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.
On November 30, 2009, the Bloomington Herald-Times made the following announcement:
"This week, HeraldTimesOnline.com will launch its new gun permit database. You'll be able to search gun permit records by county, city or town and street."
The Herald-Times has begun receiving calls and emails, and their response is a defiant defense of their online gun permit database.
Anyone who visits the newspaper website will be able to search the number of permits on a given street or neighborhood. Although at this point the names and house numbers are not listed, the newspaper's website treats law-abiding Indiana gun owners like sex offenders on a searchable database.
It is NRA's firm belief that there is no public good served by the publishing or cataloguing private citizens' gun ownership information, and that more harm is done by such an action. Law-abiding Hoosiers should not be subjected to the same treatment as sex offenders, and if the newspaper won't listen to their constituents and customers, then NRA Members and Indiana gun owners should send a financial message by cancelling their subscriptions to the Bloomington Herald-Times.
Please contact the Bloomington Herald-Times to respectfully voice your displeasure at the irresponsible action the newspaper has made.
Scott Schurz, Sunday Hoosier Times/Editor-in-Chief.
High-stakes duel between Rep. Paul and Bernanke intensifies
By Silla Brush The Hill
Rep. Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke are locked in a clash of titans.
Paul, the 74-year-old House libertarian from Texas with the high-pitched voice, has fought for decades to kill off the Federal Reserve.
Bernanke, the mild-mannered ex-Princeton professor and chairman of the bank, is waging a high-stakes battle for the Fed's reputation. And he's doing everything possible to knock out Paul.
The fight is still in the early rounds. But with the full House expected to vote this week to give government auditors more power to scrutinize the Fed, Paul has the upper hand.
The Senate is a much more difficult round for Paul, though a similar stew of liberal and conservative support is starting to simmer in the upper chamber behind the Republican's wonky auditing measure.
Bernanke and Paul have never met one-on-one behind closed doors, Paul's office said. The battle has taken place in public - on blogs, with grassroots activists and during congressional hearings.
Bernanke has testified against the provision, given lengthy media interviews, written op-eds and attempted to lift the cloud of secrecy that hangs over the bank.
The Fed is audited, he argues, but allowing government scrutiny of interest rate decisions will politicize the Fed. Opening the door to congressionally requested audits would compromise the market's confidence in the bank.
Paul, a longstanding supporter of a new gold standard, made his case formally in his recently published book, End the Fed.
The 2008 presidential candidate's crusade is no longer a quixotic quest. He is a prime beneficiary of the grassroots anger this year against government bailouts for Wall Street.
First introduced in February, Paul's bill to audit the Fed has gained 317 co-sponsors, a shocking three-quarters of the House. The bill has not won over many Democrats in leadership, but it has picked up several committee chairmen, including Reps. Bart Gordon (Tenn.), Jim Oberstar (Minn.) and John Spratt (S.C.).
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), a prominent Paul ally on the bill, has provided a huge boost to the effort with his firebrand strain of liberal politics.
Grayson has publicly slammed the Fed, going so far as calling its top lobbyist a "K Street whore" before apologizing. Paul himself said the full force of "lobbyists for the Fed" is stacked against him.
As the popularity of the Paul-Grayson measure rose this year, Bernanke's fell.
Praised by many economists for taking the necessary steps to right the economy over the last year, his overall public approval has soured. A Rasmussen poll in November showed that just 21 percent of those surveyed thought Bernanke should be reappointed. Meanwhile, 79 percent of those polled said auditing the Fed is a good idea.
Republicans have jumped behind Paul, who stood out in last year's GOP presidential primary for his outspokenness against the Iraq war.
"There needs to be Fed independence and accountability for those dollars to at least look back at those decisions," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas).
But the political value is plain as Republicans argue the government is taking too large a role in the economy.
"The Fed becomes for Republicans a very convenient, always controversial, always misunderstood, very specific whipping boy that they can ride to potential victory in 2010 and 2012," said a Washington-based financial lobbyist.
Bernanke has the normally powerful Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) in his corner. But as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank couldn't eke out a compromise.
Frank rarely loses battles, but an attempt - with Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) - at a deal on the audit issue simply fell short at the committee level. Liberal activist Robert Borosage, who is campaigning against Bernanke's nomination for a second term, said the compromise effort was nothing more than "the establishment alternative."
The committee voted 43-26 in favor of Paul's amendment as 15 Democrats on the panel bucked Frank.
The vote drew a bright line between the senior Democrats atop the committee and the freshman and sophomore members.
"I think some of the newer members are in the most vulnerable districts," said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), a Paul-Grayson co-sponsor who instead joined Frank in voting against the Paul amendment. "They were certainly getting the calls that I was getting, and they were reading the politics differently."
Frank and Paul are both veterans of the House, and while they are on nearly opposite ends of the political spectrum, they have a mutual respect. The two have worked closely on an Internet gaming measure.
Many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill say that Frank, despite his partisan rhetoric, is a pragmatist.
"I never felt [Frank] was against me," Paul said.
Frank said last week the language wouldn't be changed when the House heads for the vote. Ten of the 13 House members on the Rules Committee are among Paul's backers, including Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).
"Absent some change in the way the public is reacting, I don't see any changes," Frank said. "I think there is this tension within the Republican Party. A lot of their people who traditionally have a lot of influence are troubled by this, but they may be cowed by the anger at the Fed."
In the Senate, Paul has found support from Sens. Jim DeMint, the conservative Republican from South Carolina, and Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont who calls himself a proud socialist.
A left-right coalition of interest groups on the outside is joining forces against Bernanke.
Hopefully this battle between B. Frank and Ron Paul will expose the harm that Fed Reserve bank has caused this country and wakes a few more people to the scam.
Motorists who receive minor parking or traffic tickets in Indianapolis, Indiana are being threatened with fines of up to $2500 if they attempt to take the ticket to court. A local attorney with the firm Roberts and Bishop was so outraged by what he saw in Marion County traffic court that he filed a class action suit yesterday seeking to have the practice banned as unconstitutional.
"The deck is stacked against the motorist," lawyer Paul K. Ogden wrote. "To penalize that person for seeking justice seems wrong. I know it is done for the purpose of discouraging baseless challenges to tickets and clogging the docket, but in the process you are also penalizing people who have a legitimate defense and want a chance to present it to the court."
The city made explicit the threat of additional fines for challenging parking tickets in a November 30 press release announcing a deal between Indianapolis and a private firm, T2 Systems, to hand over operations of a parking ticket court to increase municipal income.
"Using Six Sigma process improvement strategies, it is estimated that under this program the city may collect an additional $352,000 to $520,000 in parking citation revenue over the next 12 months," the city press release stated. "If citations are not paid prior to their scheduled hearing, the city may request a fine of up to $2500 per citation. Upon receiving a judgment for an unpaid citation, individuals responsible could be subject to collections actions or having their vehicle registration suspended."
In traffic court, Judge William Young has been making good on the threats by routinely siding with police officers in disputes and imposing fines of up to $500 on anyone who challenges a moving violation ticket, no matter how minor, and loses. Those who pay without going to court do not face this extra fine.
"Unfortunately what you have happen a lot of times is that judges aren't particularly worried about whether what they're doing may be violating the law as the odds of someone ever appealing a $400 traffic ticket is remote," Ogden wrote. "I see it all the time. Trial judges flouting the law knowing they are unlikely to ever be challenged on an appeal because the litigants can't afford it."
Ogden is specifically representing three motorists affected by court policies. Toshinao Ishii received a ticket for driving 63 MPH in a 55 zone in February. Had he paid the ticket without challenge, the fine would have been $150. After Judge Young sided with the police officer in court, Ishii was fined $550. Motorist Matthew Stone was told by his doctors not to wear a seatbelt over his chest as it could damage his cardiac pacemaker. He received a $25 ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. After court officials threatened Stone with a $500 fine, he gave up his intention of challenging the citation. Adam Lenkowsky, who did not receive a ticket, attempted to attend a traffic court proceeding on September 23, 2009. He was barred from the court, despite the state constitutional requirement that court proceedings be open.
Ogden argues the court's practices in the first two cases violate the excessive fines clause of the state constitution as well as the clause requiring that "all penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense."
Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War? infowars
Chuck Baldwin
December 11, 2009
According to an obscure report in the European Union Times (EUTimes.net), "Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued an order to his Northern Command's (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to `begin immediately' increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.
"According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks `numerous' meetings with his war council abut how best to manage the expected implosion of his Nation's banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military Analysts state is a `last ditch gambit' whose success is `far from certain.'"
The EU Times article continues by saying, "To the fears of Obama over the United States erupting into civil war once the full extent of the rape and pillaging of these peoples by their banks and government becomes known to them, grim evidence now shows the likelihood of this occurring much sooner than later."
The Times story goes on to say that there are "over 220 million American people armed to the teeth and ready to explode."
The Times article concludes by saying, "Though the coming civil war in the United States is being virtually ignored by their propaganda media, the same cannot be said of Russia, where leading Russian political analyst, Professor Igor Panarin has long warned that the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the US is heading for collapse."
Many of us would be inclined to pooh-pooh such a story, but then there is this column from Bloomberg.com entitled "Arming Goldman With Pistols Against Public," written by Alice Schroeder. According to Ms Schroeder:
"`I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,' said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank."
There is no doubt that the American people have good reason to despise these international banksters epitomized by Goldman Sachs. Even one of Goldman's poster-boys, Henry Paulson, US Treasury secretary and former Goldman CEO, admitted that the American people were fed up. Schroeder quotes Paulson as saying, during testimony to Congress last summer, "[People] were unhappy with the big discrepancies in wealth, but they at least believed in the system and in some form of market-driven capitalism. But if we had a complete meltdown, it could lead to people questioning the basis of the system."
Schroeder correctly opines, "There you have it. The bailout was meant to keep the curtain drawn on the way the rich make money, not from the free market, but from the lack of one. Goldman Sachs blew its cover when the firm's revenue from trading reached a record $27 billion in the first nine months of this year, and a public that was writhing in financial agony caught on that the profits earned on taxpayer capital were going to pay employee bonuses."
Schroeder concludes her column by saying, "And if the proles [proletariat: plebs, working class, peasants] really do appear brandishing pitchforks at the doors of Park Avenue and the gates of Round Hill Road, you can be sure that the Goldman guys and their families will be holed up in their safe rooms with their firearms."
So, do Wall Street and Russian analysts know something that we don't know? Is this why George W. Bush initiated USNORTHCOM to begin with? Is this why Barack Obama is beefing up USNORTHCOM? This would help explain the reports of all those potential detention camps that have been constructed (including the abandoned military installations that have refurbished security fences, guard towers, etc., around them). Has the American people's disgust with these crooks and thieves within the federal government and Wall Street reached a boiling point?
There is no question that people are angry, and for good reason.
The fraudulent financial policies of the Federal Reserve and its lackeys in the White House and Congress have literally bankrupted the country. Real unemployment is most likely over 20%. Taxes (along with costly fees, regulations, restrictions, penalties, mandates, etc.) at every level are going through the ceiling. America's jobs have been outsourced. Barack Obama continues G.W. Bush's irresponsibility, digging America deeper and deeper into foreign entanglements, at the cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. The IRS continues to harass and harangue honest citizens, squeezing them like the proverbial turnip. And now, add the insanity of a global climate treaty being hammered out in Copenhagen, and a universal health care bill being rammed through Congress, and the outlook is even gloomier.
I feel very comfortable in saying that the usurpations of power, the encroachments upon liberty, and the arrogant tax-and-spend policies emanating from Washington, D.C., and Wall Street these days are far more egregious than what George Washington and the boys were enduring in 1775-76 at the hands of the British Crown. There is no doubt in my mind that if Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Sam Adams were alive today, they would have given cause for the Goldman Sachs banksters to retreat to their bunkers years ago!
The fact is, we do need a revolution! But not a revolution of anarchy and pitchforks. (The history of France should be ample evidence of the futility of this strategy.) We need a revolution of the individual states: to reclaim their sovereignty and fight for the liberties of their sovereigns (We the People). That is exactly what our forefathers did in `76.
America's founding document (the Declaration of Independence) declares that our states are "free and independent." And so they are. We are not "one nation" with one all-powerful central government. We are a confederation of nation-states, united in a voluntary union, with each State reserving to itself the power and authority of self-determination, and ceding to the federal government limited, specifically delineated duties and limitations-limitations that have been totally ignored to the point that, for all intents and purposes, our once-great constitutional republic has been thoroughly expunged. Therefore, it is NOW time for the states to stand up to this meddlesome, every-growing tyranny that is known as Washington, D.C., and defend the rights and liberties of their citizens!
What Dr. Ed Vieira (an attorney with 4 earned degrees from Harvard, who has successfully argued cases before the US Supreme Court) wrote a few weeks ago should serve as a template for every State governor and legislature that truly cares about liberty. See Ed's column at:
As Vieira says, the states should resurrect their militias. Many-if not all-states have the legal authority for such entities in their constitutions. In some states they are called the State Guard. Some plainly use the word "militia." Whatever they are called, they need to be activated. And all that is necessary for this to be accomplished is the order of the governor. It's that simple!
And as Vieira said, states need to adopt an alternative currency-including, and most especially, gold and silver. In other words, they need to develop their own private economies, complete with their own banks and exchange mediums. They also need to reject the multinational agribusiness and develop their own in-State agricultural and energy businesses.
I would dare say that the first State that determines to follow Vieira's sagacious counsel (and rumblings of this have already begun in states such as Alaska, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, New Hampshire, Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc.) would have so many liberty-loving patriots flock there that its economy would explode with prosperity-resulting in a domino effect of many other states following suit-and the revolution that this country so desperately needs would indeed take place. Furthermore, such a revolution would be constitutional, lawful, moral, and, yes, in compliance with the laws of Nature and of Nature's God.
In the meantime, is Barack Obama really worried about civil war? He might be. It is my observation that Washington politicians and bureaucrats are the most paranoid people on the planet. The problem is-as with most power-hungry Machiavellians-their paranoia often translates into more oppression and less liberty for the citizenry. And if this is true, it simply means that the states need to hurry up and do what needs to be done.
Move To Cut ACORN Funding Ruled Unconstitutional
by The Associated Press npr
December 11, 2009, 10:45 pm ET
The U.S. government's move this fall to cut off funding to ACORN was unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Friday, handing the embattled group a legal victory.
U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued the preliminary injunction against the government, saying it's in the public's interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.
ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress' decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an individual organization.
Gershon said in her ruling that ACORN had raised a "fundamental issue of separation of powers. They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt."
Bill Quigley, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of ACORN and two affiliates, said the decision sends a sharp message to Congress that it can't single out an individual or organization without due process.
"It's a resounding victory for ACORN," he said. "I'd be surprised if the government decides to appeal."
ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, describes itself as an advocate for low-income and minority homebuyers and residents in communities served by its offices around the country. Critics say it has violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.
The law that halted ACORN's federal funding took effect Oct. 1 and was extended Oct. 31. It was set to either expire or be extended again on Dec. 18.
ACORN's lawsuit was filed in federal court in Brooklyn and sought reinstatement of the funds. Quigley said millions of dollars in funds should begin to flow again to ACORN next week. The judge said the "public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies."
ACORN has been dogged by allegations of voter-registration fraud and embezzlement.
Several of its offices were the subject of an embarrassing hidden-camera sting in which ACORN employees were shown advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp to lie about her profession and launder her earnings. The videos sparked a political uproar, with Republicans trying to use the group's troubles to portray Democrats as corrupt.
The group's lawsuit named the U.S. government, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the secretary of the Treasury as defendants.
Justice Department spokeswoman Beverley Lumpkin said the agency was reviewing the decision and declined to comment further.
"Today's ruling is a victory for the constitutional rights for all Americans and for the citizens who work through ACORN to improve their communities and promote responsible lending and homeownership," ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis said in a statement.
Before the US House of Representatives, December 9, 2009
Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk. Money makes the transaction process far easier. Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes.
This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties: it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for every-day transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange.
Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people. Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce. It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments. A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government. Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses.
At this country's founding, there was no government-controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint's operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades.
On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: "Don't steal - the government hates competition." Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally-instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to reintroduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.
The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts. States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws. We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender. Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender.
Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency. Gresham's Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase: bad money drives out good money. An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold. Each ounce of the king's gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much "money" to spend on building castles and raising armies. As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded. We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the US government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver. The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation.
These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation. Most of the merchants and peasants who received this devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency. By the time they received the new currency, prices had long since doubled, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit.
In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham's Law no longer holds. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society. Merchants would have been free to reject the king's coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight.
The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, which hates competition. The responsibility to protect contracts is of no interest to the government.
The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage. There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins. As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and with the supposed aim of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency.
The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement. As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases. The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals.
Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many states. Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry. Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4% per year. Sales taxes in many states can take away 8% or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver.
In conclusion, Madame Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies and cosponsor the Free Competition in Currency Act.
The (Obama 4 Change Admin.) doesn't have to collect your firearms - just stop the flow of ammo. All those gun haters that are protected by gun toting employees of the U.S. realize if you don't have any ammo all you have is very expensive paper-weights. What's the difference between politicians and criminals? MONEY! Everyone else is expendable. The real crime is our rights are being abolished at an alarming rate in the name of security. Security for who I ask? Get ready the worst is yet to come. A disarmed people are nothing more than salves.
While climate protestors dressed as clowns lined the outer perimeter of the UN Climate Summit in at Copenhagen's Bella Centre, another three-ringed media circus was taking place inside.
Large snow falls across Europe have made for an appropriate backdrop to the largest-ever international meeting ever to combat global warming. Earlier in the week saw the arrivals of a number of high-flying celebrities and politicians. President Obama, Tony Blair and Al Gore all arrived amongst great media interest, each hoped to reignite what has been described by many as a conference teetering on the edge of total failure. In the latest example of delegates and press becoming even further detatched from reality, hundreds scurried through the Centre's hallways in the hopes to get a glimpse of the failing conference's `Last Action Hero' and California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The former actor's appearance signals the final PR push by proponents of the Globalist elite to leave Copenhagen with some form of an international agreement to implement the monetisation of the earth's carbon to be enforced by a new structure of global government.
The Headline in today's UK Independent Newspaper read At Last, a ray of light amid the gloom - Arnie's in town. So overcome with celebrity intoxication of Gov Schwarzenegger's appearance, fawning politicians and press could hardly bottle their glee. Gordon Campbell, the premier of British Columbia gushed, "He's an action hero in the movies and a climate action hero for the globe". The article continues to describe how the Governor admitted his previous trips to Copenhagen had been for "movie promotions and bodybuilding and weightlifting seminars", rather than a determination to secure the future of the planet. Schwarzenegger added that "Movements begin with people, not governments," and urged the UN to organise another summit to "discuss localised ways of fighting climate change."
This movement Schwarzenegger is speaking of is, of course, is an international call to arms to fight `climate change'. Clearly not designed and wholly executed by grass roots green activists and anarchist climate action groups, one might ask exactly who and what is the driving force behind this movement. Here's a clue. we've all heard(to great pains) of Wall Steet's notorious credit default swaps and subprime mortgages, but what about "carbon default swaps" and "subprime carbon offsets"? Global banks, multinational energy companies and signatories of the Copenhagen treaty seek to create a global "Cap and Trade" scheme that would drive what Commodity Futures Trading commissioner Bart Chilton sees as a $2 trillion market, "the biggest of any [commodities] derivatives product in the next five years." Clearly a recipe for fraud and fiat money laundering on a scale which mankind has never witnessed before.
Arnold is no stranger to Cap and Trade. It was revealed in 2003 by award-winning investigative reporter Greg Palast how gubernatorial candidate Schwarzenegger was part of a larger scheme to help Enron and other power companies avoid paying back billions in illicit profits by replacing then California Gov. Gray Davis. In a 2002 lawsuit filed by former California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, Enron was cited for carrying off their profits by fraudulent reporting of sales transactions, megawatt "laundering," and creating "fake power delivery scheduling". In total some $9 billion were generated in profits, as Enron caused the power shortages in California and singlehandedly rinsed consumers for millions of dollars- and the federal government left to stand back watching from a safe distance. To this date, Gov. Schwarzenegger has never denied his May 17, 2001 meeting with Enron's Kenneth Lay and disgraced junk-bond peddler Mike Milken at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, a meeting which was allegedly part of a plan to recall Gov. Davis and replace him with someone who would assist in keeping the legal heat off Lay and his cronies.
In reality, the idea of `Carbon Trading' - which is the device that would drive forward "Cap and Trade" policies and numerous global taxes, was invented by none other than Ken Lay, whose then company Enron would currently be one of the prime beneficiaries in the global alternative energy market. Perhaps Al Gore himself would have placed a call to Ken Lay to congratulate the company that did to much so spark the CO2 reduction debate within the industry in the 1980s and 1990s.
Just as today's carbon traders and carbon off-set firms are lapping up media kudos and billions of investment capital in anticipation of a globally binding agreement to `fight climate change', ERON's chief Ken Lay and colleagues became the toast of Wall Street as Enron innovations in creative book-keeping, claiming profits from programs not yet started and manipulating energy markets through brokering, futures contracts and other exotic financial instruments.
The UN's COP15 folly will come to a close in a few days and with any luck, the world will be spared any binding draconian treaty which is underpinned by is dodgy alarmist science.
Obama declared all-out war on Pakistan during his December 1, 2009, West Point speech.
Obama's West Point speech of December 1 represents far more than the obvious brutal escalation in Afghanistan - it is nothing less than a declaration of all-out war by the United States against Pakistan. This is a brand-new war, a much wider war now targeting Pakistan, a country of 160 million people armed with nuclear weapons. In the process, Afghanistan is scheduled to be broken up. This is no longer the Bush Cheney Afghan war we have known in the past. This is something immensely bigger: the attempt to destroy the Pakistani central government in Islamabad and to sink that country into a chaos of civil war, Balkanization, subdivision and general mayhem. The chosen strategy is to massively export the Afghan civil war into Pakistan and beyond, fracturing Pakistan along ethnic lines. It is an oblique war using fourth-generation or guerrilla warfare techniques to assail a country which the United States and its associates in aggression are far too weak to attack directly. In this war, the Taliban are employed as US proxies. This aggression against Pakistan is Obama's attempt to wage the Great Game against the hub of Central Asia and Eurasia or more generally.
US DETERRED FROM OPEN WAR BY PAKISTAN'S NUKES
The ongoing civil war in Afghanistan is merely a pretext, a cover story designed to provide the United States with a springboard for a geopolitical destabilization campaign in the entire region which cannot be publicly avowed. In the blunt cynical world of imperialist aggression ? la Bush and Cheney, a pretext might have been manufactured to attack Pakistan directly. But Pakistan is far too large and the United States is far too weak and too bankrupt for such an undertaking. In addition, Pakistan is a nuclear power, possessing atomic bombs and medium range missiles needed to deliver them. What we are seeing is a novel case of nuclear deterrence in action. The US cannot send an invasion fleet or set up airbases nearby because Pakistani nuclear weapons might destroy them. To this extent, the efforts of Ali Bhutto and A.Q. Khan to provide Pakistan a deterrent capability have been vindicated. But the US answer is to find ways to attack Pakistan below the nuclear threshold, and even below the conventional threshold. This is where the tactic of exporting the Afghan civil war to Pakistan comes in.
The architect of the new Pakistani civil war is US Special Forces General Stanley McChrystal, who organized the infamous network of US torture chambers in Iraq. McChrystal's specific credential for the Pakistani civil war is his role in unleashing the Iraqi civil war of Sunnis versus Shiites by creating "al Qaeda in Iraq" under the infamous and now departed double agent Zarkawi. If Iraqi society as a whole had lined up against the US invaders, the occupiers would have soon been driven out. The counter-gang known as "Al Qaeda in Iraq" avoided that possibility by killing Shiites, and thus calling forth massive retaliation in the form of a civil war. These tactics are drawn from the work of British General Frank Kitson, who wrote about them in his book Low Intensity Warfare. If the United States possesses a modern analog to Heinrich Himmler of the SS, it is surely General McChrystal, Obama's hand-picked choice. McChrystal's superior, Gen Petraeus, wants to be the new Field Marshal von Hindenburg - in other words, he wants to be the next US president.
The vulnerability of Pakistan which the US and its NATO associates are seeking to exploit can best be understood using a map of the prevalent ethnic groups of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and India. Most maps show only political borders which date back to the time of British imperialism, and therefore fail to reflect the principal ethnic groups of the region. For the purposes of this analysis, we must start by recognizing a number of groups. First is the Pashtun people, located mainly in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then we have the Baluchis, located primarily in Pakistan and Iran. The Punjabis inhabit Pakistan, as do the Sindhis. The Bhutto family came from Sind.
PASHTUNISTAN
The US and NATO strategy begins with the Pashtuns, the ethnic group from which the so-called Taliban are largely drawn. The Pashtuns represent a substantial portion of the population of Afghanistan, but here they are alienated from the central government under President Karzai in Kabul, even though the US puppet Karzai passes for a Pashtun himself. The issue involves the Afghan National Army, which was created by the United States after the 2001 invasion. The Afghan officer corps are largely Tajiks drawn from the Northern Alliance that allied with the United States against the Pashtun Talibans. The Tajiks speak Dari, sometimes known as eastern Persian. Other Afghan officers come from the Hazara people. The important thing is that the Pashtuns feel shut out.
The US strategy can best be understood as a deliberate effort at persecuting, harassing, antagonizing, strafing, repressing, and murdering the Pashtuns. The additional 40,000 US and NATO forces which Obama demands for Afghanistan will concentrate in Helmand province and other areas where the Pashtuns are in the majority. The net effect will be to increase the rebellion of the fiercely independent Pashtuns against Kabul and the foreign occupation, and at the same time to push many of these newly radicalized mujaheddin fighters across the border into Pakistan, where they can wage war against the central government in Islamabad. US aid will flow directly to war lords and drug lords, increasing the centrifugal tendencies.
On the Pakistani side, the Pashtuns are also alienated from the central government. Islamabad and the army are seen by them as too much the creatures of the Punjabis, with some input from the Sindhis. On the Pakistani side of the Pashtun territory, US operations include wholesale assassinations from unmanned aerial vehicles or drones, murders by CIA and reportedly Blackwater snipers, plus blind terrorist massacres like the recent ones in Peshawar which the Pakistani Taliban are blaming on Blackwater, acting as a subcontractor of the CIA. These actions are intolerable and humiliating for a proud sovereign state. Every time the Pashtuns are clobbered, they blame the Punjabis in Islamabad for the dirty deals with the US that allow this to happen. The most immediate goal of Obama's Afghan-Pakistan escalation is therefore to promote a general secessionist uprising of the entire Pashtun people under Taliban auspices, which would already have the effect of destroying the national unity of both Kabul and Islamabad.
BALUCHISTAN
The other ethnic group which the Obama strategy seeks to goad into insurrection and secession is the Baluchis. The Baluchis have their own grievances against the Iranian central government in Tehran, which they see as being dominated by Persians. An integral part of the new Obama policy is to expand the deadly flights of the CIA Predators and other assassination drones into Baluchistan. One pretext for this is the report, peddled for example by Michael Ware of CNN, that Osama bin Laden and his MI-6 sidekick Zawahiri are both holed up in the Baluchi city of Quetta, where they operate as the kingpins of the so-called "Quetta Shura." Blackwater teams cannot be far behind. In Iranian Baluchistan, the CIA is funding the murderous Jundullah organization, which was recently denounced by Teheran for the murder of a number of top officials of the Iranian Pasdaran Revolutionary guards. The rebellion of Baluchistan would smash the national unity of both Pakistan and Iran, thus helping to destroy two of the leading targets of US policy.
OBAMA'S RUBE GOLDBERG STRATEGY
Even Chris Matthews of MSNBC, normally a devoted acolyte of Obama, pointed out that the US strategy as announced at West Point very much resembles a Rube Goldberg contraption. (In the real world, "al Qaeda" is of course the CIA's own Arab and terrorist legion.) In the world of official US myth, the enemy is supposed to be "Al Qaeda." But, even according to the US government, there are precious few "Al Qaeda" fighters left in Afghanistan. Why then, asked Matthews, concentrate US forces in Afghanistan where "Al Qaeda" is not, rather than in Pakistan where "Al Qaeda" is now alleged to be?
One elected official who has criticized this incongruous mismatch is Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who said in a television interview that `Pakistan, in the border region near Afghanistan, is perhaps the epicenter [of global terrorism], although al Qaida is operating all over the world, in Yemen, in Somalia, in northern Africa, affiliates in Southeast Asia. Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That's not next door to Waziristan. So I'm wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn't make any sense to me.' Indeed. `The Wisconsin Democrat also warned that U.S. policy in Afghanistan could actually push terrorists and extremists into Pakistan and, as a consequence, further destabilize the region: "You know, I asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and Mr. Holbrooke, our envoy over there, a while ago, you know, is there a risk that if we build up troops in Afghanistan, that will push more extremists into Pakistan?" he told ABC. "They couldn't deny it, and this week, Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan specifically said that his concern about the buildup is that it will drive more extremists into Pakistan, so I think it's just the opposite, that this boots-on-the-ground approach alienates the Afghan population and specifically encourages the Taliban to further coalesce with Al Qaida, which is the complete opposite of our national security interest."'1 Of course, this is all intentional and motivated by US imperialist raison d'?tat. .
MALICK: "DID OBAMA DECLARE WAR ON PAKISTAN?"
Obama's speech did everything possible to blur the distinction between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are after all two sovereign states and both members of the United Nations in their own right. Ibrahim Sajid Malick, US correspondent for Samaa TV, one of the largest Pakistan television networks, called attention to this ploy: `Speaking to a hall full of cadets at the US Military Academy of West Point, President Barack Obama almost seemed like he might be declaring war on Pakistan. Every time he mentioned Afghanistan, Pakistan preceded mention.. Sitting at the back benches of the hall at one point I almost jumped out of my chair when he said: "the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them." I was shocked because a succession of American officials recently confirmed that the Pakistani arsenal is secure.'2 This article is entitled "Did Obama Declare War On Pakistan?", and we can chalk the question mark up to diplomatic discretion. During congressional hearings involving General McChrystal and US Ambassador Eikenberry, Afghanistan and Pakistan were simply fused into one sinister entity known as "Afpak" or even "Afpakia."
In the summer of 2007, Obama, coached by Zbigniew Brzezinski and other controllers, was the originator of the unilateral US policy of using Predator drones for political assassinations inside Pakistan. This assassination policy is now being massively escalated along with the troop strength: "Two weeks ago in Pakistan, Central Intelligence Agency sharpshooters killed eight people suspected of being militants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and wounded two others in a compound that was said to be used for terrorist training.. The White House has authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.'s drone program in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas, officials said this week, to parallel the president's decision.to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. American officials are talking with Pakistan about the possibility of striking in Baluchistan for the first time - a controversial move since it is outside the tribal areas - because that is where Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to hide."3 The US is now training more Predator operators than combat pilots.
BLACKWATER ACCUSED IN PESHAWAR MASSACRE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN
The CIA, the Pentagon, and their various contractors among the private military firms are now on a murder spree across Pakistan, attacking peaceful villages and wedding parties, among other targets. Blackwater, now calling itself Xe Services and Total Intelligence Solutions, is heavily involved: `At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, "snatch and grabs" of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan, an investigation by The Nation has found. The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus.' 4
As shocking as Scahill's report is, it must nevertheless be viewed as a limited hangout, since there is no mention of the persistent charges that a large part of the deadly bombings in Peshawar and other Pakistani cities are being carried out by Blackwater, as this news item suggests: "ISLAMABAD Oct. 29 (Xinhua) - Chief of Taliban movement in Pakistan Hakimullah Mehsud has blamed the controversial American private firm Blackwater for the bomb blast in Peshawar which killed 108 people, local news agency NNI reported Thursday."5 This was blind terrorism designed for maximum slaughter, especially among women and children.
US ALSO AT WAR WITH UZBEKISTAN?
Scahill's report also suggests that US black ops have reached into Uzbekistan, a post-Soviet country of 25 million which borders Afghanistan to the north: `In addition to planning drone strikes and operations against suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Pakistan for both JSOC and the CIA, the Blackwater team in Karachi also helps plan missions for JSOC inside Uzbekistan against the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, according to the military intelligence source. Blackwater does not actually carry out the operations, he said, which are executed on the ground by JSOC forces. "That piqued my curiosity and really worries me because I don't know if you noticed but I was never told we are at war with Uzbekistan," he said. "So, did I miss something, did Rumsfeld come back into power?"' 6 Such are the ways of hope and change.
The role of US intelligence in fomenting the Baluchistan rebellion for the purpose of breaking Pakistan apart is also confirmed by Professor Chossudovsky: `Already in 2005, a report by the US National Intelligence Council and the CIA forecast a "Yugoslav-like fate" for Pakistan "in a decade with the country riven by civil war, bloodshed and inter-provincial rivalries, as seen recently in Baluchistan." (Energy Compass, 2 March 2005). According to the NIC-CIA, Pakistan is slated to become a "failed state" by 2015, "as it would be affected by civil war, complete Talibanization and struggle for control of its nuclear weapons". (Quoted by former Pakistan High Commissioner to UK, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Times of India, 13 February 2005).. Washington favors the creation of a "Greater Baluchistan" which would integrate the Baluch areas of Pakistan with those of Iran and possibly the Southern tip of Afghanistan, thereby leading to a process of political fracturing in both Iran and Pakistan.'7 The Iranians, for their part, are adamant that the US is committing acts of war on their territory in Baluchistan: "TEHRAN, Oct. 29 (Xinhua) - Iran's Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said .that there are some concrete evidences showing U.S. involvement in recent deadly bomb explosions in the country's Sistan-Baluchistan province, the official IRNA news agency reported. .. The deadly suicide attack by Sunni rebel group Jundallah (God's soldiers) occurred on Oct. 18 in Iran's Sistan-Baluchistan province near the border with Pakistan when the local officials were preparing a ceremony in which the local tribal leaders were to meet the military commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).8
US GOAL: CUT THE PAKISTAN ENERGY CORRIDOR BETWEEN IRAN, CHINA
Why would the United States be so obsessed with the breakup of Pakistan? One reason is that Pakistan is traditionally a strategic ally and economic partner of China, a country which the US and British are determined to oppose and contain on the world stage. Specifically, Pakistan could function as an energy corridor linking the oil fields of Iran and possibly even Iraq with the Chinese market by means of a pipeline that would cross the Himalayas above Kashmir. This is the so-called "Pipelinestan" issue. This would give China a guaranteed land-based oil supply not subject to Anglo-American naval superiority, while also cutting out the 12,000 mile tanker route around the southern rim of Asia. As a recent news report points out: `Beijing has been pressuring Tehran for China's participation in the pipeline project and Islamabad, while willing to sign a bilateral agreement with Iran, has also welcomed China's participation. According to an estimate, such a pipeline would result in Pakistan getting $200 million to $500 million annually in transit fees alone. China and Pakistan are already working on a proposal for laying a trans-Himalayan pipeline to carry Middle Eastern crude oil to western China. Pakistan provides China the shortest possible route to import oil from the Gulf countries.. The pipeline, which would run from the southern Pakistan port of Gwadar and follow the Karakoram highway, would be partly financed by Beijing. The Chinese are also building a refinery at Gwadar. Imports using the pipeline would allow Beijing to reduce the portion of its oil shipped through the narrow and unsafe Strait of Malacca, which at present carries up to 80% of its oil imports. Islamabad also plans to extend a railway track to China to connect it to Gwadar. The port is also considered the likely terminus of proposed multibillion-dollar gas pipelines reaching from the South Pars fields in Iran or from Qatar, and from the Daulatabad fields in Turkmenistan for export to world markets. Syed Fazl-e-Haider, "Pakistan, Iran sign gas pipeline deal," Asia Times, 27 May 2009.9 This is the normal, peaceful economic progress and cooperation which the Anglo-Americans are hell-bent on stopping.
Oil and natural gas pipelines from Iran across Pakistan and into China would carry energy resources into the Middle Kingdom, and would also serve as conveyor belts for Chinese economic influence into the Middle East. This would make Anglo-American dominion increasingly tenuous in a part of the world which London and Washington have traditionally sought to control as part of their overall strategy of world domination.
US domestic propaganda is already portraying Pakistan as the new home base of terrorism. The four pathetic patsies going on trial for an alleged plot to bomb a synagogue in the Riverdale neighborhood of the Bronx in New York City had been carefully sheep-dipped to associate them with the shadowy and suspicious Jaish-e-Mohammad, allegedly a Pakistani terrorist group. The same goes for the five Moslems from Northern Virginia who have just been arrested near Lahore in Pakistan.
INDIA AND IRAN
As far as the neighboring states are concerned, India under the unfortunate Manmohan Singh seems to be accepting the role of continental dagger against Pakistan and China on behalf of the US and the British. This is a recipe for a colossal tragedy. India should rather make permanent peace with Pakistan by vacating the Vale of Kashmir, where 95% of the population is Moslem and would like to join Pakistan. Without a solution to this issue, there will be no peace on the subcontinent.
Regarding Iran, George Friedman, the head of the Stratfor outlet of the US intelligence community recently told Russia Today that the great novelty of the next decade will be an alliance of the United States with Iran directed against Russia. In that scenario, Iran would cut off oil to China altogether. That is the essence of the Brzezinski strategy. It is urgent that the antiwar movement in the United States regroup and begin a new mobilization against the cynical hypocrisy of Obama's war and escalation policy, which suprasses even the war crimes of the Bush-Cheny neocons. In this new phase of the Great Game, the stakes are incalculable.
for those who are interested, do a little research on Mr. Tarpley, you will find he knows his stuff.
I know, I know, it was a long one but still a good read. Mr. Tarpley knows what he is talking about. I would say be prepared but once again I would be preaching to the choir.
Copenhagen climate summit: `most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release
Gerald Warner London Telegraph
Friday, Dec 18th, 2009
When your attempt at recreating the Congress of Vienna with a third-rate cast of extras turns into a shambles, when the data with which you have tried to terrify the world is daily exposed as ever more phoney, when the blatant greed and self-interest of the participants has become obvious to all beholders, when those pesky polar bears just keep increasing and multiplying - what do you do?
No contest: stop issuing three rainforests of press releases every day, change the heading to James Bond-style "Do not distribute" and "leak" a single copy, in the knowledge that human nature is programmed to interest itself in anything it imagines it is not supposed to see, whereas it would bin the same document unread if it were distributed openly.
After that, get some unbiased, neutral observer, such as the executive director of Greenpeace, to say: "This is the single most important piece of paper in the world today." Unfortunately, the response of all intelligent people will be to fall about laughing; but it was worth a try - everybody loves a tryer - and the climate alarmists are no longer in a position to pick and choose their tactics.
But boy! Was this crass, or what? The apocalyptic document revealing that even if the Western leaders hand over all the climate Danegeld demanded of them, appropriately at the venue of Copenhagen, the earth will still fry on a 3C temperature rise is the latest transparent scare tactic to extort more cash from taxpayers. The danger of this ploy, of course, is that people might say "If we are going to be chargrilled anyway, what is the point of handing over billions - better to get some serious conspicuous consumption in before the ski slopes turn into saunas."
Health Bill Passes Key Test in the Senate With 60 Votes nytimes
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR
Published: December 21, 2009
WASHINGTON - After a long day of acid, partisan debate, Senate Democrats held ranks early Monday in a dead-of-night procedural vote that proved they had locked in the decisive margin needed to pass a far-reaching overhaul of the nation's health care system.
Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, after the vote early Monday. The last Democratic holdout, he announced his support of the bill on Saturday.
Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times
Senators John Kerry, Harry Reid and Charles E. Schumer after the vote.
The roll was called shortly after 1 a.m., with Washington still snowbound after a weekend blizzard, and the Senate voted on party lines to cut off a Republican filibuster of a package of changes to the health care bill by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.
The vote was 60 to 40 - a tally that is expected to be repeated four times as further procedural hurdles are cleared in the days ahead, and then once more in a dramatic, if predictable, finale tentatively scheduled for 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
Both parties hailed the vote as seismic.
Democrats said it showed them poised to reshape the health system after decades of failed attempts.
"Health care in America ought to be a right, not a privilege," said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. "Since the time of Harry Truman, every Congress, Republican and Democrat, every president, Democrat and Republican, have at least thought about doing this. Some actually tried."
Republicans said that the bill was fatally flawed and that voters would retaliate against Democrats at the polls in November.
"It's obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the Senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1 a.m., is insisting that it be passed before Christmas - because they don't want the American people to know what's in it," said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.
Mr. Alexander added, "Our friends on the Democratic side seem determined to pursue a political kamikaze mission toward a historic mistake."
Each side blamed the other for the extraordinary series of votes - at dawn Saturday, after midnight Monday, at dawn again on Tuesday, at 1 p.m. on Wednesday and finally on Christmas Eve, when most Americans will be sequestered for the holiday.
The Democrats charged the Republicans with obstinately throwing every procedural obstacle in their way, including filibusters and the full 30 hours of debate allowed under the rules after each filibuster is broken by a vote of 60 senators.
The Republicans charged the Democrats with recklessly rushing to adopt a dizzyingly complex 2,700-page bill that would affect virtually every American, and would reshape one-sixth of the nation's economy at a cost of $871 billion over 10 years.
"If the Republicans want to exercise every single right they have under the rules, they can keep us here until Christmas Eve, no doubt about it," said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. "But to what end, I ask? To what end? We're going to have the vote at 1 a.m. that requires 60 votes, and then why stay here until Christmas Eve to do what they know we're going to do?"
Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said he and his colleagues had a duty to fight until the last minute.
"There is nothing inevitable about this," Mr. Cornyn said. "The only thing I think inevitable about it is in the light of the unpopularity of what is being jammed down the throats of the American people, there will be a day of accounting. We don't know when that day of accounting will be. Perhaps the first day of accounting will be Election Day 2010."
Adoption of the legislation is not a certainty.
The Senate bill, once completed, must be reconciled with the bill adopted by the House last month, and there are substantial differences between the two. The House measure, for instance, includes a government-run health insurance plan, or public option, that was dropped from the Senate bill.
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said the House would not just accept the Senate bill. And some Senate Democrats have warned that they could turn against the bill if changes made during negotiations with the House are not to their liking.
Given the late hour, the White House did not immediately issue a statement after the Senate vote.
The health care legislation, which President Obama has called his top domestic priority, seeks to extend health benefits to more than 30 million people who are currently uninsured. The bill would require nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance, or pay financial penalties for failing to do so, and it would provide federal subsidies to help moderate-income Americans buy private coverage.
About half of the people who would gain coverage, some 15 million, would do so through a broad expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for low-income Americans, and growth in the Children's Health Insurance Program.
To pay for the new coverage, the bill would impose an array of fees and taxes, including an increase in the payroll tax for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 and a new excise tax on high-cost insurance polices. The bill also calls for major reductions in government spending, by slowing the growth of Medicare.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the $871 billion cost of the bill would be more than offset by the new revenues and cuts in spending, so that it would reduce future federal budget deficits by $132 billion between 2010 and 2019.
The outcome of the Monday morning vote was effectively decided on Saturday, when Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, the last holdout, announced that he would support the bill and Mr. Reid unveiled his final "manager's" package of changes. Mr. Reid's amendment included provisions aimed at winning over Mr. Nelson and others. Republicans derided the changes as akin to bribery.
On Sunday, any lingering doubts were put to rest. Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, who voted in favor of several Republican amendments to the health care bill, issued a statement saying he would support the measure. And Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who had been in intense talks with the White House, issued a statement saying she would vote no.
But the late-night session was not without drama, thanks to the tremendous snowstorm on Saturday that buried much of the Northeast, and limited the travel options of some senators caught away from Washington. With Amtrak experiencing severe delays, a government plane was sent to retrieve Senators Frank R. Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrats.
Because the Democrats nominally control the votes of 60 senators - 58 Democrats and two independents aligned with them - which is the precise number needed to overcome filibusters, the absence of even one lawmaker would have changed the outcome of the vote and would probably have forced Democrats to miss their deadline of adopting the health care legislation by Christmas.
The most senior senator, Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, who turned 92 years old last month and uses a wheelchair, was invoked by both sides as a victim of the parliamentary warfare that has the Senate convening at all hours of the day and night.
The 1 a.m. Monday vote was on a motion to cut off debate on Mr. Reid's manager's package. A simple majority vote to approve the package is scheduled for roughly 7 a.m. on Tuesday.
AUSTIN - The state will destroy an estimated 5.3 million blood samples legally collected from newborns but kept without parental consent under a federal lawsuit settlement announced Tuesday.
The number of newborns involved is unclear because multiple samples are received from each by the Texas Department of State Health Services, department spokeswoman Allison Lowery said.
Typically, two samples are taken from each child, but there could be more, she said. The disputed samples cover a period of about seven years starting in 2002. The state conducts newborn screening to detect disorders or illnesses.
"This is about consent," said lawyer Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project. The group, after discovering the agency had been keeping the samples without permission, sued on behalf of parents in federal district court in San Antonio.
The Health Department said in a statement it would destroy the samples - retained as blood spot cards - that it received and stored before legislation took effect last May allowing their retention. The legislation allows parents, guardians or managing conservators to opt out of having the blood retained.
Lowery said the agency is seeking permission from fewer than 400 parents to preserve their babies' samples because the children tested positive for rare disorders.
Collected before lawsuit
She said samples have been securely stored at the Texas A&M Health Science Center School of Rural Public Health.
That institution said in a statement that all the blood spots at the center were collected before the lawsuit and are subject to a joint resolution between the center and the agency to destroy them.
Andrea Beleno, an Austin mother who was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said she was pleased with the settlement.
"There's no financial gain for any of the plaintiffs," Beleno said. "Basically, what we wanted to do was to make sure that our children's privacy was being protected and that the state is respecting our rights, because if we don't stand up and make the government do that, nobody's going to do it for us."
Parents from San Antonio and Houston also were part of the lawsuit, which was filed against Commissioner David Lakey of the Department of State Health Services and Dr. Nancy Dickey, president of the Texas A&M Health Science Center and vice chancellor for health affairs of the Texas A&M System.
"The Texas A&M Health Science Center is glad that we have reached agreement in order to settle the lawsuit," Dickey's office said in a statement. "We are saddened, however, that a superb database has been lost. This database could have continued to shed light on causes of congenital birth defects and potentially led to preventive measures saving thousands of infants and their families the distress these defects cause."
The parents' lawsuit said there was no legal authority to keep the blood indefinitely without consent.
Harrington said his group became aware the blood samples were being stored after being called by a reporter from the Austin American-Statesman. Beleno said she first read about it in the newspaper.
Detailed conditions
Under the settlement, Harrington said, all blood specimens must be destroyed unless the state gets written permission to retain and use them. The destruction must occur within 120 days of the lawsuit being dismissed with the settlement, which occurred Dec. 14.
The agency also must post information on its newborn screening Web site, including a list of all research projects for which it has provided newborn-screening blood specimens.
In addition, the agency must inform the parents who sued how their children's blood was used and any financial transactions involving the specimens, Harrington said.
Pledges compliance
The Texas Department of Health said in its statement that it is complying with the new law and "will continue to be very sensitive to the privacy concerns of parents and the confidentiality of all medical information."
"If parents don't object, the department saves the samples for uses allowed under the new legislation - primarily quality assurance and control purposes to ensure accuracy in lab testing and because the samples could provide an invaluable resource in researching new or more effective ways to prevent, diagnose and treat serious medical conditions that affect Texas children, including leukemia and birth defects," the agency said in its statement.
I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want everyone to remember why they need us!
How impudent we Americans have become, with our "tea parties", marching on Washington, demanding smaller government, trying to abolish the private Federal Reserve, demanding government get out of our lives, becoming tired of endless war. Who do we think we are?
Well, they're not going to let us get away with it. They're going to remind us why we need them. Why they must take more control. Why we need to be degraded and humiliated further. Oh, and they want to bomb more Muslim countries. That will make them stop participating in this government-run black op. Plus, everybody loves a good bombing. It looks like oh so much fun watching it live on Fox News, and you never have to worry about the controlled media showing the mangled bodies of women and children and elderly, who deserve to die anyway because they're not Americans. And when the families and friends of the dead, or the fortunate survivors of our bombs, decide to seek vengeance for the murder of their loved ones, well they'll just be more terrorists that we have to kill in order to keep the heimat safe.
Meanwhile, it wasn't degrading and humiliating enough for the TSA to pull grandma out of line to make her take off her shoes to make sure she's not another shoe bomber, or have your teenage daughter or your girlfriend or wife felt up by some tax feeding pervert, no. The government put on a show for you Christmas day, and now they will punish you for their crime. They will make you miserable for their purposeful negligence. You or I aren't allowed to bring a fish hook on board a plane - and if the statist shills in the media have their way, you won't be allowed to bring perfume or cologne on board either (this is all liberals' fault, don't you know?) - yet this patsy was able to board with explosives that are easily detectable, partially contained inside a syringe. You or I need how many forms of ID to get on a plane, yet this person was escorted past security by an unknown person, without any identification or passport, on an international flight. There are well over 1.3 million people on the TSA no-fly list, who have not been charged with a crime, yet this person, with supposed terror connections - his own father throws him under the bus - was on a watch list but not the no-fly list. No, this wasn't a black op at all. It was al Qaeda, which isn't really the CIA, trying to scare you again. And the government, which knew this was coming yet, we are to believe, just dropped the ball - totally benign negligence - would have you believe that they can keep you safe now, this time, if only you'll degrade and humiliate yourself further and give up more liberty and privacy. Just a little more, they swear. It's FYOG. Hey, freedom isn't free.
So, it wasn't convenient at all that this kamikaze hid his "bomb" in his underpants. As if that were the determining factor that allowed him to sneak past security undetected. Now, if only you'll give up these quaint, antiquated notions (see also here, here, here, here, here...) of a right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects, and allow them to put millimeter wave scanners in airports so some worthless TSA slob can examine you naked, the government can stop this kind of terrorism, which is of their own making, once and for all. That is, until the people realize it's all a sham, a theatrical performance, used as justification to oppress them and bomb foreigners, at which point the government will just put on another show to remind us all that we're slaves, and should keep our mouths shut and our faces in the mud. That's freedom, baby. Love it or leave it.
Alex Jones Calls For Mass Resistance To Implementation Of Body Scanners
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, January 5, 2010 InfoWars
Radio talk show host Alex Jones is calling for petitions, boycotts and lawsuits en mass in an effort to block the nationwide implementation of full body scanners that represent a total violation of privacy, a health risk, and the next wave of tyranny being metered out against the American people and the people of the world under the phony pretext of fighting terrorism.
"Our long journey into domestication and dependency on the scientific dictatorship is accelerating, our entire society is being turned into a massive surveillance grid, it has been designed to persecute the people," Jones warned on his show yesterday, adding that the scanners were the latest manifestation of the prison planet being constructed around humanity.
Allied with the contrived global warming movement, terrorism is the other prong of the pincer being used to crush freedom and advance totalitarianism in the developed world as Homeland Security follows the plan it was created to carry out - the gradual implementation of martial law in America characterized by the kind of stifling security we now see in airports being introduced into our daily lives in shopping malls, public schools, and many other buildings.
Jones warned that those who refuse the body scan and opt for a pat down will be subject to a strip search and treated like terrorists.
"We're being trained like dogs..you're the people they want to train to accept this, you're the milk cows, you're the cattle, you're the once proud free people being trained to accept this," said Jones, adding that the funding was already in place for body scanners at all U.S. airports in early 2009 before the Christmas Day incident magically arrived to provide the perfect pretext to push ahead with pull implementation.
"Magically that happens and they begin beating the drum within hours of it, see we must have the body scanners, it was all set, it was all rigged, every TV network, every station had their talking points," said Jones, adding that body scanners were instantly promoted as the solution, allied with calls to renew the rapidly expiring Patriot Act.
The fact that the aborted plane bombing attack also provided the perfect justification to expand U.S. military operations into the Arabian Peninsula in the name of fighting Al-Qaeda, a process already well underway before the bombing attempt, makes the suspicious circumstances surrounding the December 25 incident all the more alarming.
As we have documented, The FBI has repeatedly changed its story in a haphazard effort to accommodate eyewitness testimony from passengers that conflicts with the official version of events.
At first the FBI denied that a second man was arrested in connection with the incident but later admitted a second man was handcuffed after Flight 253 passenger and eyewitness Kurt Haskell said he saw an Indian man being led away by authorities after sniffer dogs had found something in his luggage.
Officials then claimed that the man had not been on Flight 253 at all and was not connected with the incident, but had to reverse their statement again just days later when other eyewitnesses emerged, admitting that the man had been on the plane.
The fact that the FBI is apparently protecting accomplices involved with the bombing attempt, and thereby keeping the official story within the script necessary to pin the attack on a lone man from Yemen who was inspired by Al-Qaeda, blatantly suggests that the facts are being manipulated to fit a pre-conceived geopolitical agenda.
Jones stated that if the body scanners were allowed to be implemented, it would not be long before travelers were forced to wear taser bracelets before they even enter an airport that allow officials to deliver an electric shock to anyone they deem suspicious on a whim. Homeland Security has already been busy exploring the possible roll out of such devices.
"A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taserr. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal, Inc. website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers," reported the Washington Times.
In the UK, the level of detail produced by the body scanners is such that their implementation would break child pornography laws, specifically the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.
"They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way," said Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the "prevention and detection of crime" but the purpose had to be more specific than the "trawling exercise" now being considered," reports the Guardian.
Those vigorously pushing for the widespread rollout of body scanners in the aftermath of the highly suspicious Christmas Day bombing attempt have been found to have their own financial motives.
"Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports," reports the Boston Globe.
"What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question."
Approaching the issue from a health angle, despite official assurances that the scanners are safe, there are many concerns about the physical impact of firing radiation at the body, especially if the individual has had previous x-ray scans, mammograms, or is a frequent flyer.
Dr. John Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at University of California, Berkeley, maintains that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Gofman argues that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is responsible for 50 per cent of cancers of 60 per cent of heart disease cases amongst Americans.
"The fact, that X-ray doses are so seldom measured, reflects the false assumption that doses do not matter.[but] they do matter enormously. And each bit of additional dose matters, because any X-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the high-speed, high energy electron which causes a carcinogenic or atherogenic [smooth muscle] mutation. Such mutations rarely disappear. The higher their accumulated number in a population, the higher will be the population's mortality rates from radiation-induced cancer and ischemic heart disease," states Gofman.
In addition to all these issues, full body scanners would not even have stopped the Christmas Day bomber from boarding Flight 253, according to a British MP who helped design the machines.
"I must advise the Prime Minister - and the British public - that the scanners are not a "silver bullet," said Ben Wallace, who worked on the scanners at defense research organization QinetiQ. "You would be mistaken to think that they would counter the new threat."
"The millimetre wave technology is harmless, quick and can be deployed overtly or covertly. But it cannot detect chemicals or light plastics."
What it means to every American citizen: virtual flood of humanity into the United States from all over the world.
Representative Luis Gutierrez (D, IL) introduced another "comprehensive immigration reform" in December, 2009. You could give his bill an Orwellian name such as, "Stupidity is Intelligence" or "Ignorance is Brilliant" or "No matter how stupid the American people, they are smart to flood their country with unending legal and illegal I immigration." Gutierrez called his version of Dante's nightmare: Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009.
U.S. Congressman Brian Bilbray (R, CA) said, "I am amazed that the Democrats are trying to push this thing through when we are in the middle of a major financial downturn with unemployment over 10 percent. How crazy can we get in one move?"
Representative Bilbray added, "Gutierrez is not representing the Constitution or the current voters of the U.S., but is only vying for cheap votes and cheap labor. The bill is custom made for people breaking the law and to reward those employers who have created the problem. This bill will become a magnet for more illegal immigration."
Gutierrez said, "We have waited patiently for a workable solution to our immigration crisis to be taken up by this Congress and our President," said Rep. Gutierrez. "The time for waiting is over. This bill will be presented before Congress recesses for the holidays so that there is no excuse for inaction in the New Year. It is the product of months of collaboration with civil rights advocates, labor organizations, and members of Congress. It is an answer to too many years of pain -mothers separated from their children, workers exploited and undermined security at the border- all caused at the hands of a broken immigration system. This bill says `enough,' and presents a solution to our broken system that we as a nation of immigrants can be proud of."
What Gutierrez failed to mention: our government fails to enforce immigration laws and would not enforce any new ones. Therefore, the system would continue as broken. Additionally, he expects to double and even triple legal immigration to well over three million annually.
OUR CIVILIZATION STANDS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE
In the past ten years, I have written about every ramification of unending and mass immigration into the United States. I have addressed water shortages, environmental traumas, air pollution, species extinction, resource depletion, ruination of our culture, displacement of our language and Balkanization of our society.
Much of it accelerates beyond my predictions. It's almost incomprehensible to me that California adds 1,700 people daily net gain and 400 cars net gain daily onto their roads while they don't have enough water to maintain their current 38 million person population on their way to 58 million-virtually all their growth stems from legal and illegal immigration.
If any kind of an "Immigration Reform" bill passes with an outright amnesty of 20 million illegal aliens and their children, along with chain migration with family reunification to add millions more, plus continued diversity migration and endless visas-we face irreversible consequences with unsolvable problems.
This situation grows more horrid and more ominous than the average American can understand. Our president, this U.S. Congress, the general public cannot grasp what we face and the mainstream media avoids it at all costs. We might as well be a person or `civilization' standing on the beach in New Orleans as Hurricane Katrina comes ashore in the next hour. But we stand there waiting for it to hit with no sense of urgency or understanding of our peril. But no matter how much we ignore this "Human Katrina", this `thing' we created, i.e., unending mass immigration will most certainly take our civilization over the abyss.
No, it won't happen overnight, but within 10 to 20 years, if we set in motion this massive spectacle of importing millions into this society-once they manifest-we will be in the middle of a horrendous predicament.
On January 6, 2010, Obama proudly unveiled his "Innovative Agenda". Financed by Public- Private Partnerships, the goal is to train over 100,000 elementary school math and science teachers. The Intel Foundation has committed to spending $200 million dollars to this venture, with 4 other companies providing another $50 million dollars.(1)
The mainstream media's spin on this story was that this is a gift to increase American children's test scores. And most people believe this is a wonderful investment in the future and don't understand the real intention behind the "gift", with strings attached.
Do you think that depopulation of the planet is wonderful?
Do you think that the destruction of individual rights and the Constitution is wonderful?
Do you think that clearing humans from 50% of America's landscape is wonderful?
Anytime you here the phrase "Public- Private Partnership", you can be sure that a corporation or foundation is benefiting, as PPP's are the tool of fascism. The "Private" component of the PPP is the money partner and is always interested in profit and power. When they couple with the government (the Public component of the PPP), the benefit is enforcement of policies, tax breaks, fees, etc. Please find out more by watching Joan Veon's videos featured on InfoWars December 3rd.(http://www.infowars.com/agenda-21-alert-public-private-partnerships/)(2).
After doing a little research on Intel's website and its affiliation with the EPA and the United Nations, the implications are clear: Intel is preoccupied with the global warming hoax and intends to institute Agenda 21 Sustainable Development by indoctrinating children through education.
Lori Wigle, Intel's Eco- Technology General Manager and "Green Queen" went to the Copenhagen convention and wrote in her blog that technology could provide a structure for people to telecommute from home so that "ultimately we may need fewer roads".(2) Remember that the collectivists' agenda is to concentrate people in cities and remove them from the land. If there are no roads, the land becomes `off-limits'.
Further, Intel's Corporate Responsibility Director, Michael Jacobson, glorifies the alliance between Intel and the United Nations in his blog regarding the United Nations Global Compact.(4)
The United Nations Global Compact is based on the Rio Declaration of Environment and Development from 1992, and IS Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. Soft language is used, but the underlying message is that an international governing body should regulate all things concerning human interaction with the environment.(5) The man made global warming hoax is one of the biggest weapons of propaganda and legal action that the collectivists use.
Lastly, education is a tool that the globalists use to promote their programs, and is clearly documented in their own materials. For example, California's Assembly Bill 32 (Cap & Trade), the final report states, "ARB will also rely on partners throughout the state to develop and display options for curricula that will enhance the K-12, community college, trade technical training programs, and programs at four-year colleges." (page 102)(6)
The Good News:
Being forewarned is being forearmed. You can teach your children about "Climategate" and get other parents involved. You can educate the educators and become more involved in what your child learns.
If "We the People" are the creators of the government, and the government is authorized arms, then in order for the people to maintain their position, in relation to the government, they to must be armed. If the servant government (servant of the people) has arms, and the people do not, then the roles are reversed for the people can not resist a government that has become tyrannical.
This same logic applies to self defense. If the law abiding citizen does not have the means to resist a lawless adversary, then the will of the adversary becomes the law. Our Congress had formally passed an "assault weapons" ban. The stated goal was to remove the arms used by gangs, drug smugglers, and extremists. How many of us really believe that anyone in any of the aforementioned groups, who owned an "assault weapon," would get rid of those weapons, just because the Congress passed a law? However, many law abiding citizens did, in fact, give up their arms so as to remain "law abiding." The end result is no change for the criminal element and a disarming of the citizen. This has happened, without exception, with EVERY gun law passed by Congress. In this regard, every gun law, by definition, aids the criminal and penalizes the law abiding citizen.
The Second Amendment, arguably the most contentious of all the Bill of Rights amendments, however, is the least tried in the Supreme Court. It simply states:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
It may be a small amendment, but, it carries the weight and guarantee for all other rights. For without the capability of the people to defend themselves, to prepare as a militia, or to reign in a tyrannical government, we all become serfs and subjects.
There are those among us that would argue the collectivist position that the amendment pertained only to the Militia and not to individuals. The Supreme Court has spoken on the collective issue in U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999), in which it states: "Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (Bold Added)
As the foregoing statement clearly shows, there is one aspect of this amendment which is based in the collective thought, and that is collective safety. The Second Amendment prohibited the government from infringing on an individuals right in order to protect a collective purpose. If the federal could disarm the populace, then the states would have no effective militia and no means to defend itself. This is why there is such a strong tie between the militia and the people.
Remember, the constitution and "Bill of Rights" are there to restrain the government; not the people. This was an instruction to the government to leave the peoples' guns alone. They could not trespass on or encroach upon our right as citizens to own and bear arms. If we look at the enforcement of federal laws and the cost government has placed on the American people I think we must conclude that infringement has and is occurring. The federal government has the right to regulate its' jurisdictions outside of the state jurisdiction; but I will show that the enforcement of those laws is where they have violated the Constitution.
In the early years of our nation, it was common sense and historically imperative that the people be armed. They were armed not only for self defense, but as defense against invasion from nefarious nations as well as from "ambitious and unprincipled rulers" who would look to remove their rights and to enslave the nation.
In general, Laws are made to codify certain unwanted behavior and to establish acceptable behavior in society. However, as soon as you transfer this mechanism to inanimate objects, this logic fails. To illustrate, I think we would all agree that a criminal who steals, rapes, or murders is doing wrong. The tools he may use in that action do not change the act. "Ah," says the liberal/communist, "but you remove the ability for him to get the tool, now he cannot accomplish the act." If only that were true. I look at the genocide that has taken place in African states; the mutilation by means of machete; where limbs were severed and people left to bleed to death. Whole villages where women were raped, breasts removed, children hacked to death. Evil will do what evil does by whatever means is at their disposal. To assume the morally bankrupt of our society would stop a behavior by solely passing a law against an instrument he may use in the commission of a heinous crime is na?ve at best. Added to this is the undercurrent of black market supplies of weapons, around the world and here in America. The criminal does not obey laws, and he is prohibited to obtain weapons, yet he still gets them. Thus the net effect is to disarm the victims, making them unable to lawfully protect themselves.
The law abiding citizen is, by definition, not the problem. The problem is the criminal, because by definition, he does not obey the law. As importantly, is the fact that the government is treating ALL citizens by the standards of the criminal. For instance, a criminal uses a handgun in the commission of a robbery. Another criminal uses an ice-pick to commit the same crime. A third uses a baseball bat. With the logic of the gun control advocates the mere possession of a gun, an ice-pick, or a baseball bat should be outlawed. The root of the problem, however, is not the objects with which they perpetrate their crime; it is their willingness to commit the crime. The item used to aid that crime is merely the tool. And as every tool used to commit a crime has a peaceful use, outlawing the tool ONLY infringes on the person who would not use it for nefarious reasons.
What our nation needs are laws that punish criminal behavior and to stop criminalizing honest citizens who wish only to protect themselves and their families. Both the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) statistics have shown that the majority of violent crimes are committed without firearms, and the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that were illegally obtained, bypassing gun laws. So the net effect of gun control laws is to affect the law abiding citizen and has virtually no effect on the criminal element of our society.
The enactment of "firearms laws" is a relatively recent occurrence for the federal government. The Federal Firearms Act in 1934 was the first act by congress to regulate firearms. This act was based upon the perceived need to regulate the firearms industry and license the dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths within the firearms trade. It was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Appropriately it was codified under Title 15 of the US Code - "Commerce and Trade". The new "laws" under the Act included the creation of a Federal Firearms License (FFL), for anyone doing business in the firearm trade. One of the primary goals was to prohibit FFL holders from selling firearms to convicted felons. Requiring FFL holders to keep records of all firearms sales, and for the first time it made any alteration of firearm serial numbers a crime. Some felt this was an infringement on state jurisdiction by enacting a law that reached past the state boundary, in violation of the Constitution.
From 1934 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled "Crimes and Criminal Procedures." Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of "Commerce and Trade". However, if you are bound by "Commerce and Trade", you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the "trade." Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers from commerce to crime.
Shortly after President Kennedy's assassination, in 1968, the "Gun Control Act" was passed. It was an attempt by the government to justify broad-sweeping firearms control. The finesse with which the government's lawyers crafted and pushed this bill through can be seen right from the opening lines. The bill is entitled: "An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms." Doesn't that title sound allot like Chapter 15? In fact, even though there is much overlap between Title 15 and Title 18, Title 15 was never repealed.
This was done to provide better control of "interstate" traffic in firearms. However, the stated purpose of the act is as follows:
Title I - State Firearms Control Assistance
Purpose
"Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence,"
Did you catch that? To support State, and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution say anything about the federal government assisting law enforcement? Remember, the federal government cannot legally do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. So where is its justification? It has none; any federal law that falls outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is repugnant and is void. That does not stop the jack-booted thugs from kicking in your door and enforcing unjust and unconstitutional laws; it just makes them wrong with a gun.
I can not say this enough, the birth rights we have as American Citizens are higher than the Constitution. They exist by virtue of our creation and are bestowed at birth and these rights cannot be taken by any government, unless we give them away. The Second Amendment is paramount to all other rights, because without this right, we cannot defend the other rights. I have come to understand that those without a means of defense become victims to those who will force their will upon them. I have personally seen this in Somalia, Pakistan, Kuwait, the Philippines, and Afghanistan. In most cases, the only reason we received respect from the enemy was because we had the means to remove them from the face of the earth. Make no mistake, if it were not for the Second Amendment, this nation would not be here today. Our future still depends on the willingness of "We the People" to stand up and fight to keep this right.
It is a proven axiom that a criminal will not try to commit a crime while a police officer is present. Thus the saying "There is never a policeman around when you need him." There are those who want a society where there are no guns. A society where a woman can walk down a street at night without fear of molestation. Where drugs, gangs, corruption, and evil no longer exists. There is such a place, but it only exists in the stories of Hollywood. The cold reality is that evil does exist and we must protect ourselves and our families against that evil.
So, who is responsible for our protection? Is it the government, the state, the local police? It may surprise you to learn that none of these is the correct answer. Time and time again the courts have ruled, and those rulings have been upheld, that there is no requirement for any level of government to guarantee our individual protection. In this nation, the policy of policing is that of "general" peace and order; and no one person or group can have any expectation of individual protection.
To illustrate this I would like to present the following case that illustrates this position:
In Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) the courts ruled: "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." (Emphasis added)
There are literally hundreds of cases that say exactly the same thing. In the liberal world, I constantly hear that the police are trained to protect the innocent. Quite often this happens solely because they are out on the streets looking for bad guys. Odds are, eventually they will run into a crime in progress and take action. The police are there to bring criminals to justice, which is what they get paid for. However, in order for one to be deemed a criminal they must first perpetrate a crime. Only then can the police take action. You and you alone have the primary responsibility for your protection and safety. By law, someone who pays another to commit a crime is just as guilty as if he committed the crime himself. In my estimation, someone who pays another for protection, and is unwilling to take responsibility for their own protection, is guilty of cowardice. Willingness does not equate to capability. Many people are willing to protect themselves, but do not have the capability. If you are not willing to fight, or even kill to protect your own life or the lives of your family, then you cannot ask someone else to do it for you.
The Constitution states that the Second Amendment "shall not be infringed." How many laws does it take before it is considered infringed? 500? 5,000? 20,000? That's about how many laws we have on the books today, over twenty thousand. Not infringed means exactly that; leave it alone.
The United States was built and survived because of private ownership of arms. Many gun haters cannot abide hearing this; and they manage to forget, or they don't understand the history that brought us through the oppression of the English Kings. One of the sparks to the war of independence was the Kings' mandate to disarm the people. Our forefathers included in the Constitution the guarantee that the people would never be disarmed again.
The firearm is a tool, nothing more nothing less. It has no powers but what the person wielding it provides. If that person be evil, then evil may be produced. If that person be good, then the good man has a means by which he may protect himself and his family from the evil man. If a man be prone to commit assault or even murder, what does he care about gun laws? Will this evil doer decide to not use a gun when he robs, rapes, abducts children, or kills because there is a law stating he may not carry a gun? Of course not! The evil person cares not for the law, therefore gun laws ONLY affect the law abiding citizen, not the criminal. But it is my belief the lawmakers know this. The excuse, of fighting crime, is only the "reason" to pass the law not the desired effect. The desired effect is removal of honest gun ownership. Once this is accomplished the country is then helpless against the rulers of our nation. Another means of checks and balances, the final means, will be abolished.
The last seventy years have been a continual neutering of the American patriot. When all is said and done, the wresting of our God-given rights from the "communist-liberal left and the power-hungry government bureaucrats" may come down to one thing; our Second Amendment Right.
Gun Control Advocate Shoots Intruder
By Bob Ellis on January 7th, 2010 DakotaVoice
What would you think if a long-time gun control advocate ended up shooting someone? Might the word "hypocrite" come to mind?
It did for me, and apparently for many others.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports North Carolina state senator R.C. Soles shot one of two intruders who attempted to break into his house.
But it gets even more interesting than the mere hypocrisy of a gun control activist shooting somebody.
The New York Times reports Soles won't be seeking re-election, which is not a surprise since state prosecutors have said they plan to charge Soles because "he acted criminally when he shot a former law client."
WWAY sheds additional light on this:
Thursday, a Columbus County grand jury found probable cause to seek an indictment against Soles for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury.
In late August, Soles shot 22-year-old Kyle Blackburn outside the Senator's home in Tabor City.
Blackburn was a client of Soles' law firm. Soles told police he shot Blackburn in self-defense, saying that Blackburn was trying to break into his home. Blackburn told us he was leaving the property when he was shot.
While what happens within a grand jury proceeding is secret, we can presume that ballistics evidence was part of what was reviewed yesterday, specifically whether the bullet wound indicated that Blackburn was facing the Senator or running away when he was shot.
We also know surveillance cameras were running at Senator Soles' house at the time of the shooting.
The shooting itself wasn't captured on camera, but what transpired before and after the shooting may have helped the jurors determine how the events played out.
Now, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for someone who advocates diminishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. But when I learn that they consider themselves elite enough to own a weapon, any sympathy I might have had goes out the door.
And apparently this wasn't even a clear-cut case of self-defense. The shooter knew the man who was shot, and a grand jury found sufficient evidence to charge the shooter for criminal activity.
This happened a few months ago, but I'm just now finding out about it from Marty Rickard. Better late than never, to find out about this kind of hypocrisy from a member of the gun control lobby.
Sunstein Attacks Second Amendment
Kurt Nimmo infowars ---check the link for video---
January 15, 2010
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that. it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
In a lecture at the University School of Law on October 27, 2007, Obama's administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs emphatically stated that you do not have a right to own firearms. "It is striking and noteworthy," said Cass Sunstein, "that well over two centuries since the founding, the Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns."
It is said Sunstein is a constitutional scholar. And yet he fails to mention that opinions dealing with the Second Amendment come from almost every period in the Court's history and almost all of them are consistent with the proposition that the Second Amendment is an individual right. See David B. Kopel, The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment.
"My coming view is that the individual right to bear arms reflects the success of an extremely aggressive and resourceful social movement and has much less to do with good standard legal arguments than [it] appears," Sunstein said elsewhere in the lecture (not included in the above clip). "My tentative suggestion is that the individual right to have guns as it's being conceptualized now is best taken as a contemporary creation and a reflection of current fears - not a reading of civic-centered founding debates."
"Mr. Sunstein's overt hostility to the idea that the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms, including for purposes of self-defense, is not something that should be welcomed from somebody whose job might entail weighing in on the value of anti-gun regulations. It also makes his more recent assurances that he is a Second Amendment stalwart seem rather disingenuous, at the very least," an editorial published by The Washington Times stated last September.
In July of 2009, Sunstein sent a letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia assuring him that he strongly believes the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms. "Your first question involved the Second Amendment. I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case, clearly recognizing the individual right to have guns for hunting and self-defense. If confirmed, I would respect the Second Amendment and the individual right that it recognizes."
In response, Chambliss dropped his hold on the nomination of Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In other words, Sunstein lied about the Second Amendment in order to fool Congress into accepting his nomination.
It's too bad Chambliss didn't see the above video before voting to confirm Sunstein. If he had, Sunstein would probably not be in the government now. He would not be threatening to close down the First and Second Amendments.
(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) A bill has been introduced in the Oklahoma legislature to protect the Second Amendment rights of the state's citizens.
House Bill 2884, creates the "Oklahoma Firearms Freedom Act," which declares that a "personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Oklahoma and that remains within the borders of Oklahoma is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce."
The legislation notes that regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and that Article II, Section 26, of the Oklahoma Constitution "clearly secures to Oklahoma citizens, and prohibits interference with, the right of individual Oklahoma citizens to keep and bear arms."
As a result, under the bill, guns manufactured in Oklahoma and sold to citizens of the state would not be subject to federal regulations since "those items have not traveled in interstate commerce."
Applicable firearms will be required to clearly display "Made in Oklahoma" on a major metallic part.
And there's more:
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 other 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. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations - in order to protect the liberty of the state's citizens.
Oklahoma's bill brings the number to 16 states that have seen a Firearms Freedom Act introduced in the past year - most recently, New Hampshire, Virginia and Missouri.
The police in Austin, at the behest of the federal Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, has attempted to shut down legal gun sales. The Texas Gun Shows website has the following posted: "Vendor notice - Austin show only: At the direction of the Austin Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, ONLY LICENSED FFL DEALERS will be allowed to set up and sell firearms at the N. Austin show location."
FFL is short for "Federal Firearms License." It is a federal license that enables an individual or a company to engage in a business pertaining to the manufacture of firearms and ammunition or the interstate and intrastate sale of firearms. It does not control gun sales between individuals on the local level.
Texas residents may purchase rifles, shotguns, handguns ammunition, reloading components, or firearms accessories. No permit or registration is required under state law. It is unlawful to knowingly sell, rent, give or offer to sell, rent or give any firearm to a person under 18 years of age, without the written consent of his parent or guardian, but entirely legal for adults to sell firearms.
The BATF and Austin cops are attempting to discourage gun sales with this color of law trick. It is not backed up by any law on the books. It is intimidation.
In recent years the feds have attempted to portray entirely legal gunshows as a nexus for criminal activity. Gun Show Undercover, a project of the City of New York and its mayor the anti-Second Amendment extremist Michael Bloomberg, has traveled around the country and filmed what it declares to be illegal gun sales. The BATF claims that 30 percent of guns involved in federal illegal gun trafficking investigations are connected to gun shows.
The BATF claims Mexican drug cartels exploit the so-called gun-show loophole. "Guns are purchased illegally, sold at a profit to drug dealers and used to kill innocent people and police officers, all while local law enforcement authorities lack the federal support they need to do their job," Bloomberg wrote in April, 2009. "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has estimated that 90 percent to 95 percent of the guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes have been purchased in the United States, because Mexico's laws make it much more difficult for criminals to buy guns."
Bloomberg has pushed for closing down gun shows. "More than 350 mayors from both political parties have joined together to urge Congress to repeal these restrictions - and to close the gun-show loophole, a step both Sen. John McCain and President Obama have supported," he wrote.
In response to this propaganda, Fox News reported that 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S. Most of the illegal guns sold in Mexico originate from South Korea, China, and Russia. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
For now, gun sales between adults are legal in Texas. Residents of Austin should not be intimidated by this bogus color of law attempt to chill the Second Amendment.
Tennessee Follows Texas In Banning Private Gun Shows
Paul Joseph Watson InfoWars
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Tennessee has followed Texas in demanding that dealers obtain licenses and turn over a plethora of information to authorities before being able to host a gun show in another devastating attack on the second amendment.
The legislation, HB 2422, which has not yet passed, would make it a Class A misdemeanor for any person to organize, plan, promote, or operate a gun show without government approval.
The bill makes it a crime for anyone who wishes to operate a gun show unless they follow the following procedures;
(1) Notifies the TBI and the chief law enforcement officer in the county in which the gun show is to be held of the dates, times, and location of the gun show;
(2) Verifies the identity of each gun show dealer participating in the gun show by examining a valid photo identification document of the dealer, before commencement of the gun show;
(3) Requires each gun show dealer to sign a ledger with information identifying the dealer, including the dealer's name and address, before commencement of the gun show; and
(4) Maintains a copy of the records described above in (2) and (3) at the gun show promoter's permanent place of business for one year from the date of the gun show.
The legislation also contains a blanket ban on all unlicensed gun sales within 1,000 feet of an unapproved gun show.
The bill would take effect on January 1, 2011 if signed into law.
As we highlighted yesterday, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is actively issuing directions banning private sales of guns without licenses at gun shows in Texas, despite there being no law to justify such demands.
A caller to the Alex Jones show brought attention to BATF notices handed out at the entrance of the Texas Gun And Knife Show, on North Lamar, in Austin this past weekend.
The flyers (pictured below) state that anyone selling a firearm "will be asked to comply with" conditions including operating through a licensed FFL dealer.
The notice also states that "Selling firearms in the parking lot will not be permitted."
"The lady at the front desk used her `mommy voice' to get everyone's attention." Scott from Austin told The Alex Jones show, noting that the owners of the private building where the gun show was held were contacted by the APD and the BATF and directed to hand out the notices.
Scott also told listeners that a petition in protest of the directions was being handed around at the show.
At least the legislature in TN has the balls to pass legislation instead of the total usurpation of power instituted in Austin.
But it is OK folks. All of this activity is permitted, nay encouraged by SCROTUS in Heller. Total registration is the goal, and these are the necessary steps to make it happen.
Interesting point:
TN HB 2422 makes the operation of an unlicensed show a Class A misdemeanor, not a felony. This would be an excellent case for a court challenge. Any takers will get my support, both moral and financial.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Last night the corporate media portrayed Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts as a victory of Republicans over Democrats. It wasn't Republicans, however, that catapulted Scott Brown's win over Massachusetts Democrat and attorney general Martha Coakley. It was independent voters in the traditionally liberal and Democrat dominated state that made the difference, not Republicans.
"David Paleologos, director of Suffolk University's Police Research Center, whose recent poll foreshadowed a Brown win, said independent voters who were fired up over the lingering recession and faltering economy, the loss of jobs and the cost of government mandated health care drove the election," reports the Boston Herald.
Democrats, of course, say it is all a big right-wing extremist coup d'?tat.
"Over the past few weeks, radical right-wing activists turned Massachusetts into ground zero for the Tea Party movement, and we saw a taste of what's to come in 2010," warned New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley.
Buckley and the Democrats may attempt to spin the election as a victory for "radical right-wing activists," but the truth is something entirely different - the election served as a referendum on big government and irresponsible and out of control federal spending. Scott Brown was elected in one of the most liberal states in the country not because he is a Republican, but because his victory will shut down Obamacare and send a message to Democrats.
In fact, Scott Brown's political philosophy - akin to that of big government Republican Mitt Romney - is irrelevant. Brown is your typical "center-right" politician - he voted for Romney's health care plan, supports gay marriage, and said he would have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. He apparently buys into the climate change scam as well.
On the other hand, he campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility and limited government, something mainline Republicans always do on the campaign trial, only to betray their promises once seated. George Bush campaigned as a traditional Republican. Once in office, he ratcheted up the federal deficit and began invading small defenseless countries. Republicans dutifully fell in line.
None of this matters, even with the hysterical warnings by Democrats that the "radical right-wing" and much maligned Tea Party have changed Obama's game plan. Scott Brown talked about ending gridlock in Washington, but his election victory represents just that - breaking the Democrat voting majority and ensuring that they will not be able to force Obamacare and other big government programs down the throats of the American people.
Scott Brown's victory is a victory for the Tea Party - not the GOP hijacked Tea Party but the original one that is solidly Libertarian and opposed to the Democrat vs. Republican politics as usual.
It is instructive to note, Steve, that Mr. Brown supports the moves by the Austin PD and the Tennessee legislature to ban FTF sales at gun shows.
IMO, time will tell if the Tea Parties become a force for liberty, or if they are a limited-issue construct that will sacrifice some liberties for others.
The support of Mr. Brown suggests the latter, though we must recognize that in this specific case, the limited issues are an important consideration.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Don, I know. His views are only slightly less asquew than Kennedy's were but I think it sends them a message that people who haven't participated in the voting system in the past are waking up. Hopefully we see a large removal of imcumbants and get some fresh faces in there that are willing to listen to the people that voted them in.
In fact, on Oct. 17 2001 he voted to deny Red Cross volunteer workers extra financial aid for thier efforts at ground zero.
An APD News press release dated January 19, 2010, offers an official explanation of the actions taken by the Austin Police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to ensure the shut down of Texas Gun Shows in central Texas. The press releases reveals that in addition to the ATF, Federal Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement (ICE) agents were involved in the conspiracy to deny Texans access to firearms at legal gun shows.
"Austin Police Department Firearm Review Unit detectives assisted in the Austin portion of the operation. They observed and participated in multiple arrests of prohibited persons (primarily convicted felons and illegal immigrants) that obtained firearms illegally at a local gun show. Federal convictions were obtained in a majority of the cases," the press release states.
The alleged criminal activity occurred at the venue prior to Darwin Boedecker and Texas Gun Shows leasing the space. The APD, however, does not make this fact clear in the press release.
Due to the history of criminal activity at the gun show, the Nuisance Abatement Unit scheduled a meeting between the property lessee (HEB Grocery), the building sub-lessee (Andrew Perkel a.k.a Austin Market Place), the event promoter (Darwin Boedecker-Texas Gun Shows) and ATF. During this meeting, APD along with ATF offered to all parties, recommendations to curb the illegal activity that had been documented in the past. At the conclusion of the meeting the lessee agreed that the recommendations should be followed and instructed their sub-lessee to follow the recommendations. The sub-lessee then informed the event promoter to implement the recommendations at the next show.
According to the APD, Boedecker agreed to the following: 1) Only licensed gun dealers are allowed to sell firearms at the gun shows, 2) The promoter will provide on-site security to prevent parking lot gun sales, and 3) The promoter will define a process for people other than licensed dealers that show up with a gun that they want to sell.
Darwin Boedecker posted the first two of these "recommendations" at the show held on the weekend of January 16-17, 2010.
It is not illegal for private citizens in Texas to sell firearms. The demand by the ATF and Austin cops is a direct violation of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution). In addition, under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence (including parking lots) are not subjected to federal regulation.
The APD subsequently used the ruse of "criminal activity" (citizens legally selling firearms) as an excuse to close down the Texas Gun Shows. "Following the staged arrest of a man by the Austin Police - subsequently released without charge - the BATF pressured lease holders HEB to shut down the oldest gun show in central Texas," Infowars reported on January 18, 2010.
It is now obvious the shut down of Texas Gun Shows is part of a larger effort by the Obama administration to close down gun shows and deny the American people their right to buy and sell firearms.
"What's being touted as the largest single investigation and prosecution against individuals in the history of the Justice Department's enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act occurred Monday in Las Vegas," writes Illinois Gun for Infowars today. "The individuals arrested are executives and employees of military and law enforcement products companies that were in Las Vegas to attend the 2010 Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show (Shot show) and are charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)."
"The Justice Department called the case the largest single investigation and prosecution of individuals in the history of the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars bribery of foreign government officials," reports The Boston Herald.
The FBI operation was conducted as a sting. The individuals in question did not actually violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The corporate media, with the exception of The Boston Herald, BusinessWeek, and firearms trade magazines, failed to report the story.
Steve ;
Sadly, I can attest from many years in this fight...you simply CANNOT get get owners to fall out for these actions. I have never understood it..have attended many over the years..and it is an utter embarrassment to the gun community for their lack of interest in protecting their azes.
Highball beat me to it. But I would also point out, that most gunowners are also gun-controllers and typically self-centered americans, via the lifelong brainwashing they have been saturated with from the govt. and the media. Most, even those who attend these shows, probably agree with them being shut down. They are just getting "theirs" while they can. Who gives a damn about our children and the slavery we're handing them.
I don't understand it either. Maybe some have given up, maybe some are just sitting still in wait. I can't stay off of the front lines on this one. I understand that I am in my early stages of this fight but I will do what I can to combat these issues. I will try to educate one a day until we have a majority instead of 3%. I doubt that we will see a majority on this for lack of education on the material presented. I have little hope for the uneducated sheeple but I must not give up this late in the fight. Hope you guys understand.
Had to come back and edit. I will not be the downtrodden. I will fight. HB, many of the youth that can grasp a concept are on my side. We have ranks to replenish the fallen.
steve
I am writing to urge you to vote against the confirmation of Ben Bernanke for a second term as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Bernanke has failed in his responsibilities both as a banking regulator and in his administration of Federal Reserve lending. Bernanke presided over the final phase of the $1.5 quadrillion financial derivatives bubble which is the central cause of the present world economic depression. He was the principal advocate for the reckless and irresponsible policy of bailing out bankrupt money center institutions, allowing them to live on as zombie banks at astronomical taxpayer, but with no corresponding benefit whatsoever for the economic life of the broader society. Bernanke is responsible for the super-toxic alphabet soup of Federal Reserve lending facilities like the TAF, the TALF, and so forth. These betrayals of the public trust have offered 0% credit to predatory institutions including Wall Street banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, money market funds, and other financial institutions. Bernanke has thus used public resources to subsidize financial speculation in all of its most destructive forums, while doing almost nothing to provide cheap credit for production that would benefit factories, farms, mines, building construction, small business, exports, scientific research, energy production, and infrastructure building. Economic activity in all of these fields is now dying for lack of credit, which is being denied by the very institutions Bernanke is trying to save. Everything that Bernanke has done is diametrically opposed to the rational credit policy needed to fight an economic depression.
Bernanke must therefore be rejected. Instead, the Senate should support a new Fed chairman with the qualifications necessary to preside over the nationalization of this illegal, unconstitutional, and failed institution. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 must be repealed. The future of the Fed is as a bureau of the United States Treasury responsible for providing cheap federal lending as a public utility for productive activity in the form of tangible physical commodity output, not speculation and financial services. In the future, the size of the money supply, short-term interest rates, and the approved categories of lending must be taken out of the hands of unelected and unaccountable cliques of predatory bankers, and deliberated in the full glare of publicity by the House, the Senate, and the president, as the United States Constitution actually requires. Because of Bernanke's pattern of subservience to Wall Street interests, it is clear that he cannot be the official suited to to carry out this historic transition. Worse, reports concerning telephone calls made by Treasury Secretary Geithner in September 2008 suggest that Bernanke may also be a party to illegal operations by the Fed in regard to the bailout of AIG and its derivatives counterparties at that time. It is unthinkable that the Senate would approve Bernanke unless and until these grave suspicions have been cleared up.
Today's newspapers suggest that Bernanke, even if he should be rejected by the Senate this week, would still attempt to stay in power as a member of the Board of Governors through 2020, exerting his power through his colleagues presently on the board. This would amount to nothing less than a bankers' insurrection. In this eventuality, the Congress must swiftly impeach Bernanke and remove him from office immediately.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
My buddy took a 7.62 to the chest. I haven't been right all day. I don't want to stand thier with his mom and burry him. Keep that flag. I don't wanna see it.
I take it your buddy is a troop?
My condolences to you and the family. So much is wrong, seems only anger can keep a guy from growing weary.
Comments
NRA
December 8, 2009
On November 30, 2009, the Bloomington Herald-Times made the following announcement:
"This week, HeraldTimesOnline.com will launch its new gun permit database. You'll be able to search gun permit records by county, city or town and street."
The Herald-Times has begun receiving calls and emails, and their response is a defiant defense of their online gun permit database.
Anyone who visits the newspaper website will be able to search the number of permits on a given street or neighborhood. Although at this point the names and house numbers are not listed, the newspaper's website treats law-abiding Indiana gun owners like sex offenders on a searchable database.
It is NRA's firm belief that there is no public good served by the publishing or cataloguing private citizens' gun ownership information, and that more harm is done by such an action. Law-abiding Hoosiers should not be subjected to the same treatment as sex offenders, and if the newspaper won't listen to their constituents and customers, then NRA Members and Indiana gun owners should send a financial message by cancelling their subscriptions to the Bloomington Herald-Times.
Please contact the Bloomington Herald-Times to respectfully voice your displeasure at the irresponsible action the newspaper has made.
Scott Schurz, Sunday Hoosier Times/Editor-in-Chief.
By Silla Brush
The Hill
Rep. Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke are locked in a clash of titans.
Paul, the 74-year-old House libertarian from Texas with the high-pitched voice, has fought for decades to kill off the Federal Reserve.
Bernanke, the mild-mannered ex-Princeton professor and chairman of the bank, is waging a high-stakes battle for the Fed's reputation. And he's doing everything possible to knock out Paul.
The fight is still in the early rounds. But with the full House expected to vote this week to give government auditors more power to scrutinize the Fed, Paul has the upper hand.
The Senate is a much more difficult round for Paul, though a similar stew of liberal and conservative support is starting to simmer in the upper chamber behind the Republican's wonky auditing measure.
Bernanke and Paul have never met one-on-one behind closed doors, Paul's office said. The battle has taken place in public - on blogs, with grassroots activists and during congressional hearings.
Bernanke has testified against the provision, given lengthy media interviews, written op-eds and attempted to lift the cloud of secrecy that hangs over the bank.
The Fed is audited, he argues, but allowing government scrutiny of interest rate decisions will politicize the Fed. Opening the door to congressionally requested audits would compromise the market's confidence in the bank.
Paul, a longstanding supporter of a new gold standard, made his case formally in his recently published book, End the Fed.
The 2008 presidential candidate's crusade is no longer a quixotic quest. He is a prime beneficiary of the grassroots anger this year against government bailouts for Wall Street.
First introduced in February, Paul's bill to audit the Fed has gained 317 co-sponsors, a shocking three-quarters of the House. The bill has not won over many Democrats in leadership, but it has picked up several committee chairmen, including Reps. Bart Gordon (Tenn.), Jim Oberstar (Minn.) and John Spratt (S.C.).
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), a prominent Paul ally on the bill, has provided a huge boost to the effort with his firebrand strain of liberal politics.
Grayson has publicly slammed the Fed, going so far as calling its top lobbyist a "K Street whore" before apologizing. Paul himself said the full force of "lobbyists for the Fed" is stacked against him.
As the popularity of the Paul-Grayson measure rose this year, Bernanke's fell.
Praised by many economists for taking the necessary steps to right the economy over the last year, his overall public approval has soured. A Rasmussen poll in November showed that just 21 percent of those surveyed thought Bernanke should be reappointed. Meanwhile, 79 percent of those polled said auditing the Fed is a good idea.
Republicans have jumped behind Paul, who stood out in last year's GOP presidential primary for his outspokenness against the Iraq war.
"There needs to be Fed independence and accountability for those dollars to at least look back at those decisions," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas).
But the political value is plain as Republicans argue the government is taking too large a role in the economy.
"The Fed becomes for Republicans a very convenient, always controversial, always misunderstood, very specific whipping boy that they can ride to potential victory in 2010 and 2012," said a Washington-based financial lobbyist.
Bernanke has the normally powerful Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) in his corner. But as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank couldn't eke out a compromise.
Frank rarely loses battles, but an attempt - with Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) - at a deal on the audit issue simply fell short at the committee level. Liberal activist Robert Borosage, who is campaigning against Bernanke's nomination for a second term, said the compromise effort was nothing more than "the establishment alternative."
The committee voted 43-26 in favor of Paul's amendment as 15 Democrats on the panel bucked Frank.
The vote drew a bright line between the senior Democrats atop the committee and the freshman and sophomore members.
"I think some of the newer members are in the most vulnerable districts," said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), a Paul-Grayson co-sponsor who instead joined Frank in voting against the Paul amendment. "They were certainly getting the calls that I was getting, and they were reading the politics differently."
Frank and Paul are both veterans of the House, and while they are on nearly opposite ends of the political spectrum, they have a mutual respect. The two have worked closely on an Internet gaming measure.
Many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill say that Frank, despite his partisan rhetoric, is a pragmatist.
"I never felt [Frank] was against me," Paul said.
Frank said last week the language wouldn't be changed when the House heads for the vote. Ten of the 13 House members on the Rules Committee are among Paul's backers, including Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).
"Absent some change in the way the public is reacting, I don't see any changes," Frank said. "I think there is this tension within the Republican Party. A lot of their people who traditionally have a lot of influence are troubled by this, but they may be cowed by the anger at the Fed."
In the Senate, Paul has found support from Sens. Jim DeMint, the conservative Republican from South Carolina, and Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont who calls himself a proud socialist.
A left-right coalition of interest groups on the outside is joining forces against Bernanke.
Bob Cusack contributed to this article.
Thanks Steve, good article.
thenewspaper
December 10, 2009
Motorists who receive minor parking or traffic tickets in Indianapolis, Indiana are being threatened with fines of up to $2500 if they attempt to take the ticket to court. A local attorney with the firm Roberts and Bishop was so outraged by what he saw in Marion County traffic court that he filed a class action suit yesterday seeking to have the practice banned as unconstitutional.
"The deck is stacked against the motorist," lawyer Paul K. Ogden wrote. "To penalize that person for seeking justice seems wrong. I know it is done for the purpose of discouraging baseless challenges to tickets and clogging the docket, but in the process you are also penalizing people who have a legitimate defense and want a chance to present it to the court."
The city made explicit the threat of additional fines for challenging parking tickets in a November 30 press release announcing a deal between Indianapolis and a private firm, T2 Systems, to hand over operations of a parking ticket court to increase municipal income.
"Using Six Sigma process improvement strategies, it is estimated that under this program the city may collect an additional $352,000 to $520,000 in parking citation revenue over the next 12 months," the city press release stated. "If citations are not paid prior to their scheduled hearing, the city may request a fine of up to $2500 per citation. Upon receiving a judgment for an unpaid citation, individuals responsible could be subject to collections actions or having their vehicle registration suspended."
In traffic court, Judge William Young has been making good on the threats by routinely siding with police officers in disputes and imposing fines of up to $500 on anyone who challenges a moving violation ticket, no matter how minor, and loses. Those who pay without going to court do not face this extra fine.
"Unfortunately what you have happen a lot of times is that judges aren't particularly worried about whether what they're doing may be violating the law as the odds of someone ever appealing a $400 traffic ticket is remote," Ogden wrote. "I see it all the time. Trial judges flouting the law knowing they are unlikely to ever be challenged on an appeal because the litigants can't afford it."
Ogden is specifically representing three motorists affected by court policies. Toshinao Ishii received a ticket for driving 63 MPH in a 55 zone in February. Had he paid the ticket without challenge, the fine would have been $150. After Judge Young sided with the police officer in court, Ishii was fined $550. Motorist Matthew Stone was told by his doctors not to wear a seatbelt over his chest as it could damage his cardiac pacemaker. He received a $25 ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. After court officials threatened Stone with a $500 fine, he gave up his intention of challenging the citation. Adam Lenkowsky, who did not receive a ticket, attempted to attend a traffic court proceeding on September 23, 2009. He was barred from the court, despite the state constitutional requirement that court proceedings be open.
Ogden argues the court's practices in the first two cases violate the excessive fines clause of the state constitution as well as the clause requiring that "all penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense."
infowars
Chuck Baldwin
December 11, 2009
According to an obscure report in the European Union Times (EUTimes.net), "Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued an order to his Northern Command's (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to `begin immediately' increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.
"According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks `numerous' meetings with his war council abut how best to manage the expected implosion of his Nation's banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military Analysts state is a `last ditch gambit' whose success is `far from certain.'"
The EU Times article continues by saying, "To the fears of Obama over the United States erupting into civil war once the full extent of the rape and pillaging of these peoples by their banks and government becomes known to them, grim evidence now shows the likelihood of this occurring much sooner than later."
The Times story goes on to say that there are "over 220 million American people armed to the teeth and ready to explode."
The Times article concludes by saying, "Though the coming civil war in the United States is being virtually ignored by their propaganda media, the same cannot be said of Russia, where leading Russian political analyst, Professor Igor Panarin has long warned that the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the US is heading for collapse."
Many of us would be inclined to pooh-pooh such a story, but then there is this column from Bloomberg.com entitled "Arming Goldman With Pistols Against Public," written by Alice Schroeder. According to Ms Schroeder:
"`I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,' said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank."
There is no doubt that the American people have good reason to despise these international banksters epitomized by Goldman Sachs. Even one of Goldman's poster-boys, Henry Paulson, US Treasury secretary and former Goldman CEO, admitted that the American people were fed up. Schroeder quotes Paulson as saying, during testimony to Congress last summer, "[People] were unhappy with the big discrepancies in wealth, but they at least believed in the system and in some form of market-driven capitalism. But if we had a complete meltdown, it could lead to people questioning the basis of the system."
Schroeder correctly opines, "There you have it. The bailout was meant to keep the curtain drawn on the way the rich make money, not from the free market, but from the lack of one. Goldman Sachs blew its cover when the firm's revenue from trading reached a record $27 billion in the first nine months of this year, and a public that was writhing in financial agony caught on that the profits earned on taxpayer capital were going to pay employee bonuses."
Schroeder concludes her column by saying, "And if the proles [proletariat: plebs, working class, peasants] really do appear brandishing pitchforks at the doors of Park Avenue and the gates of Round Hill Road, you can be sure that the Goldman guys and their families will be holed up in their safe rooms with their firearms."
So, do Wall Street and Russian analysts know something that we don't know? Is this why George W. Bush initiated USNORTHCOM to begin with? Is this why Barack Obama is beefing up USNORTHCOM? This would help explain the reports of all those potential detention camps that have been constructed (including the abandoned military installations that have refurbished security fences, guard towers, etc., around them). Has the American people's disgust with these crooks and thieves within the federal government and Wall Street reached a boiling point?
There is no question that people are angry, and for good reason.
The fraudulent financial policies of the Federal Reserve and its lackeys in the White House and Congress have literally bankrupted the country. Real unemployment is most likely over 20%. Taxes (along with costly fees, regulations, restrictions, penalties, mandates, etc.) at every level are going through the ceiling. America's jobs have been outsourced. Barack Obama continues G.W. Bush's irresponsibility, digging America deeper and deeper into foreign entanglements, at the cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. The IRS continues to harass and harangue honest citizens, squeezing them like the proverbial turnip. And now, add the insanity of a global climate treaty being hammered out in Copenhagen, and a universal health care bill being rammed through Congress, and the outlook is even gloomier.
I feel very comfortable in saying that the usurpations of power, the encroachments upon liberty, and the arrogant tax-and-spend policies emanating from Washington, D.C., and Wall Street these days are far more egregious than what George Washington and the boys were enduring in 1775-76 at the hands of the British Crown. There is no doubt in my mind that if Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Sam Adams were alive today, they would have given cause for the Goldman Sachs banksters to retreat to their bunkers years ago!
The fact is, we do need a revolution! But not a revolution of anarchy and pitchforks. (The history of France should be ample evidence of the futility of this strategy.) We need a revolution of the individual states: to reclaim their sovereignty and fight for the liberties of their sovereigns (We the People). That is exactly what our forefathers did in `76.
America's founding document (the Declaration of Independence) declares that our states are "free and independent." And so they are. We are not "one nation" with one all-powerful central government. We are a confederation of nation-states, united in a voluntary union, with each State reserving to itself the power and authority of self-determination, and ceding to the federal government limited, specifically delineated duties and limitations-limitations that have been totally ignored to the point that, for all intents and purposes, our once-great constitutional republic has been thoroughly expunged. Therefore, it is NOW time for the states to stand up to this meddlesome, every-growing tyranny that is known as Washington, D.C., and defend the rights and liberties of their citizens!
What Dr. Ed Vieira (an attorney with 4 earned degrees from Harvard, who has successfully argued cases before the US Supreme Court) wrote a few weeks ago should serve as a template for every State governor and legislature that truly cares about liberty. See Ed's column at:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin201.htm
As Vieira says, the states should resurrect their militias. Many-if not all-states have the legal authority for such entities in their constitutions. In some states they are called the State Guard. Some plainly use the word "militia." Whatever they are called, they need to be activated. And all that is necessary for this to be accomplished is the order of the governor. It's that simple!
And as Vieira said, states need to adopt an alternative currency-including, and most especially, gold and silver. In other words, they need to develop their own private economies, complete with their own banks and exchange mediums. They also need to reject the multinational agribusiness and develop their own in-State agricultural and energy businesses.
I would dare say that the first State that determines to follow Vieira's sagacious counsel (and rumblings of this have already begun in states such as Alaska, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, New Hampshire, Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc.) would have so many liberty-loving patriots flock there that its economy would explode with prosperity-resulting in a domino effect of many other states following suit-and the revolution that this country so desperately needs would indeed take place. Furthermore, such a revolution would be constitutional, lawful, moral, and, yes, in compliance with the laws of Nature and of Nature's God.
In the meantime, is Barack Obama really worried about civil war? He might be. It is my observation that Washington politicians and bureaucrats are the most paranoid people on the planet. The problem is-as with most power-hungry Machiavellians-their paranoia often translates into more oppression and less liberty for the citizenry. And if this is true, it simply means that the states need to hurry up and do what needs to be done.
by The Associated Press
npr
December 11, 2009, 10:45 pm ET
The U.S. government's move this fall to cut off funding to ACORN was unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Friday, handing the embattled group a legal victory.
U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued the preliminary injunction against the government, saying it's in the public's interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.
ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress' decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an individual organization.
Gershon said in her ruling that ACORN had raised a "fundamental issue of separation of powers. They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt."
Bill Quigley, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of ACORN and two affiliates, said the decision sends a sharp message to Congress that it can't single out an individual or organization without due process.
"It's a resounding victory for ACORN," he said. "I'd be surprised if the government decides to appeal."
ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, describes itself as an advocate for low-income and minority homebuyers and residents in communities served by its offices around the country. Critics say it has violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.
The law that halted ACORN's federal funding took effect Oct. 1 and was extended Oct. 31. It was set to either expire or be extended again on Dec. 18.
ACORN's lawsuit was filed in federal court in Brooklyn and sought reinstatement of the funds. Quigley said millions of dollars in funds should begin to flow again to ACORN next week. The judge said the "public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies."
ACORN has been dogged by allegations of voter-registration fraud and embezzlement.
Several of its offices were the subject of an embarrassing hidden-camera sting in which ACORN employees were shown advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp to lie about her profession and launder her earnings. The videos sparked a political uproar, with Republicans trying to use the group's troubles to portray Democrats as corrupt.
The group's lawsuit named the U.S. government, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the secretary of the Treasury as defendants.
Justice Department spokeswoman Beverley Lumpkin said the agency was reviewing the decision and declined to comment further.
"Today's ruling is a victory for the constitutional rights for all Americans and for the citizens who work through ACORN to improve their communities and promote responsible lending and homeownership," ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis said in a statement.
Ron Paul
Infowars
December 13, 2009
Before the US House of Representatives, December 9, 2009
Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk. Money makes the transaction process far easier. Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes.
This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties: it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for every-day transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange.
Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people. Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce. It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments. A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government. Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses.
At this country's founding, there was no government-controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint's operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades.
On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: "Don't steal - the government hates competition." Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally-instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to reintroduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.
The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts. States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws. We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender. Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender.
Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency. Gresham's Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase: bad money drives out good money. An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold. Each ounce of the king's gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much "money" to spend on building castles and raising armies. As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded. We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the US government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver. The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation.
These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation. Most of the merchants and peasants who received this devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency. By the time they received the new currency, prices had long since doubled, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit.
In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham's Law no longer holds. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society. Merchants would have been free to reject the king's coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight.
The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, which hates competition. The responsibility to protect contracts is of no interest to the government.
The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage. There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins. As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and with the supposed aim of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency.
The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement. As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases. The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals.
Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many states. Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry. Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4% per year. Sales taxes in many states can take away 8% or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver.
In conclusion, Madame Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies and cosponsor the Free Competition in Currency Act.
Patrick Henningsen
infowars
December 16, 2009
While climate protestors dressed as clowns lined the outer perimeter of the UN Climate Summit in at Copenhagen's Bella Centre, another three-ringed media circus was taking place inside.
Large snow falls across Europe have made for an appropriate backdrop to the largest-ever international meeting ever to combat global warming. Earlier in the week saw the arrivals of a number of high-flying celebrities and politicians. President Obama, Tony Blair and Al Gore all arrived amongst great media interest, each hoped to reignite what has been described by many as a conference teetering on the edge of total failure. In the latest example of delegates and press becoming even further detatched from reality, hundreds scurried through the Centre's hallways in the hopes to get a glimpse of the failing conference's `Last Action Hero' and California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The former actor's appearance signals the final PR push by proponents of the Globalist elite to leave Copenhagen with some form of an international agreement to implement the monetisation of the earth's carbon to be enforced by a new structure of global government.
The Headline in today's UK Independent Newspaper read At Last, a ray of light amid the gloom - Arnie's in town. So overcome with celebrity intoxication of Gov Schwarzenegger's appearance, fawning politicians and press could hardly bottle their glee. Gordon Campbell, the premier of British Columbia gushed, "He's an action hero in the movies and a climate action hero for the globe". The article continues to describe how the Governor admitted his previous trips to Copenhagen had been for "movie promotions and bodybuilding and weightlifting seminars", rather than a determination to secure the future of the planet. Schwarzenegger added that "Movements begin with people, not governments," and urged the UN to organise another summit to "discuss localised ways of fighting climate change."
This movement Schwarzenegger is speaking of is, of course, is an international call to arms to fight `climate change'. Clearly not designed and wholly executed by grass roots green activists and anarchist climate action groups, one might ask exactly who and what is the driving force behind this movement. Here's a clue. we've all heard(to great pains) of Wall Steet's notorious credit default swaps and subprime mortgages, but what about "carbon default swaps" and "subprime carbon offsets"? Global banks, multinational energy companies and signatories of the Copenhagen treaty seek to create a global "Cap and Trade" scheme that would drive what Commodity Futures Trading commissioner Bart Chilton sees as a $2 trillion market, "the biggest of any [commodities] derivatives product in the next five years." Clearly a recipe for fraud and fiat money laundering on a scale which mankind has never witnessed before.
Arnold is no stranger to Cap and Trade. It was revealed in 2003 by award-winning investigative reporter Greg Palast how gubernatorial candidate Schwarzenegger was part of a larger scheme to help Enron and other power companies avoid paying back billions in illicit profits by replacing then California Gov. Gray Davis. In a 2002 lawsuit filed by former California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, Enron was cited for carrying off their profits by fraudulent reporting of sales transactions, megawatt "laundering," and creating "fake power delivery scheduling". In total some $9 billion were generated in profits, as Enron caused the power shortages in California and singlehandedly rinsed consumers for millions of dollars- and the federal government left to stand back watching from a safe distance. To this date, Gov. Schwarzenegger has never denied his May 17, 2001 meeting with Enron's Kenneth Lay and disgraced junk-bond peddler Mike Milken at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, a meeting which was allegedly part of a plan to recall Gov. Davis and replace him with someone who would assist in keeping the legal heat off Lay and his cronies.
In reality, the idea of `Carbon Trading' - which is the device that would drive forward "Cap and Trade" policies and numerous global taxes, was invented by none other than Ken Lay, whose then company Enron would currently be one of the prime beneficiaries in the global alternative energy market. Perhaps Al Gore himself would have placed a call to Ken Lay to congratulate the company that did to much so spark the CO2 reduction debate within the industry in the 1980s and 1990s.
Just as today's carbon traders and carbon off-set firms are lapping up media kudos and billions of investment capital in anticipation of a globally binding agreement to `fight climate change', ERON's chief Ken Lay and colleagues became the toast of Wall Street as Enron innovations in creative book-keeping, claiming profits from programs not yet started and manipulating energy markets through brokering, futures contracts and other exotic financial instruments.
The UN's COP15 folly will come to a close in a few days and with any luck, the world will be spared any binding draconian treaty which is underpinned by is dodgy alarmist science.
Webster G. Tarpley
Infowars
December 14, 2009
Obama declared all-out war on Pakistan during his December 1, 2009, West Point speech.
Obama's West Point speech of December 1 represents far more than the obvious brutal escalation in Afghanistan - it is nothing less than a declaration of all-out war by the United States against Pakistan. This is a brand-new war, a much wider war now targeting Pakistan, a country of 160 million people armed with nuclear weapons. In the process, Afghanistan is scheduled to be broken up. This is no longer the Bush Cheney Afghan war we have known in the past. This is something immensely bigger: the attempt to destroy the Pakistani central government in Islamabad and to sink that country into a chaos of civil war, Balkanization, subdivision and general mayhem. The chosen strategy is to massively export the Afghan civil war into Pakistan and beyond, fracturing Pakistan along ethnic lines. It is an oblique war using fourth-generation or guerrilla warfare techniques to assail a country which the United States and its associates in aggression are far too weak to attack directly. In this war, the Taliban are employed as US proxies. This aggression against Pakistan is Obama's attempt to wage the Great Game against the hub of Central Asia and Eurasia or more generally.
US DETERRED FROM OPEN WAR BY PAKISTAN'S NUKES
The ongoing civil war in Afghanistan is merely a pretext, a cover story designed to provide the United States with a springboard for a geopolitical destabilization campaign in the entire region which cannot be publicly avowed. In the blunt cynical world of imperialist aggression ? la Bush and Cheney, a pretext might have been manufactured to attack Pakistan directly. But Pakistan is far too large and the United States is far too weak and too bankrupt for such an undertaking. In addition, Pakistan is a nuclear power, possessing atomic bombs and medium range missiles needed to deliver them. What we are seeing is a novel case of nuclear deterrence in action. The US cannot send an invasion fleet or set up airbases nearby because Pakistani nuclear weapons might destroy them. To this extent, the efforts of Ali Bhutto and A.Q. Khan to provide Pakistan a deterrent capability have been vindicated. But the US answer is to find ways to attack Pakistan below the nuclear threshold, and even below the conventional threshold. This is where the tactic of exporting the Afghan civil war to Pakistan comes in.
The architect of the new Pakistani civil war is US Special Forces General Stanley McChrystal, who organized the infamous network of US torture chambers in Iraq. McChrystal's specific credential for the Pakistani civil war is his role in unleashing the Iraqi civil war of Sunnis versus Shiites by creating "al Qaeda in Iraq" under the infamous and now departed double agent Zarkawi. If Iraqi society as a whole had lined up against the US invaders, the occupiers would have soon been driven out. The counter-gang known as "Al Qaeda in Iraq" avoided that possibility by killing Shiites, and thus calling forth massive retaliation in the form of a civil war. These tactics are drawn from the work of British General Frank Kitson, who wrote about them in his book Low Intensity Warfare. If the United States possesses a modern analog to Heinrich Himmler of the SS, it is surely General McChrystal, Obama's hand-picked choice. McChrystal's superior, Gen Petraeus, wants to be the new Field Marshal von Hindenburg - in other words, he wants to be the next US president.
The vulnerability of Pakistan which the US and its NATO associates are seeking to exploit can best be understood using a map of the prevalent ethnic groups of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and India. Most maps show only political borders which date back to the time of British imperialism, and therefore fail to reflect the principal ethnic groups of the region. For the purposes of this analysis, we must start by recognizing a number of groups. First is the Pashtun people, located mainly in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then we have the Baluchis, located primarily in Pakistan and Iran. The Punjabis inhabit Pakistan, as do the Sindhis. The Bhutto family came from Sind.
PASHTUNISTAN
The US and NATO strategy begins with the Pashtuns, the ethnic group from which the so-called Taliban are largely drawn. The Pashtuns represent a substantial portion of the population of Afghanistan, but here they are alienated from the central government under President Karzai in Kabul, even though the US puppet Karzai passes for a Pashtun himself. The issue involves the Afghan National Army, which was created by the United States after the 2001 invasion. The Afghan officer corps are largely Tajiks drawn from the Northern Alliance that allied with the United States against the Pashtun Talibans. The Tajiks speak Dari, sometimes known as eastern Persian. Other Afghan officers come from the Hazara people. The important thing is that the Pashtuns feel shut out.
The US strategy can best be understood as a deliberate effort at persecuting, harassing, antagonizing, strafing, repressing, and murdering the Pashtuns. The additional 40,000 US and NATO forces which Obama demands for Afghanistan will concentrate in Helmand province and other areas where the Pashtuns are in the majority. The net effect will be to increase the rebellion of the fiercely independent Pashtuns against Kabul and the foreign occupation, and at the same time to push many of these newly radicalized mujaheddin fighters across the border into Pakistan, where they can wage war against the central government in Islamabad. US aid will flow directly to war lords and drug lords, increasing the centrifugal tendencies.
On the Pakistani side, the Pashtuns are also alienated from the central government. Islamabad and the army are seen by them as too much the creatures of the Punjabis, with some input from the Sindhis. On the Pakistani side of the Pashtun territory, US operations include wholesale assassinations from unmanned aerial vehicles or drones, murders by CIA and reportedly Blackwater snipers, plus blind terrorist massacres like the recent ones in Peshawar which the Pakistani Taliban are blaming on Blackwater, acting as a subcontractor of the CIA. These actions are intolerable and humiliating for a proud sovereign state. Every time the Pashtuns are clobbered, they blame the Punjabis in Islamabad for the dirty deals with the US that allow this to happen. The most immediate goal of Obama's Afghan-Pakistan escalation is therefore to promote a general secessionist uprising of the entire Pashtun people under Taliban auspices, which would already have the effect of destroying the national unity of both Kabul and Islamabad.
BALUCHISTAN
The other ethnic group which the Obama strategy seeks to goad into insurrection and secession is the Baluchis. The Baluchis have their own grievances against the Iranian central government in Tehran, which they see as being dominated by Persians. An integral part of the new Obama policy is to expand the deadly flights of the CIA Predators and other assassination drones into Baluchistan. One pretext for this is the report, peddled for example by Michael Ware of CNN, that Osama bin Laden and his MI-6 sidekick Zawahiri are both holed up in the Baluchi city of Quetta, where they operate as the kingpins of the so-called "Quetta Shura." Blackwater teams cannot be far behind. In Iranian Baluchistan, the CIA is funding the murderous Jundullah organization, which was recently denounced by Teheran for the murder of a number of top officials of the Iranian Pasdaran Revolutionary guards. The rebellion of Baluchistan would smash the national unity of both Pakistan and Iran, thus helping to destroy two of the leading targets of US policy.
OBAMA'S RUBE GOLDBERG STRATEGY
Even Chris Matthews of MSNBC, normally a devoted acolyte of Obama, pointed out that the US strategy as announced at West Point very much resembles a Rube Goldberg contraption. (In the real world, "al Qaeda" is of course the CIA's own Arab and terrorist legion.) In the world of official US myth, the enemy is supposed to be "Al Qaeda." But, even according to the US government, there are precious few "Al Qaeda" fighters left in Afghanistan. Why then, asked Matthews, concentrate US forces in Afghanistan where "Al Qaeda" is not, rather than in Pakistan where "Al Qaeda" is now alleged to be?
One elected official who has criticized this incongruous mismatch is Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who said in a television interview that `Pakistan, in the border region near Afghanistan, is perhaps the epicenter [of global terrorism], although al Qaida is operating all over the world, in Yemen, in Somalia, in northern Africa, affiliates in Southeast Asia. Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That's not next door to Waziristan. So I'm wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn't make any sense to me.' Indeed. `The Wisconsin Democrat also warned that U.S. policy in Afghanistan could actually push terrorists and extremists into Pakistan and, as a consequence, further destabilize the region: "You know, I asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and Mr. Holbrooke, our envoy over there, a while ago, you know, is there a risk that if we build up troops in Afghanistan, that will push more extremists into Pakistan?" he told ABC. "They couldn't deny it, and this week, Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan specifically said that his concern about the buildup is that it will drive more extremists into Pakistan, so I think it's just the opposite, that this boots-on-the-ground approach alienates the Afghan population and specifically encourages the Taliban to further coalesce with Al Qaida, which is the complete opposite of our national security interest."'1 Of course, this is all intentional and motivated by US imperialist raison d'?tat. .
MALICK: "DID OBAMA DECLARE WAR ON PAKISTAN?"
Obama's speech did everything possible to blur the distinction between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are after all two sovereign states and both members of the United Nations in their own right. Ibrahim Sajid Malick, US correspondent for Samaa TV, one of the largest Pakistan television networks, called attention to this ploy: `Speaking to a hall full of cadets at the US Military Academy of West Point, President Barack Obama almost seemed like he might be declaring war on Pakistan. Every time he mentioned Afghanistan, Pakistan preceded mention.. Sitting at the back benches of the hall at one point I almost jumped out of my chair when he said: "the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them." I was shocked because a succession of American officials recently confirmed that the Pakistani arsenal is secure.'2 This article is entitled "Did Obama Declare War On Pakistan?", and we can chalk the question mark up to diplomatic discretion. During congressional hearings involving General McChrystal and US Ambassador Eikenberry, Afghanistan and Pakistan were simply fused into one sinister entity known as "Afpak" or even "Afpakia."
In the summer of 2007, Obama, coached by Zbigniew Brzezinski and other controllers, was the originator of the unilateral US policy of using Predator drones for political assassinations inside Pakistan. This assassination policy is now being massively escalated along with the troop strength: "Two weeks ago in Pakistan, Central Intelligence Agency sharpshooters killed eight people suspected of being militants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and wounded two others in a compound that was said to be used for terrorist training.. The White House has authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.'s drone program in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas, officials said this week, to parallel the president's decision.to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. American officials are talking with Pakistan about the possibility of striking in Baluchistan for the first time - a controversial move since it is outside the tribal areas - because that is where Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to hide."3 The US is now training more Predator operators than combat pilots.
BLACKWATER ACCUSED IN PESHAWAR MASSACRE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN
The CIA, the Pentagon, and their various contractors among the private military firms are now on a murder spree across Pakistan, attacking peaceful villages and wedding parties, among other targets. Blackwater, now calling itself Xe Services and Total Intelligence Solutions, is heavily involved: `At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, "snatch and grabs" of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan, an investigation by The Nation has found. The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus.' 4
As shocking as Scahill's report is, it must nevertheless be viewed as a limited hangout, since there is no mention of the persistent charges that a large part of the deadly bombings in Peshawar and other Pakistani cities are being carried out by Blackwater, as this news item suggests: "ISLAMABAD Oct. 29 (Xinhua) - Chief of Taliban movement in Pakistan Hakimullah Mehsud has blamed the controversial American private firm Blackwater for the bomb blast in Peshawar which killed 108 people, local news agency NNI reported Thursday."5 This was blind terrorism designed for maximum slaughter, especially among women and children.
US ALSO AT WAR WITH UZBEKISTAN?
Scahill's report also suggests that US black ops have reached into Uzbekistan, a post-Soviet country of 25 million which borders Afghanistan to the north: `In addition to planning drone strikes and operations against suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Pakistan for both JSOC and the CIA, the Blackwater team in Karachi also helps plan missions for JSOC inside Uzbekistan against the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, according to the military intelligence source. Blackwater does not actually carry out the operations, he said, which are executed on the ground by JSOC forces. "That piqued my curiosity and really worries me because I don't know if you noticed but I was never told we are at war with Uzbekistan," he said. "So, did I miss something, did Rumsfeld come back into power?"' 6 Such are the ways of hope and change.
The role of US intelligence in fomenting the Baluchistan rebellion for the purpose of breaking Pakistan apart is also confirmed by Professor Chossudovsky: `Already in 2005, a report by the US National Intelligence Council and the CIA forecast a "Yugoslav-like fate" for Pakistan "in a decade with the country riven by civil war, bloodshed and inter-provincial rivalries, as seen recently in Baluchistan." (Energy Compass, 2 March 2005). According to the NIC-CIA, Pakistan is slated to become a "failed state" by 2015, "as it would be affected by civil war, complete Talibanization and struggle for control of its nuclear weapons". (Quoted by former Pakistan High Commissioner to UK, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Times of India, 13 February 2005).. Washington favors the creation of a "Greater Baluchistan" which would integrate the Baluch areas of Pakistan with those of Iran and possibly the Southern tip of Afghanistan, thereby leading to a process of political fracturing in both Iran and Pakistan.'7 The Iranians, for their part, are adamant that the US is committing acts of war on their territory in Baluchistan: "TEHRAN, Oct. 29 (Xinhua) - Iran's Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said .that there are some concrete evidences showing U.S. involvement in recent deadly bomb explosions in the country's Sistan-Baluchistan province, the official IRNA news agency reported. .. The deadly suicide attack by Sunni rebel group Jundallah (God's soldiers) occurred on Oct. 18 in Iran's Sistan-Baluchistan province near the border with Pakistan when the local officials were preparing a ceremony in which the local tribal leaders were to meet the military commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).8
US GOAL: CUT THE PAKISTAN ENERGY CORRIDOR BETWEEN IRAN, CHINA
Why would the United States be so obsessed with the breakup of Pakistan? One reason is that Pakistan is traditionally a strategic ally and economic partner of China, a country which the US and British are determined to oppose and contain on the world stage. Specifically, Pakistan could function as an energy corridor linking the oil fields of Iran and possibly even Iraq with the Chinese market by means of a pipeline that would cross the Himalayas above Kashmir. This is the so-called "Pipelinestan" issue. This would give China a guaranteed land-based oil supply not subject to Anglo-American naval superiority, while also cutting out the 12,000 mile tanker route around the southern rim of Asia. As a recent news report points out: `Beijing has been pressuring Tehran for China's participation in the pipeline project and Islamabad, while willing to sign a bilateral agreement with Iran, has also welcomed China's participation. According to an estimate, such a pipeline would result in Pakistan getting $200 million to $500 million annually in transit fees alone. China and Pakistan are already working on a proposal for laying a trans-Himalayan pipeline to carry Middle Eastern crude oil to western China. Pakistan provides China the shortest possible route to import oil from the Gulf countries.. The pipeline, which would run from the southern Pakistan port of Gwadar and follow the Karakoram highway, would be partly financed by Beijing. The Chinese are also building a refinery at Gwadar. Imports using the pipeline would allow Beijing to reduce the portion of its oil shipped through the narrow and unsafe Strait of Malacca, which at present carries up to 80% of its oil imports. Islamabad also plans to extend a railway track to China to connect it to Gwadar. The port is also considered the likely terminus of proposed multibillion-dollar gas pipelines reaching from the South Pars fields in Iran or from Qatar, and from the Daulatabad fields in Turkmenistan for export to world markets. Syed Fazl-e-Haider, "Pakistan, Iran sign gas pipeline deal," Asia Times, 27 May 2009.9 This is the normal, peaceful economic progress and cooperation which the Anglo-Americans are hell-bent on stopping.
Oil and natural gas pipelines from Iran across Pakistan and into China would carry energy resources into the Middle Kingdom, and would also serve as conveyor belts for Chinese economic influence into the Middle East. This would make Anglo-American dominion increasingly tenuous in a part of the world which London and Washington have traditionally sought to control as part of their overall strategy of world domination.
US domestic propaganda is already portraying Pakistan as the new home base of terrorism. The four pathetic patsies going on trial for an alleged plot to bomb a synagogue in the Riverdale neighborhood of the Bronx in New York City had been carefully sheep-dipped to associate them with the shadowy and suspicious Jaish-e-Mohammad, allegedly a Pakistani terrorist group. The same goes for the five Moslems from Northern Virginia who have just been arrested near Lahore in Pakistan.
INDIA AND IRAN
As far as the neighboring states are concerned, India under the unfortunate Manmohan Singh seems to be accepting the role of continental dagger against Pakistan and China on behalf of the US and the British. This is a recipe for a colossal tragedy. India should rather make permanent peace with Pakistan by vacating the Vale of Kashmir, where 95% of the population is Moslem and would like to join Pakistan. Without a solution to this issue, there will be no peace on the subcontinent.
Regarding Iran, George Friedman, the head of the Stratfor outlet of the US intelligence community recently told Russia Today that the great novelty of the next decade will be an alliance of the United States with Iran directed against Russia. In that scenario, Iran would cut off oil to China altogether. That is the essence of the Brzezinski strategy. It is urgent that the antiwar movement in the United States regroup and begin a new mobilization against the cynical hypocrisy of Obama's war and escalation policy, which suprasses even the war crimes of the Bush-Cheny neocons. In this new phase of the Great Game, the stakes are incalculable.
for those who are interested, do a little research on Mr. Tarpley, you will find he knows his stuff.
Gerald Warner
London Telegraph
Friday, Dec 18th, 2009
When your attempt at recreating the Congress of Vienna with a third-rate cast of extras turns into a shambles, when the data with which you have tried to terrify the world is daily exposed as ever more phoney, when the blatant greed and self-interest of the participants has become obvious to all beholders, when those pesky polar bears just keep increasing and multiplying - what do you do?
No contest: stop issuing three rainforests of press releases every day, change the heading to James Bond-style "Do not distribute" and "leak" a single copy, in the knowledge that human nature is programmed to interest itself in anything it imagines it is not supposed to see, whereas it would bin the same document unread if it were distributed openly.
After that, get some unbiased, neutral observer, such as the executive director of Greenpeace, to say: "This is the single most important piece of paper in the world today." Unfortunately, the response of all intelligent people will be to fall about laughing; but it was worth a try - everybody loves a tryer - and the climate alarmists are no longer in a position to pick and choose their tactics.
But boy! Was this crass, or what? The apocalyptic document revealing that even if the Western leaders hand over all the climate Danegeld demanded of them, appropriately at the venue of Copenhagen, the earth will still fry on a 3C temperature rise is the latest transparent scare tactic to extort more cash from taxpayers. The danger of this ploy, of course, is that people might say "If we are going to be chargrilled anyway, what is the point of handing over billions - better to get some serious conspicuous consumption in before the ski slopes turn into saunas."
nytimes
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR
Published: December 21, 2009
WASHINGTON - After a long day of acid, partisan debate, Senate Democrats held ranks early Monday in a dead-of-night procedural vote that proved they had locked in the decisive margin needed to pass a far-reaching overhaul of the nation's health care system.
Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, after the vote early Monday. The last Democratic holdout, he announced his support of the bill on Saturday.
Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times
Senators John Kerry, Harry Reid and Charles E. Schumer after the vote.
The roll was called shortly after 1 a.m., with Washington still snowbound after a weekend blizzard, and the Senate voted on party lines to cut off a Republican filibuster of a package of changes to the health care bill by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.
The vote was 60 to 40 - a tally that is expected to be repeated four times as further procedural hurdles are cleared in the days ahead, and then once more in a dramatic, if predictable, finale tentatively scheduled for 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
Both parties hailed the vote as seismic.
Democrats said it showed them poised to reshape the health system after decades of failed attempts.
"Health care in America ought to be a right, not a privilege," said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. "Since the time of Harry Truman, every Congress, Republican and Democrat, every president, Democrat and Republican, have at least thought about doing this. Some actually tried."
Republicans said that the bill was fatally flawed and that voters would retaliate against Democrats at the polls in November.
"It's obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the Senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1 a.m., is insisting that it be passed before Christmas - because they don't want the American people to know what's in it," said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.
Mr. Alexander added, "Our friends on the Democratic side seem determined to pursue a political kamikaze mission toward a historic mistake."
Each side blamed the other for the extraordinary series of votes - at dawn Saturday, after midnight Monday, at dawn again on Tuesday, at 1 p.m. on Wednesday and finally on Christmas Eve, when most Americans will be sequestered for the holiday.
The Democrats charged the Republicans with obstinately throwing every procedural obstacle in their way, including filibusters and the full 30 hours of debate allowed under the rules after each filibuster is broken by a vote of 60 senators.
The Republicans charged the Democrats with recklessly rushing to adopt a dizzyingly complex 2,700-page bill that would affect virtually every American, and would reshape one-sixth of the nation's economy at a cost of $871 billion over 10 years.
"If the Republicans want to exercise every single right they have under the rules, they can keep us here until Christmas Eve, no doubt about it," said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. "But to what end, I ask? To what end? We're going to have the vote at 1 a.m. that requires 60 votes, and then why stay here until Christmas Eve to do what they know we're going to do?"
Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said he and his colleagues had a duty to fight until the last minute.
"There is nothing inevitable about this," Mr. Cornyn said. "The only thing I think inevitable about it is in the light of the unpopularity of what is being jammed down the throats of the American people, there will be a day of accounting. We don't know when that day of accounting will be. Perhaps the first day of accounting will be Election Day 2010."
Adoption of the legislation is not a certainty.
The Senate bill, once completed, must be reconciled with the bill adopted by the House last month, and there are substantial differences between the two. The House measure, for instance, includes a government-run health insurance plan, or public option, that was dropped from the Senate bill.
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said the House would not just accept the Senate bill. And some Senate Democrats have warned that they could turn against the bill if changes made during negotiations with the House are not to their liking.
Given the late hour, the White House did not immediately issue a statement after the Senate vote.
The health care legislation, which President Obama has called his top domestic priority, seeks to extend health benefits to more than 30 million people who are currently uninsured. The bill would require nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance, or pay financial penalties for failing to do so, and it would provide federal subsidies to help moderate-income Americans buy private coverage.
About half of the people who would gain coverage, some 15 million, would do so through a broad expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for low-income Americans, and growth in the Children's Health Insurance Program.
To pay for the new coverage, the bill would impose an array of fees and taxes, including an increase in the payroll tax for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 and a new excise tax on high-cost insurance polices. The bill also calls for major reductions in government spending, by slowing the growth of Medicare.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the $871 billion cost of the bill would be more than offset by the new revenues and cuts in spending, so that it would reduce future federal budget deficits by $132 billion between 2010 and 2019.
The outcome of the Monday morning vote was effectively decided on Saturday, when Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, the last holdout, announced that he would support the bill and Mr. Reid unveiled his final "manager's" package of changes. Mr. Reid's amendment included provisions aimed at winning over Mr. Nelson and others. Republicans derided the changes as akin to bribery.
On Sunday, any lingering doubts were put to rest. Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, who voted in favor of several Republican amendments to the health care bill, issued a statement saying he would support the measure. And Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who had been in intense talks with the White House, issued a statement saying she would vote no.
But the late-night session was not without drama, thanks to the tremendous snowstorm on Saturday that buried much of the Northeast, and limited the travel options of some senators caught away from Washington. With Amtrak experiencing severe delays, a government plane was sent to retrieve Senators Frank R. Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrats.
Because the Democrats nominally control the votes of 60 senators - 58 Democrats and two independents aligned with them - which is the precise number needed to overcome filibusters, the absence of even one lawmaker would have changed the outcome of the vote and would probably have forced Democrats to miss their deadline of adopting the health care legislation by Christmas.
The most senior senator, Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, who turned 92 years old last month and uses a wheelchair, was invoked by both sides as a victim of the parliamentary warfare that has the Senate convening at all hours of the day and night.
The 1 a.m. Monday vote was on a motion to cut off debate on Mr. Reid's manager's package. A simple majority vote to approve the package is scheduled for roughly 7 a.m. on Tuesday.
Houston Chronicle
AUSTIN - The state will destroy an estimated 5.3 million blood samples legally collected from newborns but kept without parental consent under a federal lawsuit settlement announced Tuesday.
The number of newborns involved is unclear because multiple samples are received from each by the Texas Department of State Health Services, department spokeswoman Allison Lowery said.
Typically, two samples are taken from each child, but there could be more, she said. The disputed samples cover a period of about seven years starting in 2002. The state conducts newborn screening to detect disorders or illnesses.
"This is about consent," said lawyer Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project. The group, after discovering the agency had been keeping the samples without permission, sued on behalf of parents in federal district court in San Antonio.
The Health Department said in a statement it would destroy the samples - retained as blood spot cards - that it received and stored before legislation took effect last May allowing their retention. The legislation allows parents, guardians or managing conservators to opt out of having the blood retained.
Lowery said the agency is seeking permission from fewer than 400 parents to preserve their babies' samples because the children tested positive for rare disorders.
Collected before lawsuit
She said samples have been securely stored at the Texas A&M Health Science Center School of Rural Public Health.
That institution said in a statement that all the blood spots at the center were collected before the lawsuit and are subject to a joint resolution between the center and the agency to destroy them.
Andrea Beleno, an Austin mother who was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said she was pleased with the settlement.
"There's no financial gain for any of the plaintiffs," Beleno said. "Basically, what we wanted to do was to make sure that our children's privacy was being protected and that the state is respecting our rights, because if we don't stand up and make the government do that, nobody's going to do it for us."
Parents from San Antonio and Houston also were part of the lawsuit, which was filed against Commissioner David Lakey of the Department of State Health Services and Dr. Nancy Dickey, president of the Texas A&M Health Science Center and vice chancellor for health affairs of the Texas A&M System.
"The Texas A&M Health Science Center is glad that we have reached agreement in order to settle the lawsuit," Dickey's office said in a statement. "We are saddened, however, that a superb database has been lost. This database could have continued to shed light on causes of congenital birth defects and potentially led to preventive measures saving thousands of infants and their families the distress these defects cause."
The parents' lawsuit said there was no legal authority to keep the blood indefinitely without consent.
Harrington said his group became aware the blood samples were being stored after being called by a reporter from the Austin American-Statesman. Beleno said she first read about it in the newspaper.
Detailed conditions
Under the settlement, Harrington said, all blood specimens must be destroyed unless the state gets written permission to retain and use them. The destruction must occur within 120 days of the lawsuit being dismissed with the settlement, which occurred Dec. 14.
The agency also must post information on its newborn screening Web site, including a list of all research projects for which it has provided newborn-screening blood specimens.
In addition, the agency must inform the parents who sued how their children's blood was used and any financial transactions involving the specimens, Harrington said.
Pledges compliance
The Texas Department of Health said in its statement that it is complying with the new law and "will continue to be very sensitive to the privacy concerns of parents and the confidentiality of all medical information."
"If parents don't object, the department saves the samples for uses allowed under the new legislation - primarily quality assurance and control purposes to ensure accuracy in lab testing and because the samples could provide an invaluable resource in researching new or more effective ways to prevent, diagnose and treat serious medical conditions that affect Texas children, including leukemia and birth defects," the agency said in its statement.
The Blood of Patriots and Tyrants
I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want everyone to remember why they need us!
How impudent we Americans have become, with our "tea parties", marching on Washington, demanding smaller government, trying to abolish the private Federal Reserve, demanding government get out of our lives, becoming tired of endless war. Who do we think we are?
Well, they're not going to let us get away with it. They're going to remind us why we need them. Why they must take more control. Why we need to be degraded and humiliated further. Oh, and they want to bomb more Muslim countries. That will make them stop participating in this government-run black op. Plus, everybody loves a good bombing. It looks like oh so much fun watching it live on Fox News, and you never have to worry about the controlled media showing the mangled bodies of women and children and elderly, who deserve to die anyway because they're not Americans. And when the families and friends of the dead, or the fortunate survivors of our bombs, decide to seek vengeance for the murder of their loved ones, well they'll just be more terrorists that we have to kill in order to keep the heimat safe.
Meanwhile, it wasn't degrading and humiliating enough for the TSA to pull grandma out of line to make her take off her shoes to make sure she's not another shoe bomber, or have your teenage daughter or your girlfriend or wife felt up by some tax feeding pervert, no. The government put on a show for you Christmas day, and now they will punish you for their crime. They will make you miserable for their purposeful negligence. You or I aren't allowed to bring a fish hook on board a plane - and if the statist shills in the media have their way, you won't be allowed to bring perfume or cologne on board either (this is all liberals' fault, don't you know?) - yet this patsy was able to board with explosives that are easily detectable, partially contained inside a syringe. You or I need how many forms of ID to get on a plane, yet this person was escorted past security by an unknown person, without any identification or passport, on an international flight. There are well over 1.3 million people on the TSA no-fly list, who have not been charged with a crime, yet this person, with supposed terror connections - his own father throws him under the bus - was on a watch list but not the no-fly list. No, this wasn't a black op at all. It was al Qaeda, which isn't really the CIA, trying to scare you again. And the government, which knew this was coming yet, we are to believe, just dropped the ball - totally benign negligence - would have you believe that they can keep you safe now, this time, if only you'll degrade and humiliate yourself further and give up more liberty and privacy. Just a little more, they swear. It's FYOG. Hey, freedom isn't free.
So, it wasn't convenient at all that this kamikaze hid his "bomb" in his underpants. As if that were the determining factor that allowed him to sneak past security undetected. Now, if only you'll give up these quaint, antiquated notions (see also here, here, here, here, here...) of a right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects, and allow them to put millimeter wave scanners in airports so some worthless TSA slob can examine you naked, the government can stop this kind of terrorism, which is of their own making, once and for all. That is, until the people realize it's all a sham, a theatrical performance, used as justification to oppress them and bomb foreigners, at which point the government will just put on another show to remind us all that we're slaves, and should keep our mouths shut and our faces in the mud. That's freedom, baby. Love it or leave it.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
InfoWars
Radio talk show host Alex Jones is calling for petitions, boycotts and lawsuits en mass in an effort to block the nationwide implementation of full body scanners that represent a total violation of privacy, a health risk, and the next wave of tyranny being metered out against the American people and the people of the world under the phony pretext of fighting terrorism.
"Our long journey into domestication and dependency on the scientific dictatorship is accelerating, our entire society is being turned into a massive surveillance grid, it has been designed to persecute the people," Jones warned on his show yesterday, adding that the scanners were the latest manifestation of the prison planet being constructed around humanity.
Allied with the contrived global warming movement, terrorism is the other prong of the pincer being used to crush freedom and advance totalitarianism in the developed world as Homeland Security follows the plan it was created to carry out - the gradual implementation of martial law in America characterized by the kind of stifling security we now see in airports being introduced into our daily lives in shopping malls, public schools, and many other buildings.
Jones warned that those who refuse the body scan and opt for a pat down will be subject to a strip search and treated like terrorists.
"We're being trained like dogs..you're the people they want to train to accept this, you're the milk cows, you're the cattle, you're the once proud free people being trained to accept this," said Jones, adding that the funding was already in place for body scanners at all U.S. airports in early 2009 before the Christmas Day incident magically arrived to provide the perfect pretext to push ahead with pull implementation.
"Magically that happens and they begin beating the drum within hours of it, see we must have the body scanners, it was all set, it was all rigged, every TV network, every station had their talking points," said Jones, adding that body scanners were instantly promoted as the solution, allied with calls to renew the rapidly expiring Patriot Act.
The fact that the aborted plane bombing attack also provided the perfect justification to expand U.S. military operations into the Arabian Peninsula in the name of fighting Al-Qaeda, a process already well underway before the bombing attempt, makes the suspicious circumstances surrounding the December 25 incident all the more alarming.
As we have documented, The FBI has repeatedly changed its story in a haphazard effort to accommodate eyewitness testimony from passengers that conflicts with the official version of events.
At first the FBI denied that a second man was arrested in connection with the incident but later admitted a second man was handcuffed after Flight 253 passenger and eyewitness Kurt Haskell said he saw an Indian man being led away by authorities after sniffer dogs had found something in his luggage.
Officials then claimed that the man had not been on Flight 253 at all and was not connected with the incident, but had to reverse their statement again just days later when other eyewitnesses emerged, admitting that the man had been on the plane.
The fact that the FBI is apparently protecting accomplices involved with the bombing attempt, and thereby keeping the official story within the script necessary to pin the attack on a lone man from Yemen who was inspired by Al-Qaeda, blatantly suggests that the facts are being manipulated to fit a pre-conceived geopolitical agenda.
Jones stated that if the body scanners were allowed to be implemented, it would not be long before travelers were forced to wear taser bracelets before they even enter an airport that allow officials to deliver an electric shock to anyone they deem suspicious on a whim. Homeland Security has already been busy exploring the possible roll out of such devices.
"A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taserr. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal, Inc. website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers," reported the Washington Times.
In the UK, the level of detail produced by the body scanners is such that their implementation would break child pornography laws, specifically the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.
"They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way," said Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the "prevention and detection of crime" but the purpose had to be more specific than the "trawling exercise" now being considered," reports the Guardian.
Those vigorously pushing for the widespread rollout of body scanners in the aftermath of the highly suspicious Christmas Day bombing attempt have been found to have their own financial motives.
"Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports," reports the Boston Globe.
"What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question."
Approaching the issue from a health angle, despite official assurances that the scanners are safe, there are many concerns about the physical impact of firing radiation at the body, especially if the individual has had previous x-ray scans, mammograms, or is a frequent flyer.
Dr. John Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at University of California, Berkeley, maintains that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Gofman argues that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is responsible for 50 per cent of cancers of 60 per cent of heart disease cases amongst Americans.
"The fact, that X-ray doses are so seldom measured, reflects the false assumption that doses do not matter.[but] they do matter enormously. And each bit of additional dose matters, because any X-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the high-speed, high energy electron which causes a carcinogenic or atherogenic [smooth muscle] mutation. Such mutations rarely disappear. The higher their accumulated number in a population, the higher will be the population's mortality rates from radiation-induced cancer and ischemic heart disease," states Gofman.
In addition to all these issues, full body scanners would not even have stopped the Christmas Day bomber from boarding Flight 253, according to a British MP who helped design the machines.
"I must advise the Prime Minister - and the British public - that the scanners are not a "silver bullet," said Ben Wallace, who worked on the scanners at defense research organization QinetiQ. "You would be mistaken to think that they would counter the new threat."
"The millimetre wave technology is harmless, quick and can be deployed overtly or covertly. But it cannot detect chemicals or light plastics."
By Frosty Wooldridge
January 4, 2010
NewsWithViews
What it means to every American citizen: virtual flood of humanity into the United States from all over the world.
Representative Luis Gutierrez (D, IL) introduced another "comprehensive immigration reform" in December, 2009. You could give his bill an Orwellian name such as, "Stupidity is Intelligence" or "Ignorance is Brilliant" or "No matter how stupid the American people, they are smart to flood their country with unending legal and illegal I immigration." Gutierrez called his version of Dante's nightmare: Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009.
U.S. Congressman Brian Bilbray (R, CA) said, "I am amazed that the Democrats are trying to push this thing through when we are in the middle of a major financial downturn with unemployment over 10 percent. How crazy can we get in one move?"
Representative Bilbray added, "Gutierrez is not representing the Constitution or the current voters of the U.S., but is only vying for cheap votes and cheap labor. The bill is custom made for people breaking the law and to reward those employers who have created the problem. This bill will become a magnet for more illegal immigration."
Gutierrez said, "We have waited patiently for a workable solution to our immigration crisis to be taken up by this Congress and our President," said Rep. Gutierrez. "The time for waiting is over. This bill will be presented before Congress recesses for the holidays so that there is no excuse for inaction in the New Year. It is the product of months of collaboration with civil rights advocates, labor organizations, and members of Congress. It is an answer to too many years of pain -mothers separated from their children, workers exploited and undermined security at the border- all caused at the hands of a broken immigration system. This bill says `enough,' and presents a solution to our broken system that we as a nation of immigrants can be proud of."
What Gutierrez failed to mention: our government fails to enforce immigration laws and would not enforce any new ones. Therefore, the system would continue as broken. Additionally, he expects to double and even triple legal immigration to well over three million annually.
OUR CIVILIZATION STANDS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE
In the past ten years, I have written about every ramification of unending and mass immigration into the United States. I have addressed water shortages, environmental traumas, air pollution, species extinction, resource depletion, ruination of our culture, displacement of our language and Balkanization of our society.
Much of it accelerates beyond my predictions. It's almost incomprehensible to me that California adds 1,700 people daily net gain and 400 cars net gain daily onto their roads while they don't have enough water to maintain their current 38 million person population on their way to 58 million-virtually all their growth stems from legal and illegal immigration.
If any kind of an "Immigration Reform" bill passes with an outright amnesty of 20 million illegal aliens and their children, along with chain migration with family reunification to add millions more, plus continued diversity migration and endless visas-we face irreversible consequences with unsolvable problems.
This situation grows more horrid and more ominous than the average American can understand. Our president, this U.S. Congress, the general public cannot grasp what we face and the mainstream media avoids it at all costs. We might as well be a person or `civilization' standing on the beach in New Orleans as Hurricane Katrina comes ashore in the next hour. But we stand there waiting for it to hit with no sense of urgency or understanding of our peril. But no matter how much we ignore this "Human Katrina", this `thing' we created, i.e., unending mass immigration will most certainly take our civilization over the abyss.
No, it won't happen overnight, but within 10 to 20 years, if we set in motion this massive spectacle of importing millions into this society-once they manifest-we will be in the middle of a horrendous predicament.
Cassandra Anderson
Infowars
January 7, 2010
On January 6, 2010, Obama proudly unveiled his "Innovative Agenda". Financed by Public- Private Partnerships, the goal is to train over 100,000 elementary school math and science teachers. The Intel Foundation has committed to spending $200 million dollars to this venture, with 4 other companies providing another $50 million dollars.(1)
The mainstream media's spin on this story was that this is a gift to increase American children's test scores. And most people believe this is a wonderful investment in the future and don't understand the real intention behind the "gift", with strings attached.
Do you think that depopulation of the planet is wonderful?
Do you think that the destruction of individual rights and the Constitution is wonderful?
Do you think that clearing humans from 50% of America's landscape is wonderful?
Anytime you here the phrase "Public- Private Partnership", you can be sure that a corporation or foundation is benefiting, as PPP's are the tool of fascism. The "Private" component of the PPP is the money partner and is always interested in profit and power. When they couple with the government (the Public component of the PPP), the benefit is enforcement of policies, tax breaks, fees, etc. Please find out more by watching Joan Veon's videos featured on InfoWars December 3rd.(http://www.infowars.com/agenda-21-alert-public-private-partnerships/)(2).
After doing a little research on Intel's website and its affiliation with the EPA and the United Nations, the implications are clear: Intel is preoccupied with the global warming hoax and intends to institute Agenda 21 Sustainable Development by indoctrinating children through education.
Lori Wigle, Intel's Eco- Technology General Manager and "Green Queen" went to the Copenhagen convention and wrote in her blog that technology could provide a structure for people to telecommute from home so that "ultimately we may need fewer roads".(2) Remember that the collectivists' agenda is to concentrate people in cities and remove them from the land. If there are no roads, the land becomes `off-limits'.
Further, Intel's Corporate Responsibility Director, Michael Jacobson, glorifies the alliance between Intel and the United Nations in his blog regarding the United Nations Global Compact.(4)
The United Nations Global Compact is based on the Rio Declaration of Environment and Development from 1992, and IS Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. Soft language is used, but the underlying message is that an international governing body should regulate all things concerning human interaction with the environment.(5) The man made global warming hoax is one of the biggest weapons of propaganda and legal action that the collectivists use.
Lastly, education is a tool that the globalists use to promote their programs, and is clearly documented in their own materials. For example, California's Assembly Bill 32 (Cap & Trade), the final report states, "ARB will also rely on partners throughout the state to develop and display options for curricula that will enhance the K-12, community college, trade technical training programs, and programs at four-year colleges." (page 102)(6)
The Good News:
Being forewarned is being forearmed. You can teach your children about "Climategate" and get other parents involved. You can educate the educators and become more involved in what your child learns.
Jonathan Elinoff
I have too many programs running to get to the original site. This is a good article and a little long to post in here. Please follow the links.
steve
By Michael LeMieux
January 8, 2010
NewsWithViews
If "We the People" are the creators of the government, and the government is authorized arms, then in order for the people to maintain their position, in relation to the government, they to must be armed. If the servant government (servant of the people) has arms, and the people do not, then the roles are reversed for the people can not resist a government that has become tyrannical.
This same logic applies to self defense. If the law abiding citizen does not have the means to resist a lawless adversary, then the will of the adversary becomes the law. Our Congress had formally passed an "assault weapons" ban. The stated goal was to remove the arms used by gangs, drug smugglers, and extremists. How many of us really believe that anyone in any of the aforementioned groups, who owned an "assault weapon," would get rid of those weapons, just because the Congress passed a law? However, many law abiding citizens did, in fact, give up their arms so as to remain "law abiding." The end result is no change for the criminal element and a disarming of the citizen. This has happened, without exception, with EVERY gun law passed by Congress. In this regard, every gun law, by definition, aids the criminal and penalizes the law abiding citizen.
The Second Amendment, arguably the most contentious of all the Bill of Rights amendments, however, is the least tried in the Supreme Court. It simply states:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
It may be a small amendment, but, it carries the weight and guarantee for all other rights. For without the capability of the people to defend themselves, to prepare as a militia, or to reign in a tyrannical government, we all become serfs and subjects.
There are those among us that would argue the collectivist position that the amendment pertained only to the Militia and not to individuals. The Supreme Court has spoken on the collective issue in U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999), in which it states: "Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (Bold Added)
As the foregoing statement clearly shows, there is one aspect of this amendment which is based in the collective thought, and that is collective safety. The Second Amendment prohibited the government from infringing on an individuals right in order to protect a collective purpose. If the federal could disarm the populace, then the states would have no effective militia and no means to defend itself. This is why there is such a strong tie between the militia and the people.
Remember, the constitution and "Bill of Rights" are there to restrain the government; not the people. This was an instruction to the government to leave the peoples' guns alone. They could not trespass on or encroach upon our right as citizens to own and bear arms. If we look at the enforcement of federal laws and the cost government has placed on the American people I think we must conclude that infringement has and is occurring. The federal government has the right to regulate its' jurisdictions outside of the state jurisdiction; but I will show that the enforcement of those laws is where they have violated the Constitution.
In the early years of our nation, it was common sense and historically imperative that the people be armed. They were armed not only for self defense, but as defense against invasion from nefarious nations as well as from "ambitious and unprincipled rulers" who would look to remove their rights and to enslave the nation.
In general, Laws are made to codify certain unwanted behavior and to establish acceptable behavior in society. However, as soon as you transfer this mechanism to inanimate objects, this logic fails. To illustrate, I think we would all agree that a criminal who steals, rapes, or murders is doing wrong. The tools he may use in that action do not change the act. "Ah," says the liberal/communist, "but you remove the ability for him to get the tool, now he cannot accomplish the act." If only that were true. I look at the genocide that has taken place in African states; the mutilation by means of machete; where limbs were severed and people left to bleed to death. Whole villages where women were raped, breasts removed, children hacked to death. Evil will do what evil does by whatever means is at their disposal. To assume the morally bankrupt of our society would stop a behavior by solely passing a law against an instrument he may use in the commission of a heinous crime is na?ve at best. Added to this is the undercurrent of black market supplies of weapons, around the world and here in America. The criminal does not obey laws, and he is prohibited to obtain weapons, yet he still gets them. Thus the net effect is to disarm the victims, making them unable to lawfully protect themselves.
The law abiding citizen is, by definition, not the problem. The problem is the criminal, because by definition, he does not obey the law. As importantly, is the fact that the government is treating ALL citizens by the standards of the criminal. For instance, a criminal uses a handgun in the commission of a robbery. Another criminal uses an ice-pick to commit the same crime. A third uses a baseball bat. With the logic of the gun control advocates the mere possession of a gun, an ice-pick, or a baseball bat should be outlawed. The root of the problem, however, is not the objects with which they perpetrate their crime; it is their willingness to commit the crime. The item used to aid that crime is merely the tool. And as every tool used to commit a crime has a peaceful use, outlawing the tool ONLY infringes on the person who would not use it for nefarious reasons.
What our nation needs are laws that punish criminal behavior and to stop criminalizing honest citizens who wish only to protect themselves and their families. Both the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) statistics have shown that the majority of violent crimes are committed without firearms, and the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that were illegally obtained, bypassing gun laws. So the net effect of gun control laws is to affect the law abiding citizen and has virtually no effect on the criminal element of our society.
The enactment of "firearms laws" is a relatively recent occurrence for the federal government. The Federal Firearms Act in 1934 was the first act by congress to regulate firearms. This act was based upon the perceived need to regulate the firearms industry and license the dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths within the firearms trade. It was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Appropriately it was codified under Title 15 of the US Code - "Commerce and Trade". The new "laws" under the Act included the creation of a Federal Firearms License (FFL), for anyone doing business in the firearm trade. One of the primary goals was to prohibit FFL holders from selling firearms to convicted felons. Requiring FFL holders to keep records of all firearms sales, and for the first time it made any alteration of firearm serial numbers a crime. Some felt this was an infringement on state jurisdiction by enacting a law that reached past the state boundary, in violation of the Constitution.
From 1934 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled "Crimes and Criminal Procedures." Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of "Commerce and Trade". However, if you are bound by "Commerce and Trade", you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the "trade." Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers from commerce to crime.
Shortly after President Kennedy's assassination, in 1968, the "Gun Control Act" was passed. It was an attempt by the government to justify broad-sweeping firearms control. The finesse with which the government's lawyers crafted and pushed this bill through can be seen right from the opening lines. The bill is entitled: "An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms." Doesn't that title sound allot like Chapter 15? In fact, even though there is much overlap between Title 15 and Title 18, Title 15 was never repealed.
This was done to provide better control of "interstate" traffic in firearms. However, the stated purpose of the act is as follows:
Title I - State Firearms Control Assistance
Purpose
"Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence,"
Did you catch that? To support State, and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution say anything about the federal government assisting law enforcement? Remember, the federal government cannot legally do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. So where is its justification? It has none; any federal law that falls outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is repugnant and is void. That does not stop the jack-booted thugs from kicking in your door and enforcing unjust and unconstitutional laws; it just makes them wrong with a gun.
I can not say this enough, the birth rights we have as American Citizens are higher than the Constitution. They exist by virtue of our creation and are bestowed at birth and these rights cannot be taken by any government, unless we give them away. The Second Amendment is paramount to all other rights, because without this right, we cannot defend the other rights. I have come to understand that those without a means of defense become victims to those who will force their will upon them. I have personally seen this in Somalia, Pakistan, Kuwait, the Philippines, and Afghanistan. In most cases, the only reason we received respect from the enemy was because we had the means to remove them from the face of the earth. Make no mistake, if it were not for the Second Amendment, this nation would not be here today. Our future still depends on the willingness of "We the People" to stand up and fight to keep this right.
It is a proven axiom that a criminal will not try to commit a crime while a police officer is present. Thus the saying "There is never a policeman around when you need him." There are those who want a society where there are no guns. A society where a woman can walk down a street at night without fear of molestation. Where drugs, gangs, corruption, and evil no longer exists. There is such a place, but it only exists in the stories of Hollywood. The cold reality is that evil does exist and we must protect ourselves and our families against that evil.
So, who is responsible for our protection? Is it the government, the state, the local police? It may surprise you to learn that none of these is the correct answer. Time and time again the courts have ruled, and those rulings have been upheld, that there is no requirement for any level of government to guarantee our individual protection. In this nation, the policy of policing is that of "general" peace and order; and no one person or group can have any expectation of individual protection.
To illustrate this I would like to present the following case that illustrates this position:
In Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) the courts ruled: "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." (Emphasis added)
There are literally hundreds of cases that say exactly the same thing. In the liberal world, I constantly hear that the police are trained to protect the innocent. Quite often this happens solely because they are out on the streets looking for bad guys. Odds are, eventually they will run into a crime in progress and take action. The police are there to bring criminals to justice, which is what they get paid for. However, in order for one to be deemed a criminal they must first perpetrate a crime. Only then can the police take action. You and you alone have the primary responsibility for your protection and safety. By law, someone who pays another to commit a crime is just as guilty as if he committed the crime himself. In my estimation, someone who pays another for protection, and is unwilling to take responsibility for their own protection, is guilty of cowardice. Willingness does not equate to capability. Many people are willing to protect themselves, but do not have the capability. If you are not willing to fight, or even kill to protect your own life or the lives of your family, then you cannot ask someone else to do it for you.
The Constitution states that the Second Amendment "shall not be infringed." How many laws does it take before it is considered infringed? 500? 5,000? 20,000? That's about how many laws we have on the books today, over twenty thousand. Not infringed means exactly that; leave it alone.
The United States was built and survived because of private ownership of arms. Many gun haters cannot abide hearing this; and they manage to forget, or they don't understand the history that brought us through the oppression of the English Kings. One of the sparks to the war of independence was the Kings' mandate to disarm the people. Our forefathers included in the Constitution the guarantee that the people would never be disarmed again.
The firearm is a tool, nothing more nothing less. It has no powers but what the person wielding it provides. If that person be evil, then evil may be produced. If that person be good, then the good man has a means by which he may protect himself and his family from the evil man. If a man be prone to commit assault or even murder, what does he care about gun laws? Will this evil doer decide to not use a gun when he robs, rapes, abducts children, or kills because there is a law stating he may not carry a gun? Of course not! The evil person cares not for the law, therefore gun laws ONLY affect the law abiding citizen, not the criminal. But it is my belief the lawmakers know this. The excuse, of fighting crime, is only the "reason" to pass the law not the desired effect. The desired effect is removal of honest gun ownership. Once this is accomplished the country is then helpless against the rulers of our nation. Another means of checks and balances, the final means, will be abolished.
The last seventy years have been a continual neutering of the American patriot. When all is said and done, the wresting of our God-given rights from the "communist-liberal left and the power-hungry government bureaucrats" may come down to one thing; our Second Amendment Right.
By Bob Ellis on January 7th, 2010
DakotaVoice
What would you think if a long-time gun control advocate ended up shooting someone? Might the word "hypocrite" come to mind?
It did for me, and apparently for many others.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports North Carolina state senator R.C. Soles shot one of two intruders who attempted to break into his house.
But it gets even more interesting than the mere hypocrisy of a gun control activist shooting somebody.
The New York Times reports Soles won't be seeking re-election, which is not a surprise since state prosecutors have said they plan to charge Soles because "he acted criminally when he shot a former law client."
WWAY sheds additional light on this:
Thursday, a Columbus County grand jury found probable cause to seek an indictment against Soles for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury.
In late August, Soles shot 22-year-old Kyle Blackburn outside the Senator's home in Tabor City.
Blackburn was a client of Soles' law firm. Soles told police he shot Blackburn in self-defense, saying that Blackburn was trying to break into his home. Blackburn told us he was leaving the property when he was shot.
While what happens within a grand jury proceeding is secret, we can presume that ballistics evidence was part of what was reviewed yesterday, specifically whether the bullet wound indicated that Blackburn was facing the Senator or running away when he was shot.
We also know surveillance cameras were running at Senator Soles' house at the time of the shooting.
The shooting itself wasn't captured on camera, but what transpired before and after the shooting may have helped the jurors determine how the events played out.
Now, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for someone who advocates diminishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. But when I learn that they consider themselves elite enough to own a weapon, any sympathy I might have had goes out the door.
And apparently this wasn't even a clear-cut case of self-defense. The shooter knew the man who was shot, and a grand jury found sufficient evidence to charge the shooter for criminal activity.
This happened a few months ago, but I'm just now finding out about it from Marty Rickard. Better late than never, to find out about this kind of hypocrisy from a member of the gun control lobby.
Kurt Nimmo
infowars ---check the link for video---
January 15, 2010
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that. it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
In a lecture at the University School of Law on October 27, 2007, Obama's administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs emphatically stated that you do not have a right to own firearms. "It is striking and noteworthy," said Cass Sunstein, "that well over two centuries since the founding, the Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns."
It is said Sunstein is a constitutional scholar. And yet he fails to mention that opinions dealing with the Second Amendment come from almost every period in the Court's history and almost all of them are consistent with the proposition that the Second Amendment is an individual right. See David B. Kopel, The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment.
"My coming view is that the individual right to bear arms reflects the success of an extremely aggressive and resourceful social movement and has much less to do with good standard legal arguments than [it] appears," Sunstein said elsewhere in the lecture (not included in the above clip). "My tentative suggestion is that the individual right to have guns as it's being conceptualized now is best taken as a contemporary creation and a reflection of current fears - not a reading of civic-centered founding debates."
"Mr. Sunstein's overt hostility to the idea that the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms, including for purposes of self-defense, is not something that should be welcomed from somebody whose job might entail weighing in on the value of anti-gun regulations. It also makes his more recent assurances that he is a Second Amendment stalwart seem rather disingenuous, at the very least," an editorial published by The Washington Times stated last September.
In July of 2009, Sunstein sent a letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia assuring him that he strongly believes the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms. "Your first question involved the Second Amendment. I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case, clearly recognizing the individual right to have guns for hunting and self-defense. If confirmed, I would respect the Second Amendment and the individual right that it recognizes."
In response, Chambliss dropped his hold on the nomination of Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In other words, Sunstein lied about the Second Amendment in order to fool Congress into accepting his nomination.
It's too bad Chambliss didn't see the above video before voting to confirm Sunstein. If he had, Sunstein would probably not be in the government now. He would not be threatening to close down the First and Second Amendments.
Interested-Participant
January 16, 2010
(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) A bill has been introduced in the Oklahoma legislature to protect the Second Amendment rights of the state's citizens.
House Bill 2884, creates the "Oklahoma Firearms Freedom Act," which declares that a "personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Oklahoma and that remains within the borders of Oklahoma is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce."
The legislation notes that regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and that Article II, Section 26, of the Oklahoma Constitution "clearly secures to Oklahoma citizens, and prohibits interference with, the right of individual Oklahoma citizens to keep and bear arms."
As a result, under the bill, guns manufactured in Oklahoma and sold to citizens of the state would not be subject to federal regulations since "those items have not traveled in interstate commerce."
Applicable firearms will be required to clearly display "Made in Oklahoma" on a major metallic part.
And there's more:
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 other 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. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations - in order to protect the liberty of the state's citizens.
Oklahoma's bill brings the number to 16 states that have seen a Firearms Freedom Act introduced in the past year - most recently, New Hampshire, Virginia and Missouri.
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
January 18, 2010
The police in Austin, at the behest of the federal Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, has attempted to shut down legal gun sales. The Texas Gun Shows website has the following posted: "Vendor notice - Austin show only: At the direction of the Austin Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, ONLY LICENSED FFL DEALERS will be allowed to set up and sell firearms at the N. Austin show location."
FFL is short for "Federal Firearms License." It is a federal license that enables an individual or a company to engage in a business pertaining to the manufacture of firearms and ammunition or the interstate and intrastate sale of firearms. It does not control gun sales between individuals on the local level.
Texas residents may purchase rifles, shotguns, handguns ammunition, reloading components, or firearms accessories. No permit or registration is required under state law. It is unlawful to knowingly sell, rent, give or offer to sell, rent or give any firearm to a person under 18 years of age, without the written consent of his parent or guardian, but entirely legal for adults to sell firearms.
The BATF and Austin cops are attempting to discourage gun sales with this color of law trick. It is not backed up by any law on the books. It is intimidation.
In recent years the feds have attempted to portray entirely legal gunshows as a nexus for criminal activity. Gun Show Undercover, a project of the City of New York and its mayor the anti-Second Amendment extremist Michael Bloomberg, has traveled around the country and filmed what it declares to be illegal gun sales. The BATF claims that 30 percent of guns involved in federal illegal gun trafficking investigations are connected to gun shows.
The BATF claims Mexican drug cartels exploit the so-called gun-show loophole. "Guns are purchased illegally, sold at a profit to drug dealers and used to kill innocent people and police officers, all while local law enforcement authorities lack the federal support they need to do their job," Bloomberg wrote in April, 2009. "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has estimated that 90 percent to 95 percent of the guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes have been purchased in the United States, because Mexico's laws make it much more difficult for criminals to buy guns."
Bloomberg has pushed for closing down gun shows. "More than 350 mayors from both political parties have joined together to urge Congress to repeal these restrictions - and to close the gun-show loophole, a step both Sen. John McCain and President Obama have supported," he wrote.
In response to this propaganda, Fox News reported that 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S. Most of the illegal guns sold in Mexico originate from South Korea, China, and Russia. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
For now, gun sales between adults are legal in Texas. Residents of Austin should not be intimidated by this bogus color of law attempt to chill the Second Amendment.
Paul Joseph Watson
InfoWars
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Tennessee has followed Texas in demanding that dealers obtain licenses and turn over a plethora of information to authorities before being able to host a gun show in another devastating attack on the second amendment.
The legislation, HB 2422, which has not yet passed, would make it a Class A misdemeanor for any person to organize, plan, promote, or operate a gun show without government approval.
The bill makes it a crime for anyone who wishes to operate a gun show unless they follow the following procedures;
(1) Notifies the TBI and the chief law enforcement officer in the county in which the gun show is to be held of the dates, times, and location of the gun show;
(2) Verifies the identity of each gun show dealer participating in the gun show by examining a valid photo identification document of the dealer, before commencement of the gun show;
(3) Requires each gun show dealer to sign a ledger with information identifying the dealer, including the dealer's name and address, before commencement of the gun show; and
(4) Maintains a copy of the records described above in (2) and (3) at the gun show promoter's permanent place of business for one year from the date of the gun show.
The legislation also contains a blanket ban on all unlicensed gun sales within 1,000 feet of an unapproved gun show.
The bill would take effect on January 1, 2011 if signed into law.
As we highlighted yesterday, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is actively issuing directions banning private sales of guns without licenses at gun shows in Texas, despite there being no law to justify such demands.
A caller to the Alex Jones show brought attention to BATF notices handed out at the entrance of the Texas Gun And Knife Show, on North Lamar, in Austin this past weekend.
The flyers (pictured below) state that anyone selling a firearm "will be asked to comply with" conditions including operating through a licensed FFL dealer.
The notice also states that "Selling firearms in the parking lot will not be permitted."
"The lady at the front desk used her `mommy voice' to get everyone's attention." Scott from Austin told The Alex Jones show, noting that the owners of the private building where the gun show was held were contacted by the APD and the BATF and directed to hand out the notices.
Scott also told listeners that a petition in protest of the directions was being handed around at the show.
Looks like if this type of activity keeps speading, and it will, we'll find some private property, and have our own gun show.
F' em![:(!]
Screw 'em all.....Times a gettin' short.
HPD,
It is, indeed.
'They' are becoming more arrogant and tyrannical with each move they make....
and with each move, the 'swarm' becomes more agitated.
But it is OK folks. All of this activity is permitted, nay encouraged by SCROTUS in Heller. Total registration is the goal, and these are the necessary steps to make it happen.
Interesting point:
TN HB 2422 makes the operation of an unlicensed show a Class A misdemeanor, not a felony. This would be an excellent case for a court challenge. Any takers will get my support, both moral and financial.
Brad Steele
Kurt Nimmo
InfoWars
January 20, 2010
Last night the corporate media portrayed Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts as a victory of Republicans over Democrats. It wasn't Republicans, however, that catapulted Scott Brown's win over Massachusetts Democrat and attorney general Martha Coakley. It was independent voters in the traditionally liberal and Democrat dominated state that made the difference, not Republicans.
"David Paleologos, director of Suffolk University's Police Research Center, whose recent poll foreshadowed a Brown win, said independent voters who were fired up over the lingering recession and faltering economy, the loss of jobs and the cost of government mandated health care drove the election," reports the Boston Herald.
Democrats, of course, say it is all a big right-wing extremist coup d'?tat.
"Over the past few weeks, radical right-wing activists turned Massachusetts into ground zero for the Tea Party movement, and we saw a taste of what's to come in 2010," warned New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley.
Buckley and the Democrats may attempt to spin the election as a victory for "radical right-wing activists," but the truth is something entirely different - the election served as a referendum on big government and irresponsible and out of control federal spending. Scott Brown was elected in one of the most liberal states in the country not because he is a Republican, but because his victory will shut down Obamacare and send a message to Democrats.
In fact, Scott Brown's political philosophy - akin to that of big government Republican Mitt Romney - is irrelevant. Brown is your typical "center-right" politician - he voted for Romney's health care plan, supports gay marriage, and said he would have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. He apparently buys into the climate change scam as well.
On the other hand, he campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility and limited government, something mainline Republicans always do on the campaign trial, only to betray their promises once seated. George Bush campaigned as a traditional Republican. Once in office, he ratcheted up the federal deficit and began invading small defenseless countries. Republicans dutifully fell in line.
None of this matters, even with the hysterical warnings by Democrats that the "radical right-wing" and much maligned Tea Party have changed Obama's game plan. Scott Brown talked about ending gridlock in Washington, but his election victory represents just that - breaking the Democrat voting majority and ensuring that they will not be able to force Obamacare and other big government programs down the throats of the American people.
Scott Brown's victory is a victory for the Tea Party - not the GOP hijacked Tea Party but the original one that is solidly Libertarian and opposed to the Democrat vs. Republican politics as usual.
IMO, time will tell if the Tea Parties become a force for liberty, or if they are a limited-issue construct that will sacrifice some liberties for others.
The support of Mr. Brown suggests the latter, though we must recognize that in this specific case, the limited issues are an important consideration.
Brad Steele
In fact, on Oct. 17 2001 he voted to deny Red Cross volunteer workers extra financial aid for thier efforts at ground zero.
I never said I liked the guy.
Kurt Nimmo
InfoWars
January 22, 2010
An APD News press release dated January 19, 2010, offers an official explanation of the actions taken by the Austin Police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to ensure the shut down of Texas Gun Shows in central Texas. The press releases reveals that in addition to the ATF, Federal Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement (ICE) agents were involved in the conspiracy to deny Texans access to firearms at legal gun shows.
"Austin Police Department Firearm Review Unit detectives assisted in the Austin portion of the operation. They observed and participated in multiple arrests of prohibited persons (primarily convicted felons and illegal immigrants) that obtained firearms illegally at a local gun show. Federal convictions were obtained in a majority of the cases," the press release states.
The alleged criminal activity occurred at the venue prior to Darwin Boedecker and Texas Gun Shows leasing the space. The APD, however, does not make this fact clear in the press release.
Due to the history of criminal activity at the gun show, the Nuisance Abatement Unit scheduled a meeting between the property lessee (HEB Grocery), the building sub-lessee (Andrew Perkel a.k.a Austin Market Place), the event promoter (Darwin Boedecker-Texas Gun Shows) and ATF. During this meeting, APD along with ATF offered to all parties, recommendations to curb the illegal activity that had been documented in the past. At the conclusion of the meeting the lessee agreed that the recommendations should be followed and instructed their sub-lessee to follow the recommendations. The sub-lessee then informed the event promoter to implement the recommendations at the next show.
According to the APD, Boedecker agreed to the following: 1) Only licensed gun dealers are allowed to sell firearms at the gun shows, 2) The promoter will provide on-site security to prevent parking lot gun sales, and 3) The promoter will define a process for people other than licensed dealers that show up with a gun that they want to sell.
Darwin Boedecker posted the first two of these "recommendations" at the show held on the weekend of January 16-17, 2010.
It is not illegal for private citizens in Texas to sell firearms. The demand by the ATF and Austin cops is a direct violation of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution). In addition, under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence (including parking lots) are not subjected to federal regulation.
The APD subsequently used the ruse of "criminal activity" (citizens legally selling firearms) as an excuse to close down the Texas Gun Shows. "Following the staged arrest of a man by the Austin Police - subsequently released without charge - the BATF pressured lease holders HEB to shut down the oldest gun show in central Texas," Infowars reported on January 18, 2010.
It is now obvious the shut down of Texas Gun Shows is part of a larger effort by the Obama administration to close down gun shows and deny the American people their right to buy and sell firearms.
"What's being touted as the largest single investigation and prosecution against individuals in the history of the Justice Department's enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act occurred Monday in Las Vegas," writes Illinois Gun for Infowars today. "The individuals arrested are executives and employees of military and law enforcement products companies that were in Las Vegas to attend the 2010 Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show (Shot show) and are charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)."
"The Justice Department called the case the largest single investigation and prosecution of individuals in the history of the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars bribery of foreign government officials," reports The Boston Herald.
The FBI operation was conducted as a sting. The individuals in question did not actually violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The corporate media, with the exception of The Boston Herald, BusinessWeek, and firearms trade magazines, failed to report the story.
Sadly, I can attest from many years in this fight...you simply CANNOT get get owners to fall out for these actions. I have never understood it..have attended many over the years..and it is an utter embarrassment to the gun community for their lack of interest in protecting their azes.
Had to come back and edit. I will not be the downtrodden. I will fight. HB, many of the youth that can grasp a concept are on my side. We have ranks to replenish the fallen.
steve
Webster G. Tarpley
InfoWars
January 26, 2010
My dear Senator,
I am writing to urge you to vote against the confirmation of Ben Bernanke for a second term as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Bernanke has failed in his responsibilities both as a banking regulator and in his administration of Federal Reserve lending. Bernanke presided over the final phase of the $1.5 quadrillion financial derivatives bubble which is the central cause of the present world economic depression. He was the principal advocate for the reckless and irresponsible policy of bailing out bankrupt money center institutions, allowing them to live on as zombie banks at astronomical taxpayer, but with no corresponding benefit whatsoever for the economic life of the broader society. Bernanke is responsible for the super-toxic alphabet soup of Federal Reserve lending facilities like the TAF, the TALF, and so forth. These betrayals of the public trust have offered 0% credit to predatory institutions including Wall Street banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, money market funds, and other financial institutions. Bernanke has thus used public resources to subsidize financial speculation in all of its most destructive forums, while doing almost nothing to provide cheap credit for production that would benefit factories, farms, mines, building construction, small business, exports, scientific research, energy production, and infrastructure building. Economic activity in all of these fields is now dying for lack of credit, which is being denied by the very institutions Bernanke is trying to save. Everything that Bernanke has done is diametrically opposed to the rational credit policy needed to fight an economic depression.
Bernanke must therefore be rejected. Instead, the Senate should support a new Fed chairman with the qualifications necessary to preside over the nationalization of this illegal, unconstitutional, and failed institution. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 must be repealed. The future of the Fed is as a bureau of the United States Treasury responsible for providing cheap federal lending as a public utility for productive activity in the form of tangible physical commodity output, not speculation and financial services. In the future, the size of the money supply, short-term interest rates, and the approved categories of lending must be taken out of the hands of unelected and unaccountable cliques of predatory bankers, and deliberated in the full glare of publicity by the House, the Senate, and the president, as the United States Constitution actually requires. Because of Bernanke's pattern of subservience to Wall Street interests, it is clear that he cannot be the official suited to to carry out this historic transition. Worse, reports concerning telephone calls made by Treasury Secretary Geithner in September 2008 suggest that Bernanke may also be a party to illegal operations by the Fed in regard to the bailout of AIG and its derivatives counterparties at that time. It is unthinkable that the Senate would approve Bernanke unless and until these grave suspicions have been cleared up.
Today's newspapers suggest that Bernanke, even if he should be rejected by the Senate this week, would still attempt to stay in power as a member of the Board of Governors through 2020, exerting his power through his colleagues presently on the board. This would amount to nothing less than a bankers' insurrection. In this eventuality, the Congress must swiftly impeach Bernanke and remove him from office immediately.
My buddy took a 7.62 to the chest. I haven't been right all day. I don't want to stand thier with his mom and burry him. Keep that flag. I don't wanna see it.
I take it your buddy is a troop?
My condolences to you and the family. So much is wrong, seems only anger can keep a guy from growing weary.