly in opposition to the "liberal bias" of CNN and MSNBC. Fox's talking heads and newscasters - with the notable exception of Andrew Napolitano - are neocons masquerading as conservatives. Fox News operatives like Glenn Beck are tasked with destroying Libertarian and constituionalist elements in the Republican Party. Fox News is an integral part of the false right-left paradigm that controls opposition and renders it ineffective.
Napolitano operates from the basement of Fox News. On occasion he sits in for master disinfo agent Beck. His show is broadcast over the internet and is not in Fox's television line-up. Is it possible Fox will do the same to Dobbs? We'll see.
Here is the statement Dobbs made on his last show on CNN:
Tonight I want to turn to a personal note, if I may, and address a matter that has raised some curiosity. This will be my last broadcast here on CNN, where I've worked for most of the past 30 years, and where I have many friends and colleagues whom I admire deeply and respect greatly.
I'm the last of the original anchors here on CNN and I'm proud to have had the privilege to helping to build the world's first news network. I'm grateful for the many opportunities that CNN has given me over the many years. I've tried to reciprocate with a full measure of my ability.
Over the past six months it's become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us. And some leaders in media, and in politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role at CNN and to engage in constructive problem solving as well as to contribute positively to the great understanding of the issues of our day and to continue to do so in the most honest and direct language possible.
I've talked extensively with Jonathan Klein. John's the president of CNN, and as a result of those talks, John and I have agreed to a release from my contract that will enable me to pursue new opportunities. At this point, I'm considering a number of options, and directions, and I assure you, I will let you know when I set my course.
I truly believe that the major issues of our time include - the growth of our middle-class, the creation of more jobs, health care, immigration policy, the environment, climate change, and our military involvement, of course, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But each of those issues is, in my opinion, informed by our capacity to demonstrate strong resilience of our now weakened capitalist economy and demonstrate the political will to overcome the lack of true representation in Washington, D.C.
I believe these to be profoundly, critically important issues, and I will continue to strive to deal honestly and straightforwardly with those issues in the future. Unfortunately, these issues are now defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than by rigorous, empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion.
I'll be working diligently to change that as best I can. And as for the important work of restoring inspiration to our great free society and our market economy, I will strive as well to be a leader in that national conversation.
It's been my great honor to work with each and every person at this wonderful network. I will be eternally grateful to CNN, to Ted Turner, and to all of my colleagues and friends and, of course, to you at home.
I thank you, and may God bless you.
If you click on the link, you can watch him give his resignation. It's a sad day when the government takes arms to your home to keep you from talking. Make no mistake gentlemen, we are at war already. These people will stop at nothing to push thier agenda straight through.
Steve
Didn't anyone warn him about that?
Guess not. [:o)] [:D][:D][:D]
Best wishes to all y'all. [;)]
Michael Boldin
Tenth Amendment Center
November 11, 2009
In states around the country, there's a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution - the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.
The latest to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to "Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law"
While the FFA's title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment's limit on the power of the federal government. The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:
"federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state."
NULLIFICATION
Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state `nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or `non-effective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.
A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws - in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Supporters say the growth of such a movement is long overdue.
"For far too long elected officials and unelected bureaucrats at the federal level have passively forgotten or actively neglected the Tenth Amendment that guarantees rights not enumerated in the Constitution be left to the individual states," said Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer, who introduced an FFA in his state. "The willful disregard of the Tenth Amendment in relation to a citizen's right to bear arms isn't the only constitutional infringement that we should be worried about, but it is one that has been singled out by the new administration."
"Enough is enough," urged Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers. "Our founders fought too hard to ensure states' sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don't belong."
LITIGATION
In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).
"We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state," explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. "The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. It's time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts."
Even the most ardent supporters suggest that the real test will come if the federal courts rule against the FFA. Will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country?
The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus - federal agencies who didn't recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005. Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.
Only time will tell if gun rights activists have the same courage.
Isnt infowars the same guys who believe bush and the CIA blew up the trade towers, for some collectivist scheme?[:)]
No debate, just curious.
Jurriaan Maessen
infowars
November 16, 2009
"Political unification in some sort of world government will be required (.). Even though (.) any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable." Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy
As Lord Christopher Monckton pointed out, the Copenhagen conference at the beginning of next month is designed to eliminate national sovereignty in favor of a world government to replace it. With a stroke of the pen all UN-member-states will, by doing so, throw away years of prosperity in order to satisfy the transnational needs of a global elite, hellbent on destroying the last vestiges of freedom around the world in the name of "redistributing wealth".
Make no mistake, if the `world leaders' now announce they will not swallow this pill just yet, be sure that they will in the months after December. After all, they've been ordered to by their masters- who have proven themselves to be both cunning and patient.
After the Club of Rome in the early 1970s outlined its basic premise, that world population must decrease if the earth is to survive, all globalist subdivision started groaning like rusty old engines. In the seventies and part of the eighties, the propaganda was still far from subtle. When one scientist proclaimed that the entire world's population must shrink to the size of a middle-sized country, another shouted that this won't do at all, proposing instead to put a halt to new life completely.
Documents such as Ecoscience must be viewed in this bizarre context. Although dripping with eugenic devilry, these publications at least were quite upfront about it, proclaiming their mind-boggling monstrosities for all to see. At this stage, deciphering cryptic environmental texts was hardly necessary. However undesirable the situation, at least we knew exactly what they were up to because they said so to our face.
Today we find ourselves in quite another situation. As public resistance about these dehumanizing proposals grew steadily thanks to an informed Western middle-class, the eugenicists went underground, replacing their foul garments with seemingly fairer outfits.
With the help of UNESCO's social engineers pouring oil into the machine, the propaganda became more streamlined and smooth throughout the 1990s and the beginning of this century. In the most brilliant move anyone could ever make, an ocean of euphemisms began to engulf the true ambitions of the Malthusians, to the point of classical Orwellian doublespeak and beyond. We are required nowadays to decode the complex linguistic trickery before we can even formulate a move to counter it. A crash course in the unraveling of these euphemisms may help us pierce through this language grid more easily. Bizarrely, the United Nations Population Fund will help us on our way.
In a off-worldly 1999 UNFPA directive- published to make sure journalists will not accidentally slip up and reveal the real deal- the author explains it's better to rephrase the old grammar when it comes to population control issues:
"The term ("Population control") is now out of favor with experts in the field, because it implies force- a negative thing to most. (.). To stress the voluntary nature of the actions sought, experts use terms like "stemming", "stabilizing" or "slowing" population growth. Similarly, "family planning" is preferred to "birth control" a term that dates back to the time of Margaret *'s crusade for women's rights to use contraceptives."
To namedrop Margaret * in this context is very much hitting the nail on the head- although to claim she was a real-deal liberator of minds is absurd. * was a eugenicist first and foremost. How did she define birth control in the Birth Control Review, May 1919, page 12?
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit - that is the chief aim of birth control."
The UNFPA directive goes on to say that it's better to use terms in public communiques such as:
"Birth spacing", "reproductive health" and "women's rights"; boosting "sustainable development"; and improving the earth's "carrying capacity" and the human "quality of life". These terms stress not sheer population numbers but the broader vision of global well-being."
As a paper prepared for the UN's `Expert Group Meeting on Population Dynamics and Climate Change' states:
"everything possible should be done now to ensure that people the world over have access to good reproductive health and that this will be crucial for future generations, in terms of global climate as well as human welfare."
Remember now, that the phrase "reproductive health" is not only being used to facilitate family planning centers around the globe, but also makes possible such things as portable abortion units- as it does in China for example, where women in the name of "reproductive health" are being offered the finest in abortion services the almighty State has to offer, right to their very doorstep.
"Women's rights" is another one. It sounds good, no? Who, after all, would argue the right of women to do whatever they so please? The next line in UNESCO technical papers which usually follows goes something like this: "Climate change is a women's rights issue". Or, as one publication describes it: "The threats of climate change are not gender-neutral."
"Women are key health, education, economic and resource managers", states also the UN's report of the international workshop on population-poverty-environment linkages. "They, and their children, are also those most likely to experience disproportionate effects of poverty and environmental stresses. Integrated programming should ensure that women are empowered to play the requisite managerial and decision-making roles. One entry point for linking population and the environment interventions is via coordinated and gender-sensitive environmental activities (e.g., water supply/sanitation or natural resource management) and reproductive health initiatives."
Here we have it again: "reproductive health". The juggling of words is an art mastered to perfection by the global elite and their willing underlings, that much is clear. Another important item on the agenda of the social engineers is that of integrating population reduction messages into a range of other, seemingly decoupled subject matters. We have for example a report from the UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia, encountering a problem while subjecting a group of students to the propaganda:
"Since the launching of a massive population education programme for the schools, the amount of reading materials alone, not to mention visuals and films, has increased enormously. It is therefore necessary to determine what materials to make available to children at different grade levels."
That's where the educators come in. Children, UNESCO figures, must be brought within its sphere of influence as soon as possible. Otherwise the parents will guide their futures and that would be detrimental to the plan to transform all humans into good `global citizens'.
"We cannot imagine how the people of all nations could move toward a more sustainable world without the contribution of educators from around the globe", states a 2005 UNESCO technical paper.
"Sustainable world" means a world with just as much people the earth can carry. In 1972, another UNESCO document circulated within transnational circles with the creepy title ` Learning to be: the world of education today and tomorrow`. In this publication, promoting the emergence of a "new man for a new world", the authors state their purpose:
"The new man must be capable of understanding the global consequences of individual behaviour, of conceiving of priorities and shouldering his share of the joint responsibility involved in the destiny of the human race."
At the EuroNGO's annual conference in 2008, the director of information and external relations division of the UN Population Fund was mighty glad that the Malthusians are on the rise again:
"(.) the media spotlight on global population has snapped back on in a way we haven't seen in some decades. It dimmed when concerns about "overpopulation" last went out of fashion, but those concerns may now be getting a new lease of life."
They may indeed.
IllinoisGun
November 19, 2009
The Illinois State Rifle Association www.isra.org has issued a warning to its members of a disturbing trend that is a direct threat to gun ownership.
A new law (PA 95-0564) that requires health care providers to report patients to the state police is playing havoc with Illinois gun owners.
The Law was passed by the Illinois General Assembly in a knee jerk response to the Virginia Tech shooting.
The law requires mental health care providers to report patients that are deemed a threat to themselves or society to the Illinois State Police (ISP) but the new law has taken an unexpected twist.
The ISRA has learned that during certain hospital admission procedures a short interview with a Psychologist maybe part of the admissions process.
The admittance process that triggers an interview with a psychologist may include stress, alcohol treatment or other scenarios.
These seemingly innocent hospital knock and talk interviews are being used by the ISP as a disqualifier for gun ownership.
The ISRA has learned of gun owners being sent notices from the ISP that their FOID card has been revoked after a visit to the hospital.
Apparently Hospitals strapped for cash have included Psychologist interviews as part of their admittents process.
The ISRA is encouraging its members to respectfully decline these interviews if possible.
They are also suggesting that if a member is caught in one of these interviews that they remove their guns from their homes as quickly as possible to a friend or family member with a valid FOID card for safe keeping.
Until the passage of the new law, Illinois and federal gun laws disqualified people from owning a firearm if they had been adjudicated for mental health reasons.
Prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act and the Illinois FOID card law, non-violent felons and people with mental illness were allowed to own guns, yet crime was low.
The health care community understood that the vast majority of people suffering from mental health problems were withdrawn and not a threat to themselves or society.
Plus there was the notion that people could be treated with mental health problems and expect a full recovery.
Will the new law force Illinoisans to put mental health back into the closet or seek alternative means of treatment?
The media loves to associate gun violence with mental illness but ignores the side effects of psychotropic drugs like Prozac and their possible link to violence.
The United States has a long history of guns being given to family members as heirlooms; will that tradition come to an end in Illinois?
If the State of Illinois wants to put Mental Health back into the closet their doing an excellent job.
Chuck Baldwin
November 17, 2009
According to a report in World Net Daily, "Troops in the United States' USNORTHCOM ranks appear to have adopted a shoulder patch showing a North American continental design, with an emphasis on United Nations colors, giving evidence of the strength to integrate North America.
"The patch reveals the continent of North America in the orange and blue colors typical to the U.N.
"It also carries the image of a mosque to designate the unit's service in North Africa in World War II."
The report also states, "The design of the patch with the U.S. eagle image superimposed seems to imply a hierarchy in which the U.S. 5th Army exerts its military command under the authority of USNORTHCOM, with its domain defined as all North America, including the U.S., Mexico and Canada, for the United Nations, as implied in the orange and blue motif."
See the report at:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115275
As most of my faithful readers know, USNORTHCOM is a combatant command "created to respond to national emergencies in North America." Readers should also be aware that the US and Canada signed an agreement earlier this year allowing the armed forces from one country to assist the armed forces of the other country during a "domestic civil emergency, EVEN ONE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE A CROSS-BORDER CRISIS." (Emphasis added.)
Creation of a North American Union has long been the goal of the elitists at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and sister organizations. This objective is so far along now that anyone who would question it simply isn't paying attention-or has an ulterior motive for denying it.
In fact, I have chronicled much pertinent information relative to this burgeoning North American Union on my web site. I encourage readers to review (and share) the information I have accumulated on this page. See it at:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/nau.html
Readers will recall that former President George W. Bush, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Texas. The SPP was based upon the CFR's Task Force report entitled "Creating a North American Community," which was issued just prior to the Waco gathering. Remember, too, that the SPP was signed without any knowledge, oversight, or consent of the US Congress-or any Canadian or Mexican legislative body either, for that matter.
As the WND report states, "The unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a North American Union by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA into continental political integration through the creation of some 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, composed of 30 North American business executives-10 each hand-picked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries."
In this regard, it makes absolutely no difference whether a Republican or Democratic President sits in the Oval Office. President Barack Obama is pushing forward with the same internationalist policies as did his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush. (And, no, Martha, nothing would have changed had John McCain been elected last year.)
For the most part, the leaders of both major parties in Washington, D.C., are globalists. With few exceptions, they have all bought into the CFR's philosophy of internationalism. The fact that we even have such a military command as USNORTHCOM-and even more, that the unit is wearing insignia with UN colors and a three-nation, North American patch-without the slightest protest from virtually any US congressman or senator, demonstrates the apathy of Washington elitists regarding America's merger into a multinational governing structure.
Add to the compliance of Washington politicians the US Chamber of Commerce, the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff, the mainstream news media (with the exception of Lou Dobbs, and look what happened to him: CNN reportedly paid him $8 million to leave the network), the National Education Association-along with the vast majority of America's top educational institutions, and even America's leading churchmen (for example: mega-church pastor and Pied Piper author, Rick Warren, and Southern Baptist spokesman, Richard Land, are both members of the CFR). In other words, virtually every major institution in America is betraying our country's sovereignty and independence.
Even Big Labor is, for the most part, silent in its opposition against international unification. Where is the union-led protest of President Obama's policy reversal to continue President Bush's plan allowing Mexican trucks to roll down US highways? Where is Big Labor's opposition to Obama's decision to continue pushing the goals and objectives of the CFR and Chamber of Commerce via the SPP and related supranational agreements?
Without a doubt, the attempted merger of North America is well underway. But this, too, is part of a much bigger picture. The destruction of the dollar, the formation of a global currency, the development of a new UN army (of which USNORTHCOM is the prototype), perpetual war, state-sponsored fear mongering over super-hyped "pandemics" such as the Swine Flu, the push for universal health care, etc., all serve the purpose of collapsing US sovereignty and independence, and creating global government.
Of course, one thing the elitists driving this global merger are counting on is the continued apathy and indifference of the American people. Obviously, an awakened, energized, and angry populace could seriously jeopardize their pernicious plans. They are somewhat rattled at the success of grassroots Tea Parties, etc., but they are counting on the major news media and establishment churches to keep the sheep asleep.
If America's pastors would wake up and begin sounding the clarion call for freedom and independence (as did their brave forebears), they could-almost single-handedly-turn the country around. Until they do, it is left to the rest of us to keep Thomas Jefferson's "spirit of resistance" alive.
As for me and my house, we plan to do our part by pledging no loyalty to the North American Union, the UN, or any other globalist entity.
Yahoo Tech
November 19, 2009
In a move that could spell the end of the plasma TV industry as we know it, the state of California agreed today to enact strict regulations on the amount of power televisions can consume, effectively outlawing most large plasma TVs as of January 1, 2011, with many more televisions set to be banned beginning January 1, 2013.
The state had been concerned that 10 percent of a home's energy use is typically devoted to the TV and its related equipment, and that percentage has been increasing as consumers gain access to larger and larger (and cheaper and cheaper) televisions, which command an ever-increasing hunger for power.
The new rules go into effect a little more than a year from now: On January 1, 2011, televisions will be required to reduce energy consumption by an average of 33 percent. In 2013, a second tier of restrictions will go into effect, with average energy consumption required to be reduced by 49 percent vs. today's levels.
hahaha, just when you think you've heard it all. I can picture trucks bootleggin tvs. I'm sorry but this is too funny. California won't tell you to put solar panels on your house to supplement energy cost but they will regulate the size of your tv? I don't have a tv myself but i choose not to watch that mindless rubish. Anyway, have a good weekend folks.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, November 20, 2009
Not content with savaging American taxpayers with two huge new financial burdens during an economic recession, in the form of health care reform and cap and trade, close allies of Barack Obama have proposed a new war surtax that will force Americans to foot the bill for the cost of protecting opium fields in Afghanistan, paying off drug lords, and bribing the Taliban.
Warning that the cost of occupying Afghanistan is a threat to the Democrats' plan to overhaul health care, lawmakers have announced their plan to make Americans pay an additional war tax that will be taken directly from their income, never mind the fact that around 36 per cent of federal taxes already go to paying for national defense.
"Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for," the lawmakers, all prominent Democratic allies of Obama, said in a joint statement on the "Share The Sacrifice Act of 2010 ( PDF), reports AFP.
The move is being led by the appropriately named House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, Representative John Murtha, who chairs that panel's defense subcommittee; and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank.
The tax would apply to anyone earning as little as $22,600 per year in 2011.
The proposal is described as "heavily symbolic" with little chance of passing, but it once again illustrates the hypocrisy of an administration that swept to power on the promise of "change" to the Neo-Con imperial agenda and a resolve to reduce U.S. military involvement overseas. In reality, there are more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now under Obama that at any time during the Bush administration.
At the height of the Bush administration's 2007 "surge" in Iraq, there were 26,000 US troops in Afghanistan and 160,000 in Iraq, a total of 186,000.
According to DoD figures cited by The Washington Post last month, there are now around 189,000 and rising deployed in total. There are now 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, over double the amount deployed there when Bush left office.
What precisely would this extra tax be used to pay for? Namely, bribing the Taliban, paying off CIA drug lords, and protecting heroin-producing opium fields.
Numerous reports over the past two weeks have confirmed that the U.S. military is paying off the Taliban with bags of gold to prevent them from attacking vehicle convoys, proving that there is no real "war" in Afghanistan, merely a business agreement that allows the occupiers to continue their lucrative control of record opium exports while they finalize construction of dozens of new military bases from which to launch new wars.
The Afghan opium trade has exploded since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, following a lull after the Taliban had imposed a crackdown. According to the U.N., the drug trade is now worth $65 billion. Afghanistan produces 92 per cent of the world's opium, with the equivalent of at least 3,500 tonnes leaving the country each year.
This racket is secured by drug kingpins like the brother of disputed president Hamid Karzai. As a New York Times report revealed last month, Ahmed Wali Karzai, a Mafia-like figure who expanded his influence over the drug trade with the aid of U.S. efforts to eliminate his competitors, is on the CIA payroll.
As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA's drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.
Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a "war on terror" that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn't even exist.
That's it for me. I didn't pay my taxes last year and I'm sure as hell not paying them this year. Let them come for me. I no longer care what they think. I don't mean to sound hippie with my next statement but what happened to the antiwar movement. Have we all been silenced or are we just being ignored. It's past time to take the fight to them.
*sidenote* My army buddy has walked through these fields and they are commanded not to destroy. Odd. I would've suggested napalm.
infowars
November 21, 2009
Editor's note: The Obamacare bill, HR 3590, is now in the Senate and faces a "cloture" on the "motion to proceed" today. Call your representative and tell him or her to vote against "cloture" (a motion to bring debate to an end). You can call your Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762. The alternate, non toll-free, number is 202-224-3121.
click the first link to other pdf format file that i couldn't link to.
steve
The following information is provided by Americans for Tax Reform
Read the tax revenue score from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT)
Read the budget and tax score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) PDF of this Document
Individual Mandate Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/$8 bil): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying "qualifying" health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the following schedule
(capped at 8 percent of income)
Single Single +1 Single+2<
2014 $95 $190 $285
2015 $350 $700 $1050
2016 etc. $750 $1500 $2250
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).
Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/$28 bil): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.
If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Page 1979/Sec. 9001/$149.1 bil):
Starting in 2013, new 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans ($8500 single/$23,000 family). Higher threshold ($9850 single/$26,000 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed.
From 2013-2015, the 17 highest-cost states are 120% of this level.
Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Page 1996/Sec. 9002/Min$): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil): No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil): Increases additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
FSA Cap (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14.6 bil): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 1999/Sec. 9006/$17.1 bil): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers
Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Page 2001/Sec. 9007/Min$): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS.
Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008/$22.2 bil): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.
Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009/$19.3 bil): $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items retailing for <$100.
Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010/$60.4 bil): $6.7 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.
Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Page 2034/Sec. 9012/$5.4 bil)
Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil): Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only
$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Page 2035/Sec. 9014/$0.6 bil)
Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Page 2040/Sec. 9015/$53.8 bil): Current law and changes:
Wages
Self-Employment
(Employer/Employee)
Net Income
Current Law and New
Rate on First $200,000
($250,000 MFJ)
1.45%/1.45% 2.9%
New Rate on Amount
Which Exceeds $200,000
($250,000 MFJ)
God Speed, young gentlemen...the wind is in your sails..you hold ALL the reins of power, America wide.
Ignore the reefs ahead..they do not exist for you...
taken from highball on pg. 1. f'em i know not what else to say
infowars
Jurriaan Maessen
November 21, 2009
"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance." George H.W. Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N, February 1, 1992
The machine of mass media is working overdrive now that the Copenhagen summit is approaching. All major media outlets have by now obviously received their talking-points which have an strangely similar ring about them all across the board. Even a superficial comparative study in the overall reporting reveals not only a stunning disregard for national sovereignty, but a willingness to support carbon-taxes imposed by a- as John P. Holdren puts it- "planetary regime".
Oxford professor Dieter Helm: "I'm in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with - for political economy reasons, to get it in place."
Last month experts told the Second Committee Panel Discussion of the UN General Assembly that "a new regime of governance was under way in the global financial system." The same is being said about global climate measures, global resource management and global development.
The mass media is not only setting the agenda themselves, they more often than not simply parrot the globalists that are being shoved in our face on a daily basis. Many of whom have a Ph.D. behind their name. Under the header `Carbon Tax' is sensible, and perhaps inevitable, advocate says`, the Los Angeles Times quotes Oxford professor Dieter Helm stating:
"(..) I'm in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with - for political economy reasons, to get it in place, (.). Across Europe, my guess is within five years everybody will have a carbon tax."
This, according to Helm, will make sure that the United States will eventually be forced into the global carbon tax policy as well:
"(.) is everybody else doing it? That's a very good protection for politicians. The answer is yes, they are."
Back in December of 2001, the Africa division of the UN Development Programme apparently already seriously considered such a tax:
"The main energy sources that would be affected by a carbon tax include coal, petroleum, kerosene and natural gas. The tax would be reflected in an increase in their price, at a level based on the capacity of each type of fuel to emit carbon dioxide."
Answering the question who would collect the taxes and enforce such a global tax policy, the UN panel was quite clear:
"The panel said a new international tax organization should be created to assume all functions performed by existing institutions. It would serve as a global intergovernmental forum for international cooperation on all tax issues. It would also help resolve conflicts between countries and help them to increase tax revenue by fostering information exchanges and measures that could reduce tax evasion on investment and personal income earned at home and abroad."
This sounds a lot like John P. Holdren doesn't it, exclaiming in Ecoscience that "a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment" could impose global policy and enforce it. "Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime", said Holdren, "could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist."
Furthermore, the UN panel advocated in 2001:
"We thus endorse the Commission's proposal to create a global council at the highest political level to provide leadership on issues of global governance. The proposed council would be more broadly based than the G7 or the Bretton Woods institutions."
In 2007, Reuters quoted Mr. Global Warming Himself, Al Gore as saying that a global carbon trading scheme could be "quite efficient if the world's top polluters, the United States and China, fully joined." Gore also stated that a direct tax on carbon would certainly be "an even simpler and more direct measure."
It was the Bilderberg-appointed Herman Van Rompuy- the new EU-president- who stated recently that "The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet." He also announced that 2009 would be the "first year of global governance." And he's not the first to call for such global management. All people who occupy a position of power in the infrastructure of the New World Order have called for it since its very conception shortly after World War II.
As a preface to the coming Copenhagen summit in December, the United Nations Population Fund in a recently published ` State of the Population 2009` is pushing for global reproductive health services. This means not only universal access to `family planning' but also better access to abortion facilities. Humans, after all, are supposed to be the prime driver of climate change and therefore: less humans means honouring Mother Earth.
In the foreword, the executive director of the UNFPA, Thoraya Obaid addresses the fake global warming hype, saying that "floods, storms and rising seas" will soon envelope the planet if not for quick, decisive and global efforts to combat these calamities.
"A Copenhagen agreement that helps people to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and adapt to climate change by harnessing the insight and creativity of women and men would launch a genuinely effective long-term global strategy to deal with climate change."
Global strategy. That's the talking point we hear over and over again from all agencies, UN or otherwise, who have an interest in profiting from the deal they are proposing. Never mind that all nation-states who sign on to the Copenhagen treaty will effectively forfeit their representative systems to this global authority, deciding which taxes will be paid by which nation-state. In the end, all roads seem to lead to a "planetary regime" envisioned by the elite long before "global warming" was even heard of.
check the link below the header for more links to information and quotes
Institutional Financial Derivatives
November 23, 2009
Ben Bernanke has been scheduled for a confirmation hearing for a second four-year term as Federal Reserve chairman. The Senate Banking Committee will question him on Dec. 3.
Rep. Alan Grayson has come out strongly recently urging an audit of the Fed and has had noteworthy courage to stand up to Bernanke's lies directly in hearings and the giant ongoing criminal fraud that is the so-called `Federal Reserve'.
Thus I suspect fireworks during the confirmation hearing after which powerful special interests will unfortunately again guarantee Bernanke's bogus reconfirmation regardless. This is wrong and needs to be stopped.
The Fed is wildly ineffective and did nothing to prevent the economic crisis. Why then do we continue to let it go on? And with endless printing of fiat money it has also destroyed the dollar and will obviously continue to do so, costing all of us endless inflation tax by design no less.
The Fed is first and foremost a private bank, a criminal cartel and a complete rip-off on everyone. So says Rep. Ron Paul, his new book "End the Fed", Rep. Alan Grayson, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Brad Sherman among many others. Over 300 co-sponsors have signed on for the just passed `Audit the Fed' bill HR 1207.
It is also high time the government took back it's sovereign right to print it's own money and not be forced to borrow from the Fed at interest, the biggest scam of all - only serving to systemically wreck all of our lives and doom them to economic slavery to the elite shadow bankers who actually control the Fed as it already has for many generations.
Reconfirm Bernanke? And do it as they certainly will pretending he is some wonderful economic godsend? This is absurd, dangerous and insane and will only insure things get worse. Much worse.
It is not time to reconfirm Bernanke. It is time to call out this `Federal Reserve' criminal empire for what it really is and end it now.
wall street journal
By KEITH JOHNSON
The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.
The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.
Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.
"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."
In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.
"The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said.
Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views.
A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.
In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call "disinformation" using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.
The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.
The IPCC couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.
Journal Communitydiscuss.." Any group with such a single-minded view (whether they are believers in global warming, global warming rejectionists, liberals, conservatives, whatever) bears close watching and a certain amount of skepticism.
"
.- George Rebovich.
In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was "tempted to beat" up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.
The emails were published less than a month before the opening of a major climate-change summit in Copenhagen.
Representatives of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a large professional organization, expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The association believes "that climate change is real, it is related to human activities, and the need to counteract its impacts is now urgent," said Ginger Pinholster, an association spokeswoman. She added that the association's journal, Science, evaluates papers solely on scientific merit.
John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested."
Mojib Latif, a climate researcher at Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, said he found it hard to believe that climate scientists were trying to squelch dissent. Mr. Latif, who believes in man-made global warming but who has co-authored a paper ascribing current cooling to temporary natural trends, said, "I simply can't believe that there is a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical papers from being published."
common dreams
by William Fisher
NEW YORK - With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.
And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.
When a panicky Congress passed the act 45 days after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, three contentious parts of the law were scheduled to expire at the end of next month, and opponents of these sections have been pushing Congress to substitute new provisions with substantially strengthened civil liberties protections.
But with the apparent approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans - and over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois - the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor changes.
Those provisions would leave unaltered the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail in the course of counterterrorism investigations.
The parts of the act due to expire on Dec. 31 deal with:
National Security Letters (NSLs)
The FBI uses NSLs to compel Internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people.
The 'Material Support' Statute
This provision criminalises providing "material support" to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since Sep. 11, this section criminalises a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organisations.
FISA Amendments Act of 2008
This past summer, Congress passed a law that permits the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents' international telephone calls and e-mails.
Asked by IPS why committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and other Democrats chose to make only minor changes, Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defence Committee, referred to "the secret and hypocritical lobbying by the Obama administration against reforms - while publicly stating receptiveness to them." White House pressure, he speculated, "was undoubtedly a huge if lamentable factor".
He added that some committee members were cautious because of the recent arrests of Najibullah Zazi and others.
Zazi , a citizen of Afghanistan and a legal U.S. resident, was arrested in September as part of a group accused of planning to carry out acts of terrorism against the U.S. Zazi is said by the FBI to have attended courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at an al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan.
Leahy acknowledged that, in light of these incidents, "This is no time to weaken or undermine the tools that law enforcement relies on to protect America."
Pitts told IPS, "Short-term and political considerations driven by dramatic events once again dramatically affected the need for a more sensible long-term, reasoned, rule-of-law approach."
"In the eight years since passage of the original Patriot Act, it's become clear that the escalating political competition to appear tough on terror - and avoid being accused of being "soft on terror" - brings perceived electoral benefits with few costs, with vital but fragile civil liberties being easily sacrificed," he added.
In contrast to the Senate, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved a version of the legislation containing several significant reforms. In a 16-10 party-line vote, the committee's version curbs some of the government's controversial surveillance powers.
The Patriot Act, passed by a landslide after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to provide law enforcement and intelligence agencies additional powers to thwart terrorist activities, was reauthorised in 2005.
The legislation has been criticised by many from across the ideological spectrum as a threat to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions. Sections of the original act have been ruled unconstitutional, with certain provisions violating protected rights.
Judiciary Chair John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, said the goal of the new legislation was to "craft a law that preserves both our national security and our national values".
The proposed new legislation would permit the so-called "lone wolf" provision to sunset. This authority removed the requirement that an individual needed to be an agent of a foreign power to be placed under surveillance by intelligence officials and permitted surveillance of individuals with a much lower evidentiary threshold than allowed under criminal surveillance procedures.
It was intended to allow the surveillance of individuals believed to be doing the bidding of foreign governments or terrorist organisations, even when the evidence of that connection was lacking.
The Justice Department maintains that the "lone wolf" authority is necessary, even though there is no evidence that it has been used. Its opponents believe that existing authorities are sufficient to achieve the goals of the lone wolf provision while more effectively protecting the rights of innocent citizens.
The proposed new House legislation would also restrict the use of national security letters. According to a Congressional Research Service report, "National security letters (NSL) are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. Intelligence agencies issue them for intelligence gathering purposes to telephone companies, Internet service providers, consumer credit reporting agencies, banks, and other financial institutions, directing the recipients to turn over certain customer records and similar information."
Under current law, intelligence agencies have few restrictions on the use of NSLs, and in numerous cases, have abused the authority. An FBI inspector general report in 2007 "found that the FBI used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies". The reform provisions seek to create greater judicial scrutiny of NSL use.
The bill approved in the Senate contains much more modest reforms. It would retain the lone wolf provision, and is, in general, much more in line with the wishes of the administration. Should both bills pass and go into conference to be reconciled, it is unclear which approach would prevail.
House and Senate versions still need to be voted on by each body separately and then reconciled into a single bill to send to the president for signature.
Pitts told IPS, "President Obama's flip-flop on Patriot Act issues does as much damage as did his flip-flop on the FISA Amendments Act and telecom immunity last year. But it's imperative that we fight, while we still can, to comprehensively reinsert requirements for fact-based, individualised suspicion, checks and balances, and meaningful judicial review prior to government intrusions."
In a report on the Patriot Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, "More than seven years after its implementation there is little evidence that the Patriot Act has been effective in making America more secure from terrorists. However, there are many unfortunate examples that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violate the rights of innocent people and squander precious security resources."
c 2009 IPS North America
Infowars
November 24, 2009
Senator Gillibrand and Representative McCarthy have introduced the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2009. Ostensibly designed to prosecute gun traffickers, the bill would also deny the Second Amendment to anybody on the so-called terror watch list. The legislation is supported by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, and the Brady Campaign.
The number of unique names on the U.S. terror watch list totals 400,000, newly released FBI data reveals. The Washington Post reported that during a 12-month period ending in March of this year, 1,600 people were nominated daily by the U.S. intelligence community to be put on the list due to `reasonable suspicion.'
In July, 2008, the terror watch list contained well over a million names, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
"Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes and other 'suspicious characters,' with names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become trapped in the Kafkaesque clutches of this list, with little hope of escape," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office in July, 2008. "Congress needs to fix it, the Terrorist Screening Center needs to fix it, or the next president needs to fix it, but it has to be done soon."
Obama did not fix it. Instead, as noted below, his attorney general and two Congress critters from New York are well on their way to making sure over a million Americans are stripped of their constitutional right to own firearms.
PRNewswire-USNewswire
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee November 18th, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda.
"The President of the United States asked that politicians not use the Ft. Hood attack to engage in `political theater.' It appears those committed to attacking gun owners and the Second Amendment simply can't help themselves and are engaged in blaming guns and gun owners on the heels of this terrorist attack. Sadly it looks like `politics as usual,'" said LEAA's spokesperson, Ted Deeds.
After explaining and defending his decision to give enemy combatants constitutional protections and the right to public trial in civilian courts, Attorney General Holder revealed his support for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding that person's name to the terror watch list.
Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we now know:
Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases with those records permanently retained by and shared among law enforcement.
Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess them.
Transcribing General Holder: "The position of the Administration is that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share information about gun purchases." ". [It's not] inconsistent to allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information, for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law enforcement." "It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain people from flying on airplanes because they are on the terrorist watch list and yet we would still allow them to posses weapons." {Emphasis added}
LEAA's Executive Director Jim Fotis said, "Those behind the badge don't believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America's men and women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners!"
Genevieve Moore
Infowars
November 30, 2009
From scrapped cars to bloated NGOs, funded by those who aim to profit from carbon, one need only look to the European Union and the UK to see what's planned for America. It's no surprise that the US government, and associated institutions, plan to support "low carbon" strategies for a new world. It takes only a few clicks of the mouse to discover the tentacle-like, death hold the green revolutionaries possess throughout the USA and the world.
While American consumers were gladly handing over their "clunkers", so too, was Canada, the UK, South Africa, Germany, France, Italy and now China.
A myriad of tentacles have been developed which appear to be innocuous non-profits like Transition US, Post Carbon Institute, Carbon Trust, or the Chicago Climate Exchange. Examples of relevant government entities include the US Bureau of Economic Geology, the United Nations Environment Programme, the Global Environment Facility and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, along with their board members' dubious affiliations. Let's not forget the universities who receive research dollars from power hungry, carbon over-lords to develop foundational, and intricately designed systems-modeling data in order to validate the next level of global control, while mystifying most of us with complicated jargon and mathematics.
It's interesting to note that while American consumers were gladly handing over their "clunkers", so too, was Canada, the UK, South Africa, Germany, France, Italy and now China is announcing a similar move. Proponents of this scheme say it will boost sluggish auto sales. So, is this about climate change, or another back door bailout?
Look a little deeper, however, and we find that scrappage schemes really don't work to reduce much of anything. In fact, the United Kingdom Energy Research Centre (UKERC) published findings in June of 2009 specifically addressing vehicle scrappage programs. For clarity's sake the UKERC is a government appointed consortium of academia from 15, UK academic institutions. In their research and data study they find that vehicle scrappage does nothing to reduce carbon emissions; has little impact on sustaining vehicle efficiency and may actually have the reverse impact by increasing miles driven because people now have new cars. See their findings at this web location: http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page=VSS-Detail
Yet despite the UK's own scientific information, the scrappage program which began April 22, 2009, was extended on September 28, 2009: The Government today announced a ?100M increase to the vehicle scrappage scheme to build on the success of the scheme in boosting consumer demand. http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/sectors/automotive/scrappage/page51068.html
If these programs are found to be questionable, especially without the acquisition of real data, then this futile exercise begs the question: What is this about? The author will hypothesize that this particular program and the implementation thereof, is a piloted demonstration of governments acting as one, single, global entity.
Scrapping vehicles is a hyped sell to consumers to accomplish several things: create a precedent for a united, carbon-guised, global effort; line the pockets of the automakers, shareholders and data makers; bolster the image of environmental concern, securing a healthy, well-indoctrinated voting block. Perhaps most importantly, to set a "carbon budget precedent" as a local and individual control mechanism.
What does this have to do with Copenhagen? Since our president has already demonstrated his willingness to align himself with the UK, and ultimately the EU/UN by ushering in his "cash for clunkers" program, let's look at other items on his agenda. This from ABC's Z. Byron Wolf: "While not originally expected to attend the event, Mr. Obama will take the opportunity in an international venue to lay out his road map to achieving the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emission 83 percent by 2050, with benchmarks of achieving a 30 percent reduction from 2005 emission levels in 2025 and a 42 percent reduction off those levels by 2030, according to officials and a memo released by the White House".
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/obama-to-lay-out-emissions-goals-in-copenhagen.html
This same article quotes, "Sen. Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works committee passed a more ambitious bill that would seek to cut emissions 20 percent by 2020. The White House seems to endorse the more modest House approach by saying the President will announce reducing emissions "in the range of 17% below 2005 levels."
Interestingly, our government proposals are taken directly from, "UK's National Strategy for Climate and Energy: Transition to a Low Carbon Society". This document specifically states, "The UK is calling for an ambitious global agreement at UN talks in Copenhagen in December 2009#8243;. The plans shared in this document include: To drive this transition the government has put in place the world's first ever legally binding target to cut emissions at least 80% by the year 2050 and a set of 5 year carbon budgets to 2022 to keep the UK on track".
What else should we be expecting in America? How about Smart Meters, Personal Carbon Allowances, and other quite shocking programs designed to thwart our freedoms. The real business of carbon regulation is a matter of global sychronicity while controlling our mobility and freedom without actually have to expose themselves to challenge, or debate. After all, the science has been purchased, as have the politicians and the corporations.
Confoundedly, proponents of programs and policies geared toward carbon budgeting are presented as good stewards of this planet and they may even believe they are. The disarming aspect of "carbon-nation" is that no one seems to notice the evolution of this slow, seemingly painless, asphyxiation which the carbon paradigm presents to our sovereignty as a nation.
Rep. Matthew Shea (WA-4th)
Tenth Amendment Center
November 30, 2009
This summer, legislators from several states met to discuss the steps needed to restore our Constitutional Republic. The federal government has ignored the many state sovereignty resolutions from 2009 notifying it to cease and desist its current and continued overreach. The group decided it was time to actively counter the tyranny emanating from Washington D.C.
From those discussions it became clear three things needed to happen.
State Legislatures need to pass 10 key pieces of legislation "with teeth" to put the federal government back in its place.
The people must pass the legislation through the Initiative process if any piece of the legislative agenda fails.
County Sheriffs must reaffirm and uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
With the advent of the Tea Party Movement, many people have been asking how exactly we can make the above reality. What follows is Part I of the outline of that plan regarding state legislation, the action steps any concerned citizen can take to see this legislation to fruition, and the brief history and justifications behind each.
Step 1: Reclaim State Sovereignty through Key Nullification Legislation
Our Constitutional Republic is founded on a system of checks and balances known as the "separation of powers." Rarely, however, are the states considered part of this essential principle.
Enter the "doctrine of nullification."
Nullification is based on the simple principle that the federal government cannot be the final arbiter of the extent and boundaries of its own power. This includes all branches of the federal government. In the law this is known as a "conflict of interest."
Additionally, since the states created the federal government the federal government was an agent of the states; not the other way around. Thus, Thomas Jefferson believed that, by extension, the states had a natural right to nullify (render as of no effect) any laws they believed were unconstitutional.
In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 he wrote,
"co-States, recurring to their natural right.will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories."1
Alexander Hamilton echoed this sentiment in Federalist #85 "We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." 2
It is clear then that State Legislatures can stop the unconstitutional overreach of the Obama administration through nullification. Here is a list of proposed nullification legislation to introduce in all 50 States.
Nullification of Socialized Health Care [current efforts] [ example legislation]
Nullification of National Cap and Trade [ example legislation]
Federal Enumerated Powers Requirement (Blanket Nullification) [details]
Establishment of a Federal Tax Escrow Account [ example legislation]
If imposed, socialized health care and cap and trade will crush our economy. These programs are both unconstitutional, creating government powers beyond those enumerated by the Constitution. If those programs are nullified, it will give the individual states a fighting chance to detach from a federal budget in freefall and save the economies of the individual states.
Next, blanket nullification.
The Federal Government, particularly the House of Representatives, needs to abide by its own rules. In particular, House Rule XIII 3(d) specifically states that:
"Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or resolution." 3
Needless to say, this rule is generally ignored. The idea behind blanket nullification is that if the Congress does not specify the enumerated power it is using according to its own rules, or the power specified is not one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the United States Constitution, then the "law" is automatically null and void.
Lastly, the federal government cannot survive without money. I know that seems obvious but many states are missing the opportunity to use money as an incentive for the federal government to return to its proper role. Most visibly, states help collect the federal portion of the gasoline tax. That money should be put into an escrow account at the state level and held there. The Escrow Account legislation includes a provision that all consumer, excise, and income taxes payable to the federal government would go through this account first. This would do two things. First, it would give states the ability to collect interest on that money to help offset revenue shortfalls. Second, it would allow states to hold that money as long as needed as an incentive for the federal government to return within the enumerated boundaries of its power.
Step 2: Erect an impenetrable wall around the County Sheriff and the 2nd Amendment.
As recently stated in the famous Heller opinion by the United States Supreme Court, the right to bear arms "is an individual right protecting against both public and private violence" and "when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized they are better able to resist tyranny." 4
Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment not only protects the right to self-defense but that right extends to defending oneself against tyranny. As with any historical attempt to establish a dictatorship weapons must be seized or severely regulated. 5
Here is a list of legislation to prevent this from happening, some of which has already been introduced in states around the country:
Sheriff First [ model legislation]
Extension of the Castle Doctrine (right to protection) [ sample legislation]
Prohibition of Gun and Ammunition Tracking [see above]
Firearms Freedom Act [current efforts] [ model legislation]
The county Sheriff is the senior law enforcement officer both in terms of rank and legal authority in a county. This comes from a tradition of over 1000 years of Anglo-Saxon common law. Anglo-Saxon communities were typically organized into "shires" consisting of approximately 1000 people. 6
The chief law enforcement officer of the shire was the "reeve" or "reef." Hence, the modern combination of the two words, as we know them today, "shire reef" or "Sheriff." 7
Consequently, the Sheriff's pre-eminent legal authority is well established. This was confirmed in Printz v. United States. 7 Justice Scalia quotes James Madison who wrote in Federalist 39:
"In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere."9
Sheriff 1st legislation would formally declare that all federal agents and officers must give notice of, and seek permission before, any arrest, search, or seizure occurs. Thus, federal agents and officers seeking to enforce unconstitutional laws must go through the county Sheriff first.
Extending the castle doctrine to one's person would go a long way toward eliminating the arbitrary "no carry" areas. Like Virginia Tech, it is these areas where guns for self-defense are most needed.
Many gun and ammunition tracking schemes have been, and are still being, attempted. The intended purpose of "reducing gun related" crime is never realized. Instead, law-abiding citizens are punished with regulatory burdens and fees. Quite simply we need transparency in government not in the people.
Montana started the firearms freedom act to rein in the federal government's use of the Commerce Clause to regulate everything within the stream of commerce. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate commerce between states not within states as Professor Rob Natelson points out in his 2007 Montana Law Review article.10
The Montana FFA simply returns to that original understanding regarding firearms made, sold, and kept within a state's borders.
This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it does contain some immediate steps that can be taken toward freedom and restoring our God honoring Constitutional Republic. Hitler's laws of January 30 and February 14, 1934, should serve as a stark reminder of what happens when state sovereignty is abolished.
In the coming few weeks I will publish the next part of the plan.
Matthew Shea [send him email] is a State Representative in Washington's 4th District. He's the author of HJM4009 for State Sovereignty. Visit his website.
Copyright c 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
NOTES:
1. Kentucky Resolution of 1798, Thomas Jefferson, Adopted by Kentucky Legislature on November 10, 1798.
2. Federalist No. 85, Publius (Alexander Hamilton), August 13 and 16, 1788.
3. Rules of the House XIII 3(d), "Content of Reports," Page 623, 110th Congress.
4. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (Actual Pages 11, 13) (2008)
5. Id at (Actual Page 11).
6. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/ancient/1859-teutoburg-forest-the-battle-that-saved-the-west
7. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sheriff&searchmode=none
8. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
9. Federalist No. 39, Publius (James Madison), January 16, 1788
10. Tempering the Commerce Power, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 95 (2007).
there are more links than I could put in, in the original article.
Don't have time to post the article on this one and it has several videos as well so click the link for pure enjoyment.
Do you post these anywhere else on the net? Even over in GD would get more coverage than in here, but this one should be posted on every conservative forum on the net!
DuluthNewsTribune
no author mentioned:
The latest chapter in a saga over an easement for a pipeline ended with Jeremy Engelking going to jail.
Jeremy Engelking will appear in Douglas County court this afternoon to face a trespassing charge. But here's the kicker: The Superior man allegedly trespassed on his own property.
Engelking, 27, aimed to hunt deer Wednesday morning when he noticed a pipeline crew on his land. He hopped on his ATV and told workers they had no right to be on his property because he had received no compensation from Enbridge Energy Partners L.P. for an easement.
Engelking said workers told him he was in an unsafe place and asked him to come to an equipment staging area, where he continued to argue his case.
But just as he was turning to leave, Engelking said an officer from the Douglas County Sheriff's Department arrived on the scene and approached with a Taser drawn.
"He ordered me to 'get down on the ground now!' And he said that I was being arrested for trespassing," Engelking said.
When Engelking protested, pointing out that he was on his own property, he said Sgt. Robert Smith told him: "It doesn't matter. You're going to jail. You can tell it to a judge tomorrow."
Engelking offered no resistance, but Smith placed him in handcuffs then transported him to the Douglas County Jail. After posting a $200 bail bond, Engelking was released that afternoon. He also had to pay about another $100 to recover his impounded ATV.
The incident report says Engelking parked his ATV in front of pipeline equipment, stopping workers. Engelking said it wasn't his intention to physically block work.
Lorraine Grymala, a community affairs manager for Enbridge, said access to work sites is restricted in the interest of safety.
"We can't have people in the right of way without an escort and the proper gear," she said. "People could get hurt."
Engelking's arrest Wednesday is the latest episode in a long disagreement he and his father, Jerry Engelking, have had with Enbridge, dating to the company's last pipeline expansion in 2002.
Jerry Engelking, who owns 200 acres next to his son, said he refused to sign off on changes proposed to the original 1949 easement across his property because he felt the revisions put too many restrictions on how he could use his property. That original easement said future pipes laid along the same route would require payments in advance.
According to court documents, Enbridge sent a $15,000 check to Jerry Engelking and also tried to hand-deliver payments, but Engelking refused to accept them.
Engelking said that to claim the money he would have had to broaden the scope of the existing easement across his property, so he turned the checks down. When the latest pipeline project came along, the Engelkings again refused to modify the original 1949 right-of-way agreement.
The family sought a restraining order against Enbridge on Sept. 24, arguing the company intended to use the pipeline for transporting petroleum products other than those originally allowed, protesting that they had not been paid and citing damage to property.
Douglas County Circuit Court Judge George Glonek granted a temporary injunction but lifted it the following day, saying the company's plans for the pipeline were appropriate and efforts had been made to pay the Engelkings.
Jerry Engelking said the fight's not finished yet.
Officers reported no similar incidents along the path of the Enbridge pipeline construction in Douglas County, said Lt. Gerald Moe of the Douglas County Sheriff's Department.
Grymala said that Enbridge has worked with about 1,500 landowners as part of the pipeline project.
"We recognize construction is an inconvenience to people; people want access to their land," she said. "We strive to be respectful of that, to have a good working relationship."
AmmoLand
December 6, 2009
Is your name the same as, or similar to, that of someone on the FBI's "terrorist watchlist?" Or, have you been erroneously placed on the watchlist?
You can't find out because the FBI won't say exactly why people get watchlisted, won't say who has been watchlisted, and therefore doesn't offer watchlisted people the chance to clear their names immediately. In fact, small children, federal air marshals, military personnel who have fought terrorists overseas, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, members of Congress, and many other good Americans have even been stopped from boarding commercial aircraft for this reason. The government has reported that there were 700,000 names in the watchlist as of April 2007, and the ACLU estimates that the number has since risen to 1.3 million.
Obviously, these people are not all terrorists. However, politicians who hate the Second Amendment know that some of the good Americans who are erroneously on the list, or who get incorrectly flagged by the list, are gun owners. And, because the FBI won't reveal its watchlisting criteria, those politicians think that more gun owners can be placed on the list over time, by like-minded bureaucrats making arbitrary determinations about who ought to have guns.
One such politician is Michael Bloomberg, whose hobbies include being mayor of New York City and raising intellectually deficient complaints about gun laws. Never one to concern himself with the facts when there is a chance to get his name in the paper, Bloomberg recently claimed that the recent murders on Ft. Hood would have been prevented if the FBI hadn't been required to erase NICS-approved gun purchase records after 24 hours.
Mischaracterizing events related to the Ft. Hood murders for political reasons shows disrespect to the lives that were lost there and is crass to the extreme. That said, the reason that the FBI didn't know about the Ft. Hood suspect's gun purchase is not that his NICS record was erased after 24 hours. Rather, it's that he wasn't on the watchlist in the first place, as NICS checks the list and alerts the FBI if a listed person tries to buy a gun.
Another such politician is Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), author of legislation Bloomberg supports (S. 1317, H.R. 2159 in the House), which would allow the Attorney General to stop watchlisted people from buying guns through NICS. It would also prevent those people from contesting their rejections in a full and open hearing in court. Obviously, that scheme would violate not only the Second Amendment, but also the Fourteenth Amendment's protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
This week Lautenberg introduced a separate bill (S. 2820), calling for NICS firearm transaction records to be retained for 10 years on a person suspected of being a member of a terrorist organization. That, however, is a smokescreen for another provision in the same bill, to retain NICS records of approved firearm transfers for 180 days for other gun buyers.
While Lautenberg introduced S. 2820 in the wake of Ft. Hood (with terrorism fresh on Americans' minds), gun control supporters have wanted NICS records retained for longer than 24 hours since NICS' inception. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the Lautenberg bill, argued in favor of a 180-day retention back in 2001. After all, the Brady Act, as passed by Congress, required that NICS "destroy" the records of approved firearm purchases.
Along with the Lautenberg bills described above, gun control supporters are concurrently campaigning for a law to force all private gun sales to be run through NICS. Connecting the dots is a simple task. The goal shared by gun control supporters and by government entities for whom no amount of knowledge about American citizens is too much, is to incrementally increase the amount of information the government possesses on gun owners who, through no fault of their own, end up on a secret government list.
Action: Please call your U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose S. 1317 and S. 2820. You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
December 7, 2009
A caller to the Alex Jones Show today said he was asked to give the last four digits of his Social Security number in order to attend the Tanner Gun Show in Denver, Colorado. The caller said he was asked to surrender his SS number after he had paid to attend the show and had a stamp put on his hand. He also said federal agents were circulating the gun show looking for weapons capable of firing in full automatic mode.
The Tanner Gun Show is Colorado's oldest and largest gun show, featuring nearly 700 available tables of guns, knives, and accessories such as ammunition, hunting and fishing equipment, military surplus, gun safes, and many more unique items, according to its website.
The Alex Jones Show called the Tanner Gun Show to confirm the caller's accusation. The organization had not responded at the time this article was posted.
Numerous callers said following the call from Colorado that they had been asked to give social security and drivers license numbers at gun shows or while purchasing ammunition at stores around the country.
Under the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, firearm dealers with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) were prohibited from doing business at gun shows and were restricted to selling firearms at the address listed on their license. The law changed with the enactment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which allows FFLs to transfer firearms at gun shows provided they follow the provisions of the GCA and other pertinent federal regulations. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reports that between 50% and 75% of the vendors at gun shows possess a Federal Firearms License.
BATF regulations on gun shows are posted here.
Last month New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced a bill to regulate the sale of firearms. The Gun Trafficking Prevention Act would provide funding for the BATF to hire 1,500 agents and investigators. Gillibrand said the measures outlined in the bill would cost $370 million over five years.
In October, California governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 962 requiring ammunition to be kept behind the counter where customers cannot access it without assistance. It also requires gun shop owners to thumbprint people who buy handgun ammunition, as well as record their identification and provide that information to police.
The BATF falsely claims gun shows are the source of more than 30% of all illegally trafficked guns in the country.
In October, vehement gun-grabber and critic of the Second Amendment, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, ran an undercover operation at gun shows. Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, used the skewered results from Bloomberg's sting operation to encourage the federal government to enact more restrictive gun laws.
Studies reveal, however, that less than 2% of felons incarcerated for crimes involving guns had acquired those guns at gun shows.
Helmke's Brady Campaign not only wants intrusive background checks on gun sales at gun shows but on all gun sales. "Our national policy should be: no background check, no gun, no excuses," states the Brady Campaign.
Bloomberg's roving gun show sting is part of a wider effort by federal and state governments to characterize gun shows as the source of illegal guns in America - used by gangs and drug cartels - and thus shut them down and further restrict the sale of legal firearms to Americans.
As part of the federal government's jihad against gun shows and the Second Amendment, earlier this year Obama said that "[m]ore than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States." U.S. officials have erroneously claimed that 90% of guns recovered from criminals in Mexico came from the United States.
In November, the BATF said that a large percentage of guns that are smuggled into Mexico come from gun shows.
In fact, as Bill Conroy reports, much of the weaponry used by drug cartels in Mexico is sold to them by an emerging military weapons cartel and not bought at gun shows in the United States. The United States, under State Department license, sells military-grade weapons to the Mexican government.
In addition to attempting link legal gun sales to the drug cartel business in Mexico, the corporate media has engaged in a propaganda campaign to demonize gun owners as domestic terrorists.
For instance, Max Blumenthal, in Gun Show Nation, characterizes gun show attendees as a "heavily armed, tightly organized movement incited by right-wing radio to a fever-pitched resentment of President Obama and his allies in Congress." He attempts to link this "movement" to the murder of police officers. Blumenthal writes:
On April 4, a neo-Nazi wannabe named Richard Poplawski murdered three Pittsburgh police officers with a high-powered assault rifle. By all accounts, Poplawski was an avid follower of right-wing talkers including Alex Jones and Glenn Beck who "grew angry recently over fears Obama would outlaw guns."
The Department of Homeland Security, in its now infamous report on "rightwing extremism," has warned that federal and state laws designed to destroy firearm possession and undermine the Second Amendment "may be invigorating right-wing extremist activity, specifically the white-supremacist and militia movements." The report also sounds a clarion call over returning veterans who it claims are being lured into this putative domestic terror movement controlled by white supremacists.
The color of law requirement put into effect at the Tanner Gun Show in Colorado reveal how the government is actively engaged in a covert war of intimidation and harassment of legal gun shows and gun owners. If the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act and other legislation is enacted around the country and the BATF receives additional funding, we can expect the level of harassment and intimidation to increase exponentially in the months and years ahead.
Addendum
An email received by Infowars states that people attending the Tanner Gun Show were asked for their zip code. The email writer wonders if the man mentioned in the story, who said he was asked for his Social Security number, might be mistaken. However, more than a dozen callers to the Alex Jones Show specifically stated that they were asked for Social Security numbers and driver's licenses.