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.
In Massachusetts, more than a dozen but less than twenty firearms are considered an arsenal and may get you arrested and held for "evaluation," especially if you mistrust and fear the government.
"A Massachusetts man is under arrest for the stash of guns police found in his possession," reports MSNBC, WHDH-TV, and the Associated Press. "Authorities took Gregory Girard, 45, into custody Wednesday afternoon on weapons charges after apparently finding dozens of guns inside his Manchester-by-the-Sea home."
According to the report, flares guns, handcuffs, kevlar vests, and helmets are weapons.
Girard's crime? He feared the government would impose martial law. "He was convinced that martial law was imminent," said a prosecutor.
Authorities were tipped off by his wife, a Cambridge psychiatrist. She told police she was afraid to go home and plans to file a restraining order. "He made the following statements to her, `Don't talk to people. Shoot them instead. It's fine to shoot people in the head, because traitors deserve it,'" the prosecutor said. It was not reported in what context the statements were made.
Girard rarely left the house, hoarded food and medication and warned those in adjoining apartments not to be alarmed by noises that sounded like gunfire, according to his neighbors, the report states. He had converted his third-story loft into a firing range, according to police.
In Massachusetts, this enough to get you arrested and held for psychiatric evaluation. Actually threatening and assaulting somebody is not required. All you have to do is have a couple guns, assorted military and police equipment, and talk about martial law.
In April of 2009, Massachusetts passed S18, a martial law bill. It gives the governor the power to authorize the deployment and use of force to distribute supplies and materials and and allows local authorities to enter private residences for investigation and to quarantine individuals.
"Any person who knowingly violates an order of the commissioner or his or her designee, or of a local public health authority or its designee, given to effectuate the purposes of this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of note more than one thousand dollars, or both," the legislation states.
Sounds like this duds wife had a creative lawyer...
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Man Arrested for Practicing Second Amendment, Warning About Martial Law
In Massachusetts, more than a dozen but less than twenty firearms are considered an arsenal and may get you arrested and held for "evaluation," especially if you mistrust and fear the government.
"A Massachusetts man is under arrest for the stash of guns police found in his possession," reports MSNBC, WHDH-TV, and the Associated Press. "Authorities took Gregory Girard, 45, into custody Wednesday afternoon on weapons charges after apparently finding dozens of guns inside his Manchester-by-the-Sea home."
According to the report, flares guns, handcuffs, kevlar vests, and helmets are weapons.
Girard's crime? He feared the government would impose martial law. "He was convinced that martial law was imminent," said a prosecutor.
Authorities were tipped off by his wife, a Cambridge psychiatrist. She told police she was afraid to go home and plans to file a restraining order. "He made the following statements to her, `Don't talk to people. Shoot them instead. It's fine to shoot people in the head, because traitors deserve it,'" the prosecutor said. It was not reported in what context the statements were made.
Girard rarely left the house, hoarded food and medication and warned those in adjoining apartments not to be alarmed by noises that sounded like gunfire, according to his neighbors, the report states. He had converted his third-story loft into a firing range, according to police.
In Massachusetts, this enough to get you arrested and held for psychiatric evaluation. Actually threatening and assaulting somebody is not required. All you have to do is have a couple guns, assorted military and police equipment, and talk about martial law.
In April of 2009, Massachusetts passed S18, a martial law bill. It gives the governor the power to authorize the deployment and use of force to distribute supplies and materials and and allows local authorities to enter private residences for investigation and to quarantine individuals.
"Any person who knowingly violates an order of the commissioner or his or her designee, or of a local public health authority or its designee, given to effectuate the purposes of this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of note more than one thousand dollars, or both," the legislation states.
Raising the Bar for Nullification
by Michael Boldin lewrockwell
Recently by Michael Bolden: Colorado, South Dakota Firearms Freedom Act Introduced
Around the country, twenty-two states are currently considering a bill known as the "Firearms Freedom Act." This bill declares that guns, accessories, and ammunition made within a state, sold within that state and kept in that state are not subject to federal laws or regulations under the "Interstate Commerce Clause" of the Constitution.
Montana and Tennessee passed a Firearms Freedom Act into law in 2009, and a number of states are moving that direction in the 2010 legislative session. In South Carolina, where a Firearms Freedom Act was also introduced in 2009, some representatives have taken things a step further.
NULLIFYING GUN REGISTRATIONS
Introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly this week is House Bill 4509 (H4509), which if passed, would make law that "no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State."
No caveat for regulations under the commerce clause. No caveat for types of firearms either. This bill says NO to all gun registrations - period.
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition.
In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts:
"The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government"
and
"where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them"
In short, nullification means this: The state is taking a position that a particular federal law is unconstitutional, and thus, 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 that state is concerned.
But nullification is much more than just mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice requires active resistance to it by the people and the state government.
INTERPOSITION
In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws - that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are "duty bound to interpose" or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.
H4509 includes strong language to assert this principle:
Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition, and these requirements violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people
(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.
(C) Any person violating the provisions of this subsection (B) is guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.
Supporters of such legislation point to laws passed by other states that have effectively nullified federal laws around the country. Fourteen states have now defied federal laws on marijuana. And, two-dozen states have refused to comply with the Bush-era Real ID Act, rendering that 2005 law virtually null and void today.
Guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes.
The final goal? It's a long way off - a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
The final goal? It's a long way off - a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.
Hey, we can dream.......right?
Steve;
Thanks, fella, for your efforts. Rest assured, many of us here appreciate your drive. Don't be a stranger, drop around and let us know all is well with you.
A flow of information is constantly streaming from the television set; a bombardment of words and pictures. The speed at which this information is communicated makes it easy for the signal to take control, switching the viewer's brain to stand-by as information is absorbed without analysis or question. Today the television's constant signal shapes the conclusions of the masses and produces the collective norm. The signal prescribes what is news and what is truth through the words of so-called experts and authorities, gelding the consciousness and independent thoughts of those subjected to it. Through television, the masses can be made to accept the most monstrous distortions of reality. The signal is a chill wind of continuous oppression over the minds of the masses. It controls the management of society and culture, creating uniformity across all subjects.
The fuel for this vehicle of mass deception is a technique known as perception management where an array of psychological techniques are used to alter the truth, leading the viewer to a desired conclusion. Some call this spin or propaganda while others know it as lying. According to Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister for Adolph Hitler, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Most of what can be found on the nightly news is nothing but advertisements selling more government and a false reality that benefits only those in control. Television is the dictator of information; newspaper and radio are the whisper campaign of the television's message.
It is expected that Americans will consistently prescribe to the doctrine of the television. It is subtly communicated that one should stay within the collective and never challenge the message, for doing so may be considered an aggression towards culture. The message is, "Be a good consumer; always obey authority; you know nothing; listen only to experts; be content and never question or express new ideas." This signal is being broadcast across millions of screens, indoctrinating the unconscious minds of those who choose this as their only reality. Self-censorship occurs when these individuals become so deeply indoctrinated that they are afraid to discuss any information outside the paradigm of television-created culture; they police their thoughts to ensure they won't conflict with this culture. Sadly, many people's reality today does not allow any outside information to process, instead it is written off as conspiracy or blatant lies. Our consciousness has been destroyed so much that fiction has become reality. An entire lifestyle of poisonous foods, pharmaceuticals, and fluoridated water are accepted as safe and sold to us at the cost of our health and well being.
Those of the establishment are using the incredibly powerful weapon of mass psychology as a method of controlling the minds of the masses and altering the behavior of individuals. Edward Bernays, a pioneer in the field of public relations in the 20th century, applied Sigmund Freud's theory of psychoanalysis to manipulate the masses by engineering consent. According to Bernays, "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it." Advertisers and psychologists of the billion dollar culture creation industry manufacture trends through the proliferation of insecurities; and manipulating desires and emotions. These concepts are also employed to control how individuals think about politics, as well as the possibilities and limitations within society. Those welding power within our streams of mass communication market their plans into each generation as individuals adopt specific ways of thinking and never suspect that all the major events and trends within their lifetime are actually planned by an elite few before they are even born. In our society today, culture is created from the top down. Virtually all forms of culture are created by the ruling class to build a false sense of reality, ensure social compliance, and control the future course of cultural evolution.
Predictive programming is a tool used by the establishment to acclimate the public to new ideas, trends, beliefs, and threats. It is used through television by including certain situations or ideas within the plots of many fictional shows, familiarizing the viewer with these concepts no matter what they may be watching. When similar situations occur or like ideas are circulated in the world we think that these particular things are quite natural for we have unknowingly been made familiar with them through television. By viewing nearly any popular show on television, one can see the same propaganda that will be aired on the nightly news. Propaganda on a wide array of subjects has been interwoven into a great number of television shows. Just a few of these subjects include global warming, vaccinations, torture, terrorism, national security, the militarization of police, and the degradation of the family unit. Through predictive programming, television shapes culture and prevents individuals from asking questions.
Crisis' are created on a daily basis and broadcast across the airwaves to keep individuals in a state of panic and fear. Whether it be the threat of a pandemic or terrorism, the constant state of crisis has created a form of mental illness as we are slowly acclimated into an age of crisis. By using Hegelian dialectic, the television promotes the problem, guides our reaction, and presents the solution. The problem of terrorism was exclaimed, a strong emotional response was evoked, and it was stated that our rights need be sacrificed in order to protect us from the threat. We've lost personal sovereignty under the guise of terrorism; we're stopped and searched; we're watched by cameras as we go about our lives; and we're encouraged to spy on our neighbors. We have been trained to accept the life of a prisoner.
America is in a state of enlightened despotism where most individuals live only to satisfy selfish inner desires and remain ignorant of the state of the world around them. In most public places one can find a television transmitting propaganda around the clock ensuring the masses remain focused on trivial matters. From birth we take the world as it's presented on television. We don't question it and any serious criticism of TV is becoming psychologically impossible in society. Who would suspect getting born into a world where everything around you is a continuous lie? The youth of today are convinced that the experts and personalities on television are the authority of credible information while parents and older generations are foolish with dated ideas. Children are conditioned to disconnect from what is truly important to their well being and instead focus on mindless trivia, sports, celebrity gossip, and buying an array of material things. They invest their psychological worth in fantasy characters on television while ignoring or even scorning individuals contributing to the betterment of humanity. They are discouraged from getting involved in their local community and often lack the ability to think independently or to resist corruption. As their children's minds are molded by television, there is barely a murmur from the public.
For over half a century, our society has lived under this signal of mental programming and conditioning. The message is clear: don't be a leader, don't engage in critical thinking, and don't care about the people in your life. Until individuals become aware of the current information war, our standard of living and our liberties will continue to be degraded and we will continue to lose communities and meaningful relationships between people. Currently, pockets of resistance are beginning to spring up everywhere as some unplug the signal and regain control of their own thoughts. Informed individuals are canceling their cable and satellite subscriptions and instead spending time with their families and children while participating in meaningful experiences. They are seeking alternative news sources. They are reading about those who weld incredible influence over culture like Edward Bernays, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Charles Galton Darwin, Plato, Bertrand Russell, and Aldous Huxley. However, it is a continuous battle to educate the masses for the television remains our greatest threat to individual sovereignty and the largest obstacle to becoming a truly informed individual. Fortunately, unplugging from the signal is easy. The television can simply be turned off. Through doing so, you may realize nearly our entire world is now a hoax; things once known as truth are fake. We have been trained like dogs to be obedient to our television; our master has had our minds on a tight leash. Let us never forget the truth will not be televised.
Doesn't have much to do with the 2nd but I found it to be a damn good article.
It doesn't have to be about the 2nd to be critically important.
Very good post Steve. It should be over in GD.
I guess I am a conspiracy type, since I have chosen the internet as my source of info, like you and this article.
I have chosen the redpill. The matrix is no place for a freedom lover.[;)]
We do not watch TV in our family. For this and other practical reasons. I know when I am talking to someone whether they are TV addicts. Most people are. Why else would you pay for the content that is on cable and go out and spend hundreds of dollars on a device so you can watch that drivel.
The braindead TV addicts have a great celebration every year called the Super Bowl where they sit around eating and drinking crap while watching messages that tell them to eat and drink more crap. Drug habits make for better citizens than those addicted to TV.
February 24, 2010 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A grandfather is taking his 2nd Amendment fight to the U.S. Supreme Court in what is expected to be a landmark case. Otis McDonald, 76, is suing the city of Chicago over its handgun ban.
McDonald says he wants the right to protect himself from gang members who threaten the Morgan Park neighborhood where he lives.
McDonald's case will be argued before the nation's high court next week. ABC 7's Paul Meincke talked with McDonald.
McDonald is a retired maintenance engineer who moved to Chicago in the early 1950s with $18 in his pocket. At this point in his life, he says, he surely didn't set out to make history, but that's clearly where he finds himself.
"I have a strong drive to do what I can to right what I see is wrong," said McDonald.
For the better part of four decades, McDonald has lived in Morgan Park. He and his wife raised their family here. Ten years after they first moved in, Chicago enacted its handgun ban, an idea McDonald -- at the time -- applauded.
But, in the years that have followed, McDonald says his neighborhood has changed. More crime. He has been broken into three times, and he has long since concluded that the gun ban is a bust.
"It doesn't work," McDonald said. "It doesn't work simply, because the senior citizens, the law-abiding citizens like myself, is being victimized by saying you can't have a handgun in your own home. Why? Tell me what I can't have in my own home. I'm not out robbing nobody."
After attending an NRA rally four years ago, McDonald was recruited by gun rights activists to serve as a possible plaintiff in legal action against the city.
"I was skeptical at first. You know. I'm thinking, 'Wait a minute here - little ol' me.' Hey, I'm all up in here with lawyers and things," said McDonald.
McDonald joked with the lawyers that his color must have a bearing on his selection, but he ultimately decided that race and politics were secondary to a cause he believes in. So, he agreed to be the lead plaintiff, "McDonald v. the City of Chicago and Mayor Richard M. Daley."
"Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society? If they think that's the answer they're greatly mistaken. Then, why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West where you have a gun and I have a gun and we settle it in the streets?" said Mayor Daley.
"I don't think anybody involved in this case -- certainly no one I've met -- is hoping for the right to own a handgun in Chicago so they can say, 'Wow, finally I can go knock over that 7-11'," said David Sigale, attorney for McDonald.
When the case is argued next Tuesday before the Supreme court, Otis McDonald will be in the audience, mindful that whatever the legal outcome his name is now etched in history.
"I didn't think too much about that. I just find myself here and I pray every night, and let the lord give me the strength to endure," McDonald said.
Otis McDonald presents a public face on the debate different than the more traditional white, rural gun rights advocate. That aside, the question before the Supreme Court next week is whether its decision in the summer of 2008 to strike down the Washington, DC, handgun ban can apply equally to Chicago and beyond.
(Copyright c2010 WLS-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
check the link for short interview clip
In the wake of the FBI and Homeland Security raid on the Hutaree militia in Michigan over the weekend, the government has released its indictment.
"Nine members of a Lenawee County-based militia group were planning to `levy war' against the United States and `oppose by force' the nation's government, according to an indictment released this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit," reports the Detroit News. "The five-count indictment was unsealed this morning and alleges that between August 2008 and the present, the defendants were attempting to use bombs and other weapons to oppose the U.S. government."
In addition to weapons charges and use of a "weapon of mass destruction" (sic), the government plans to charge the defendants with sedition.
Sedition is regarded as falling one step short of the more serious crime of treason.
The seditious conspiracy charge carries a maximum prison term of 20 years. The charge of using a "weapon of mass destruction" may result in a life sentence for the defendants.
The accused include: David Brian Stone, 45; his wife, Tina Stone, 44; his son, Joshua Matthew Stone, 21, all three of Clayton; and his other son, David Brian Stone Jr., 19, of Adrian. Also, Joshua Clough, 28, of Blissfield; Michael Meeks, 40 of Manchester; Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind.; Kristopher Sickles, 27, of Sandusky, Ohio; and Jacob Ward, 33, of Huron, Ohio.
"This is an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society," Andrew Arena, FBI special agent in charge, told the newspaper. "The FBI takes such extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States."
The Department of Homeland Security has worked closely with the Southern Poverty Law Center, long a source of conspiracy theories about militias.
In 2004, the FBI revealed the SPLC was involved with government operative and convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and the Aryan Republican Army at Elohim City. McVeigh's contact at Elohim City was Andreas Carl Strassmeir, a former German intelligence officer. Peter Langan, the son of a retired U.S. Marine intelligence officer and said to be the leader of the Aryan Republican Army, was a government informant.
Radio talk show host and racist firebrand Hal Turner recently admitted in federal court that he worked for the FBI as a "National Security Intelligence" asset. "Turner also claims the FBI coached him to make racist, anti-Semitic and other threatening statements on his radio show, but the newspaper also found many federal officials were concerned that his audience might follow up on his violence rhetoric," the Associated Press reported in November, 2009.
Turner's code name was "Valhalla" and "he received thousands of dollars from the FBI to report on such groups as the Aryan Nations and the white supremacist National Alliance.
The FBI, under its long-running COINTELPRO, subsidized, armed, directed and protected the Klu Klux Klan and other racist groups.
"Because the Hutaree had planned a covert reconnaissance operation for April, which had the potential of placing an unsuspecting member of the public at risk, the safety of the public and of the law enforcement community demanded intervention at this time," said Barbara McQuade, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Hutaree means "Christian soldier," according to the group, and members say they are preparing for battle with the Anti-Christ.
The indictment accuses the Christian group of planning to kill a member of law enforcement, possibly after a traffic stop, to "prompt a response by law enforcement." The alleged goal of this murder, according to the government, would be to "intimidate and demoralize law enforcement, diminishing their ranks and rendering them ineffective."
The indictment says the group then intended to use the incident to spark a "war" against law enforcement, using bombs, ambushes and prepared fighting positions.
It remains to be seen if the FBI had informers and agents provocateurs in the Hutaree militia.
please check link at top for further links and a short news clip
It will be interesting when the truth of this comes out. If the Gov informants hatched or provoked the incident. That would be truly intense.
Time will tell.
Simple enough, anyone legitimately suspected of being an informant traitor should receive a fair trial by jury or judge with a defense counsel of their choosing and if found guilty should be executed by hanging, no matter what their job status or otherwise, period.
The Baghdad snuff video released by WikiLeaks has yet to receive much corporate media play. MSNBC, however, covered the video. In a discussion of the video, Brett McGurk of the Council on Foreign Relations and an NSC member for Bush and Obama, defended the mass murder episode. McGurk said the soldiers fired on journalists because they thought they saw an RPG launcher.
How is it trained soldiers mistook camera equipment for an RPG launcher?
In fact, part of the mission of the military in Iraq is to target journalists. This was admitted by Eason Jordan in 2005. Jordan at the time was the head of CNN's news division. During a panel discussion in Davos, Switzerland, Jordan said "he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy."
Prior to Jordan's remarks, Pentagon publicist Victoria Clarke said that journalists who not vetted by the Pentagon were "putting themselves at risk." In other words, they would be targeted.
Harvard University professor and columnist David Gergen - who serves as an apologist for the elite on CNN - told the neocon and concentration camp apologist Michelle Malkin he was "startled" by Jordan's comments. "It's contrary to history, which is so far the other way. Our troops have gone out of their way to protect and rescue journalists." Gergen and Rep. Barney Frank were outraged by Jordan's comments. Connecticut Democrat Christopher Dodd was also outraged, according to the New York Sun.
There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Gergen, Frank, and Dodd are not outraged by the murder of innocents. They are angry that the media reports it. In 2003, Kate Adie, former chief news correspondent for the BBC, told Radio One Ireland that media not "embedded" with the Pentagon in Iraq would be "targeted down."
Emmy Award and Peabody Award winner Jordan was obliged to step down from CNN after making his comments. Telling the truth has consequences, especially for members of the Mockingbird corporate media.
U.S. troops deliberately slaughtered journalists at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad in 2003. Two journalists, Taras Protsyuk of the British news agency Reuters and Jose Couso of the Spanish network Telecino, were killed because they were not "embedded" with the Pentagon. On the same day, the Pentagon targeted the Baghdad offices of Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV, two Arabic-language news networks that have been broadcasting graphic footage. In both instances, the Pentagon claimed soldiers had come under fire.
In 2005, Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was targeted. Sgrena had been held hostage for a month by a little known Islamic group before the incident. "If a high-profile journalist whose capture and release made the international headlines can be gunned down along with Italian intelligence agents by US troops, how many Iraqi men, women and children have suffered the same fate for failing to obey US military orders? Only a few of the worst instances have been reported in the international media," Peter Symonds wrote on March 7, 2005.
In fact, over a million Iraqi men, women, and children have been killed since Bush invaded Iraq in early 2003. Bill Clinton killed 500,000 children before Bush. Bush Senior killed hundreds of thousands before Clinton. Obama is continuing this policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The establishment demands we honor the troops engaged in this sort of brutality and mass murder. Our support for the troops, however, means we support mass murder approaching the scale practiced by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Most Americans are completely ignorant or do not care that they are party to war crimes and mass murder.
The CIA and Pentagon have targeted WikiLeaks because they do not want the American people to know the truth - the United States, working at the behest of an international cartel of criminal bankers and corporatists, is assigned the task of taking down all who would resist their move toward world government and the imposition of a global slave labor plantation. The Muslim and much of the Arab world has been targeted because it continues to resist. The next target is Iran.
some food for thought
Once the war is over and the smoke has cleared and we have secured the Republic and the Constitution for the citizenry of our country, I move that we have nationwide trials in order to try all former politicians, military members and law enforcement, companies and organizations that either violated the Constitution and or stood by and let it happen and have always reveled in the thought that what a great and triumphant day that will be; question is what to do with them once they are found guilty.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
I second that movement.
Thank you, I think if they guessed what was waiting for them they may not act nervous outwardly, but you know and I know the prospect being very bad for them would cross their minds from time to time..."what if"...and that should be enough to quietly scare the hell out of them if they had any sense at all. If I were so honored to be on a Republic tribunal and I find them guilty they are in dire straights, because I will swing them myself, none of this time wasting nonsense of prolonged appeals to smile and sign books on tv, these people are criminals as much as those that they chastise.
The powers that be is a concept that represents those in control make the rules and enforce them...
There are many laws on the books that are rarely enforced. When someone is in the Gov's crossbars what do they typically get them on?
WHAT OPPONENTS SAY
More guns open the door for more danger. The wild, wild West wasn't a safe place precisely because more people carried guns.
An increased presence of firearms increases the possibility that a bystander could be hit by a stray bullet, or that a criminal will get a citizen's gun and use it for no good. Even some Second Amendment advocates say an individual openly carrying a gun in a public area can result in the same reaction that a false warning of fire can in a crowded theater.
WHAT PROPONENTS SAY
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so anyone openly carrying a firearm should not need a permit - and, in fact, in Nevada, that is the case.
Advocates of the state's open-carry law say that not everyone who carries a gun is a bad person, and that if more people carried firearms, those people who do wish to use them unlawfully would think twice before doing so.
HOW METRO POLICE ARE TOLD TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE OPENLY CARRYING GUNS
Metro's 20-minute refresher course on open carrying of firearms, produced in-house, begins with the statement that Nevada is an open-carry state.
It goes on to tell officers that there are three ways to "engage" a person who is openly carrying a firearm: a consensual stop, in which an officer casually walks up to an individual and attempts to engage in conversation but does not make an arrest if the person simply walks away; a "Terry stop," in which an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person may have committed a crime or is about to do so; or an arrest.
The training depicts three scenarios using still photos.
The first scenario, which occurs on the Strip, involves an anonymous tip shortly after midnight of an armed white or Hispanic man, roughly 5-foot-10 with a medium build. The tipster says the individual is wearing a blue shirt, black baggy shorts and has a black bandana hanging from a rear pocket, which can be considered a gang symbol. When officers arrive, they see that an individual closely matching that description has a cup in his hand and is 30 feet away from a large group of people. The officers are instructed to approach the individual to determine his frame of mind. If intoxicated, he could be arrested for possessing the firearm. He also would be in trouble if he were an underage drinker or an ex-felon in possession of a firearm. If he's not intoxicated and there is no suspicion that he has or is about to commit a crime, there is no reason to detain him.
In the next scenario, which takes place after 3 a.m. in a neighborhood known for drug peddling and gang violence, a woman calls police to report a young Asian man in her backyard with a gun and a small dog. By the time police arrive a few minutes later, they spot a man matching the description wearing a beanie and walking a dog on a leash on the sidewalk. The officers are instructed to approach the individual and ask him whether he was in the backyard - which would have been trespassing - and to try to determine whether the beanie could be used as a mask. Because he has no burglary tools and the woman did not report any theft or property damage, the officers are instructed to let him go if they have no other reason to detain him.
In the final scenario, officers at the Fremont Street Experience one evening during a festival of live entertainment come upon seven armed adults - five white men, a black man and a white woman - standing around but not drinking. In that instance, officers are instructed to leave those individuals alone.
Just about everybody on the Metro Police force has heard of Tim Farrell, and he sometimes gets mistaken for a law enforcement officer.
Farrell is simply a 29-year-old wireless Internet engineer - and a gun rights crusader. He is one of what appears to be a growing number of people taking up the "open-carry" cause, advocating a constitutional right to openly carry firearms.
"The open-carry movement has gained momentum over the last four or five years because people are waking up to their rights," Farrell says. "I don't need a permit to exercise free speech. I don't need a permit to be tried by a jury if I'm accused of a crime, so why do I need a permit to carry a gun if I have a constitutional right to carry a gun?"
Nevada is a better place than most for Farrell because it is "an open--carry state." Nevada reiterates the right to bear arms in its constitution and does not have blanket restrictions on law-abiding citizens' open carrying of firearms.
That's why a dozen or so people who attended the March 27 Tea Party rally in Searchlight were able to openly carry firearms.
One was Dave Stilwell, a 44-year-old truck driver from Las Vegas who always carries a gun for self-defense.
He says he was jogging back from a garage sale near his house one morning last May with his .45-caliber pistol on his hip. Around Jones Boulevard and Cheyenne Avenue, a Metro patrol car rolled up slowly behind him.
A shopkeeper had called police after seeing the gun, said the officer, who took the pistol from Stilwell, removed the magazine and the bullet in the chamber, checked the ID number on the gun and then returned the weapon and ammunition to Stilwell before driving away.
"I just told the officer I was exercising my body and my rights," he said. "In retrospect, I didn't think that was such a big deal.
"I knew I would have contact with police at some point. Even though it's my legal right to carry a gun, there's a lot of propaganda out there, a lot of inaccurate information. When I started to open carry a couple years ago, I would have guessed that 90 out of 100 people didn't think it was legal."
So have open-carry advocates latched onto the Tea Party movement? Stilwell said that although he attended with gun in holster, his reason for going was to join others who care about their rights.
"Rights are becoming more prevalent because people feel like their backs are against the wall because of the government," he says.
Farrell is not a Tea Partyer. He describes himself as libertarian and pro-choice on abortion. He and Stilwell are on the same page when it comes to guns, however.
Like Stilwell, Farrell says he carries his handgun wherever he goes, for self-defense. He says he has never been kicked out of a casino or other place of business but finds himself educating business owners who question why he is so brazenly armed.
Farrell says he has worn his gun many times into his neighborhood restaurant and bar near the U.S. 95-Summerlin Parkway interchange. But as he walks in one recent afternoon, a bartender who spots the gun is taken aback. She says the only pistol-packing customers she has served are undercover cops.
"So what I should have done is asked to see your concealed weapons permit because that is something that's mandatory," she tells Farrell.
"I don't have a concealed gun on me," he replies. "I do have a concealed-weapons permit but you do not need a concealed-weapons permit for a nonconcealed gun."
"I mean, a regular permit just to carry the gun around," she says.
"There is no permit in this state for that," he tells her.
"It used to be years ago you would have to give your weapons to the bartender," she says.
"This bar is private property, obviously," Farrell says. "You can set whatever rules you want."
"You can pull that out on me and shoot," she tells him. "You see what I'm saying?"
"Well, of course. And that's one of the reasons to carry openly, is for self-defense but it's also to educate others as well that, one, it's not against the law and, two, that not everyone with a gun is a bad guy. Certainly if there was a bad guy coming to rob you, he wouldn't let you see the gun until it was too late."
With that, the bartender goes about her business.
It undoubtedly helps that Farrell is not one of those guys who wears head-to-toe camouflage gear. He wears polo shirts and bluejeans.
He doesn't have a gun collection. "I have a handgun and a shotgun, that's all, just to keep me and my wife safe."
When Farrell read Stilwell's blog post about how he had been stopped by police, Farrell researched state and local laws, as well as police regulations and then conducted an experiment.
On the night of June 24, he holstered up his loaded 40-caliber Glock 23 pistol and proceeded to a sidewalk on Las Vegas Boulevard, just south of Charleston Boulevard, where he was certain he would be noticed by police. He was.
It wasn't his first encounter with the law. While vacationing in Nashua, N.H., early last year, he was stopped on foot on the way to a bank by police who asked about his gun. Minutes later he was allowed to go about his business with gun in tow. Such is life in the "live free or die" state, apparently.
The Las Vegas Strip encounter was far more intense, with police arriving in squad cars and on motorcycles in a show of force, guns drawn. Farrell was handcuffed and his gun was confiscated, its bullets removed. Over the course of the next 23 minutes, Farrell invoked his right to talk to an attorney, told police not to touch his gun, and that he hadn't consented to being searched and detained. He refused to answer questions about whether he possessed a registration card for the weapon, and invoked his right to remain silent.
Bottom line: He hadn't committed any crime. After police ran a background check on Farrell, confirming his gun was properly registered, and finding that he also has a concealed-weapons permit and is not a dangerous criminal, he was uncuffed. He was handed back his gun but the bullets were dropped down one of his pants pockets and the empty magazine was placed on an irrigation box 100 feet away. He was ordered not to move until police drove away.
"I understand the need for officer safety," Farrell said. "These guys have a tough job. But officer safety does not trump my rights. To stop me there has to be something other than the fact I have a gun. They shouldn't have even taken my gun."
Based on complaints from Farrell, Metro's Citizen Review Board and internal affairs division each launched investigations into his case last summer. Although the officers involved were cleared of wrongdoing, Metro's force had to take a refresher course on how to handle individuals who openly carry firearms.
Last month, a five-member panel of the Citizen Review Board found that police had complied with department policy related to the incident but that neither the policy nor police training at the time Farrell was stopped was specific enough on "open carry" stops. The board concluded that the police action was "the result of ambiguity among officers on how to handle an individual asserting his Second Amendment right to openly carry a gun in public."
While cadets are trained in Metro's police academy on how to handle constitutional rights, including those involving gun possession, the agency's thick policy and procedure manual is silent on open-carry issues.
Andrea Beckman, the Citizen Review Board's executive director, says Farrell's case "brought to light the significance of how to train police officers on open carry." Farrell's case, in fact, was the first open-carry dispute heard by the board, and his name is now familiar throughout Metro.
A little more than a month after "the Farrell incident," Metro's 3,000 officers took their refresher course.
"When we don't respond to something the way we should have, we're quick to correct ourselves," Metro Patrol Division Deputy Chief Kathleen O'Connor says.
The review board noted, however, that one police sergeant who confronted Farrell needed more training because it was clear from the sergeant's testimony that if he had been given a test after the refresher, he would have failed.
The open-carry issue is tricky for police, O'Connor says, because officers are caught between preserving an individual's open-carry rights and protecting the public from potential harm.
Of course, some police officers are not the only ones uncomfortable with the idea of lots of citizens walking around with guns on their hips. Opponents say the more guns that are being toted around, the greater the possibility that a bystander could be hit by a stray bullet, the more likely it is that a criminal will get a citizen's gun and use it for no good. Even some Second Amendment advocates acknowledge that an individual who openly wears a gun in a crowded public area might result in the same reaction that a false warning of fire can in a crowded theater.
There are exceptions to Nevada's open-carry rights. Among them is a state law that prohibits average citizens from carrying firearms on college campuses, at public or private schools and at day care centers without written permission from the heads of those facilities. An individual also cannot legally possess a firearm while intoxicated.
Local laws prohibit possession of guns in Clark County parks or in vehicles within North Las Vegas city limits.
Violation of the North Las Vegas "deadly weapons" ordinance, on the books since 1978, is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The ordinance provides exceptions to the weapons ban as it pertains to "ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation." The ordinance has only been enforced in conjunction with traffic stops for other violations, such as speeding or suspicion of criminal activity, police say.
It also appears to violate the state law that gives the Legislature, not local governments, the power to regulate firearms, UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Thomas McAffee says.
"The state statute does permit some older local registration requirements, but the city ordinance here is a complete ban on possession in a motor vehicle, which seems to clearly fall within the scope of the state reservation of authority," McAffee says.
Michael Davidson, North Las Vegas' chief criminal attorney, said his interpretation is that the ordinance is legal because when the state law was last revised in 2007, the intent was to preserve pre-1989 local gun laws that had nothing to do with firearm registration. He said there have been dozens of cases in recent years where convictions that included violation of that ordinance have been upheld in North Las Vegas Municipal Court without a single appeal of the weapons ban made to District Court in Clark County.
"The intent was to go after gangbangers, not mom and pop in the RV," Davidson says.
Farrell and other local open-carry advocates counter that North Las Vegas' law is unconstitutional on its face, no matter the intent.
These advocates staged peaceful protests in North Las Vegas last year - picking up litter "to show we're just regular guys" - and in January in front of Bally's on the Strip, where numerous tourists had their pictures taken with Farrell and roughly 20 of his fellow gun-toters.
Farrell had given a Metro watch commander a courtesy heads-up before his armed group headed down to the Strip. The police commander thanked him for the warning, acknowledged the group's right to assemble, but also pleaded with Farrell to cancel his plans.
The tourists who took pictures, however, encouraged Farrell and his posse to keep standing up for the Constitution, he says, and that's what he intends to do.
If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long.
Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.
While the odds on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called "a long train of abuses and usurpations." Solutions to our nation's problems require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008 presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3 billion that same year?
What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of politicians?
One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations, you're probably a candidate for some medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.
Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs?
They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.
The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There's no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior "was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel's corruption. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized corruption that's a part of Washington's daily dealing.
Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does.
Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined . (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist.
Before you judge me for that statement, I would like to add (and I forget who was supposed to have said it first):
"Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that someone is NOT out to get you"
I think if a person is not overly concerned about what is transpiring in this country and in turn other country's around the world, there in should lie the real area of concern.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
The final goal? It's a long way off - a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.
Hey, we can dream.......right?
Thank you Mr. Mod![8D]
You summed it up very well. But I have learned these 'dreams' only come true is 'story books and movies' not in the real world. So you MUST fight like he ll to get what you can when you can and it will NEVER reach this ideal/pure/perfect state you dream about. While the 'dreamers dream' and talk tough we fighters fight for their and our rights![V]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
The final goal? It's a long way off - a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.
Hey, we can dream.......right?
Thank you Mr. Mod![8D]
You summed it up very well. But I have learned these 'dreams' only come true is 'story books and movies' not in the real world. So you MUST fight like he ll to get what you can when you can and it will NEVER reach this ideal/pure/perfect state you dream about. While the 'dreamers dream' and talk tough we fighters fight for their and our rights![V]
I have to say Jim, that I can only feel saddened for you, if none of "your" dreams have ever came true in the "real world"
Many....MANY of "my" dreams have come true, in the "real world"
I have had to work/fight for some of them, but it was worth it.
The way I see it, the difference between people like you, and "strict" Constitutionalists, is the "platform" they start the fight FROM.
People like you, who say they live in the "real world" ACCEPT that there will be infringements on our rights. The degree, is the only point of contention.
(who gets to decide the degree? Nevermind, I will not get into that right now)
The strict Constitutionalists DO NOT ACCEPT "ANY" infringements.
Then there is the other side. The gun grabbers who WANT THEM ALL.
The Schumers, Feinsteins, Pelosis, and the Brady bunch, etc.
Picture a football field.
On one side....the gun grabbers.
The other side....strict Constitutionalists.
The battle....tug-of-war.
Both sides start on the goal line.
And the battle rages.
Now if "your" team were to start.
The gun grabbers are on the goal line.
Your team starts on the 20 yard line. 30? 40?
To start the battle, you have ALREADY conceded part of the field.
You will never get that portion of the field back.
Like I said, the two teams fighting the gun grabbers, are starting the fight from two different platforms. Even if your team wins, it still looses the yardage that they had already given up, before the battle began.
It is easy for me to decide which team that I want to be on.
And to what degree I want that team to win.
Im not going to say that I agree with everything the author has written. I would rather see fresh faces in Congress instead of the same old Republican, Democrat choices. I would revel in delight to see some long sitting incumbants receive the boot. Please keep in mind that I rarely post an opinion and 90% of the words I have posted here are not my own. Some articles are better than others but believe me, I'm not short on material. Like always, thanks for the comments guys.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
The final goal? It's a long way off - a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.
Hey, we can dream.......right?
Thank you Mr. Mod![8D]
You summed it up very well. But I have learned these 'dreams' only come true is 'story books and movies' not in the real world. So you MUST fight like he ll to get what you can when you can and it will NEVER reach this ideal/pure/perfect state you dream about. While the 'dreamers dream' and talk tough we fighters fight for their and our rights![V]
I have to say Jim, that I can only feel saddened for you, if none of "your" dreams have ever came true in the "real world"
Many....MANY of "my" dreams have come true, in the "real world"
I have had to work/fight for some of them, but it was worth it.
The way I see it, the difference between people like you, and "strict" Constitutionalists, is the "platform" they start the fight FROM.
People like you, who say they live in the "real world" ACCEPT that there will be infringements on our rights. The degree, is the only point of contention.
(who gets to decide the degree? Nevermind, I will not get into that right now)
The strict Constitutionalists DO NOT ACCEPT "ANY" infringements.
Then there is the other side. The gun grabbers who WANT THEM ALL.
The Schumers, Feinsteins, Pelosis, and the Brady bunch, etc.
Picture a football field.
On one side....the gun grabbers.
The other side....strict Constitutionalists.
The battle....tug-of-war.
Both sides start on the goal line.
And the battle rages.
Now if "your" team were to start.
The gun grabbers are on the goal line.
Your team starts on the 20 yard line. 30? 40?
To start the battle, you have ALREADY conceded part of the field.
You will never get that portion of the field back.
Like I said, the two teams fighting the gun grabbers, are starting the fight from two different platforms. Even if your team wins, it still looses the yardage that they had already given up, before the battle began.
It is easy for me to decide which team that I want to be on.
And to what degree I want that team to win.
Well said. The fight is continuous and on-going. It is daily. Never give up, never surrender, never spot them an inch.
Weapons in the hands of citizens keep the Republic safe.
The INSTANT you concede that government ought to decide whom gets or keeps a weapon..'for the safety of others'..you have given up a HUGE chunk of territory..and rendered the Second null and void.
For that government will keep pushing controls and laws until gun owners are all fenced in to a tight little corral from which there will be no escape.
Better by FAR to accept a few stupid people running amok with weapons...soon taken care of by decent citizens...then government controls that WILL lead to the death of millions.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Grasp what Pickenup is saying, Jim ?
The great principle ;
Weapons in the hands of citizens keep the Republic safe.
The INSTANT you concede that government ought to decide whom gets or keeps a weapon..'for the safety of others'..you have given up a HUGE chunk of territory..and rendered the Second null and void.
For that government will keep pushing controls and laws until gun owners are all fenced in to a tight little corral from which there will be no escape.
Better by FAR to accept a few stupid people running amok with weapons...soon taken care of by decent citizens...then government controls that WILL lead to the death of millions.
Yes Hb I do. But Mr Mod is totally clueless as to what I said. His response has literally nothing to do with what I said!!! Yes I have 'dreamed' of a hunting rifle that would shoot MOA, and I have realized this. But you see this is and was a 'realistic' dream, not a 'day dream' which is what you all are having! When, in the entire history of this world, has any dream of 'total freedom to all' ever been a reality. Answer: NEVER, and it never will be, so dream on.[;)]
quote:When, in the entire history of this world, has any dream of 'total freedom to all' ever been a reality. Answer: NEVER, and it never will be, so dream on.You are arguing from a false premise, Jim and you know it.
The Constitution does not provide 'total freedom to all'. The Constitution merely lists the form of our government, the framework within which it must operate and the strict limitations on its size, scope, and powers.
The BOR's were added to enumerate certain inherent rights and to strictly bind the government even further in what it was authorized to do. A number of absolute 'do nots' were incorporated at that time, e.g. 'government keep out' provisions.
In forming the Republic, a contract was entered into between the people, the states and the central government, in order for an orderly society which secured the liberties of individuals and secured the ability of everyone to succeed or to fail.
The Constitution established the limitations on what government can do and established the basis for states to make laws based upon their own desires and needs and their individual state constitutions, as long as the supreme law of the land, e.g. 'the contract', was adhered to and the 'government keep out' provisions were observed.
No individual has 'total freedom' without sanction and therefore one cannot murder, rape, steal, molest or commit other crimes at will.
If one does so, one is to be sanctioned/punished for what one specifically 'did', not what one 'may' do.
The BOR's fit perfectly into this framework.
Amendment II, in particular, is a clear prohibition on government from infringing upon the keeping and bearing of arms, yet you state that 'perfection' is unattainable and therefore certain government infringements are acceptable.
Holding to 'no infringement' in no way is unreasonable nor is it 'unrealistic', nor does it open any pandora's box.
All that must happen is a simple paradigm shift back to the concept and 'reality' of punishing individual people for the actual 'commission' of individual bad acts, rather than the imposition of 'prior restraint' on certain people and on certain inanimate objects due to what individuals 'might actually do'.
Simple stuff, really.
Since the inception of the Republic, there have been a number of people amongst the populous and within government who, for whatever reasons, or to whatever degree, simply can't find it within themselves to hold to this dirt-simple operational principle.
Specific punishment or sanction for the actual commission of 'individual bad acts' -vs- prohibitions, regulations, controls on people and objects based on what they 'may conceivably do'.
A huge divide and one which has been with us since the beginning.
Thankfully, the founders saw fit to frame our Republic based upon the 'individualism ethic', rather than the 'collectivist ethic', which is exactly where gun-control, to whatever degree, springs from.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:When, in the entire history of this world, has any dream of 'total freedom to all' ever been a reality. Answer: NEVER, and it never will be, so dream on.You are arguing from a false premise, Jim and you know it.
The Constitution does not provide 'total freedom to all'. The Constitution merely lists the form of our government, the framework within which it must operate and the strict limitations on its size, scope, and powers.
The BOR's were added to enumerate certain inherent rights and to strictly bind the government even further in what it was authorized to do. A number of absolute 'do nots' were incorporated at that time, e.g. 'government keep out' provisions.
In forming the Republic, a contract was entered into between the people, the states and the central government, in order for an orderly society which secured the liberties of individuals and secured the ability of everyone to succeed or to fail.
The Constitution established the limitations on what government can do and established the basis for states to make laws based upon their own desires and needs and their individual state constitutions, as long as the supreme law of the land, e.g. 'the contract', was adhered to and the 'government keep out' provisions were observed.
No individual has 'total freedom' without sanction and therefore one cannot murder, rape, steal, molest or commit other crimes at will.
If one does so, one is to be sanctioned/punished for what one specifically 'did', not what one 'may' do.
The BOR's fit perfectly into this framework.
Amendment II, in particular, is a clear prohibition on government from infringing upon the keeping and bearing of arms, yet you state that 'perfection' is unattainable and therefore certain government infringements are acceptable.
Holding to 'no infringement' in no way is unreasonable nor is it 'unrealistic', nor does it open any pandora's box.
All that must happen is a simple paradigm shift back to the concept and 'reality' of punishing individual people for the actual 'commission' of individual bad acts, rather than the imposition of 'prior restraint' on certain people and on certain inanimate objects due to what individuals 'might actually do'.
Simple stuff, really.
Since the inception of the Republic, there have been a number of people amongst the populous and within government who, for whatever reasons, or to whatever degree, simply can't find it within themselves to hold to this dirt-simple operational principle.
Specific punishment or sanction for the actual commission of 'individual bad acts' -vs- prohibitions, regulations, controls on people and objects based on what they 'may conceivably do'.
A huge divide and one which has been with us since the beginning.
Thankfully, the founders saw fit to frame our Republic based upon the 'individualism ethic', rather than the 'collectivist ethic', which is exactly where gun-control, to whatever degree, springs from.
No Jeff I am not arguing from a false premise. MANY here, who label themselves as CA's, state flat out they will tolerate NO restrictions WHAT SO EVER on the RTKABA's (total freedom by ANYONE, ANY WHERE, to purchase, own, use, ANY weapon, ANY time). You and I know this can not and will not EVER occur, but they totally deny and defy reality by insisting on this. This is why I make the argument I do. I stated this 'total freedom' they DEMAND is unrealistic, has never occurred, and will never occur. Do you agree with them or me???[?]
Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.
It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.
The bill could still face a veto from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. A spokesman for Ms. Brewer said she has not publicly commented on the bill. Ms. Brewer, a Republican, has argued for stringent immigration laws.
Under the measure, passed Tuesday by Arizona's lower house, after being passed earlier by the state Senate, foreign nationals are required to carry proof of legal residency.
Immigrants' rights groups roundly criticized the bill. "The objective is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they leave the state," said Chris Newman, general counsel for the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling."
The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, was in a committee session Tuesday and couldn't be reached, his offices said. Mr. Pearce, a Republican, represents the city of Mesa, in Maricopa County, whose sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has gained a national reputation for his tough stance on immigration enforcement. A spokesman for Mr. Arpaio didn't return a request for comment.
The bill is different from an earlier version, giving protections for church and community organizations from criminal prosecution for transporting or harboring illegal immigrants.
In a statement, Tuesday Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) called the measure "a comprehensive immigration enforcement bill that addresses the concerns of our communities, constituents and colleagues."
"This updated version gives our local police officers the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, while protecting the civil rights of citizens and legal residents."However, human rights groups are certain to challenge the measure in court, said Joe Rubio, lead organizer for Valley Interfaith Project, a Phoenix-based advocacy group, calling it "an economic train wreck." He added that "Arizona's economic recovery will lag way behind the country's if we keep chasing away our workforce. Where do the legislators think business will find workers?"
The bill in some ways toughens up a situation that the Obama administration had tried to roll back. Under a program known as 287g, some local law enforcement agencies were trained to enforce federal immigration laws by checking suspects' immigration status.
Mr. Arpaio, the Maricopa county sheriff, had been one of the most aggressive enforcers of 287g. However, the Obama administration in recent months has sought to scale back that program, and had reduced the resources it made available to Mr. Arpaio's office and others.
-Tamara Audi contributed to this article
we need a little of this down here in south Texas
Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.
It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.
The bill could still face a veto from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. A spokesman for Ms. Brewer said she has not publicly commented on the bill. Ms. Brewer, a Republican, has argued for stringent immigration laws.
Under the measure, passed Tuesday by Arizona's lower house, after being passed earlier by the state Senate, foreign nationals are required to carry proof of legal residency.
Immigrants' rights groups roundly criticized the bill. "The objective is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they leave the state," said Chris Newman, general counsel for the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling."
The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, was in a committee session Tuesday and couldn't be reached, his offices said. Mr. Pearce, a Republican, represents the city of Mesa, in Maricopa County, whose sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has gained a national reputation for his tough stance on immigration enforcement. A spokesman for Mr. Arpaio didn't return a request for comment.
The bill is different from an earlier version, giving protections for church and community organizations from criminal prosecution for transporting or harboring illegal immigrants.
In a statement, Tuesday Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) called the measure "a comprehensive immigration enforcement bill that addresses the concerns of our communities, constituents and colleagues."
"This updated version gives our local police officers the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, while protecting the civil rights of citizens and legal residents."However, human rights groups are certain to challenge the measure in court, said Joe Rubio, lead organizer for Valley Interfaith Project, a Phoenix-based advocacy group, calling it "an economic train wreck." He added that "Arizona's economic recovery will lag way behind the country's if we keep chasing away our workforce. Where do the legislators think business will find workers?"
The bill in some ways toughens up a situation that the Obama administration had tried to roll back. Under a program known as 287g, some local law enforcement agencies were trained to enforce federal immigration laws by checking suspects' immigration status.
Mr. Arpaio, the Maricopa county sheriff, had been one of the most aggressive enforcers of 287g. However, the Obama administration in recent months has sought to scale back that program, and had reduced the resources it made available to Mr. Arpaio's office and others.
-Tamara Audi contributed to this article
we need a little of this down here in south Texas
Apparently this bill as well as the concealed weapons bill are both on the Governor's desk waiting for her to make a decision. Meantime news today from Phoenix is that a priest and an nun were both stabbed in a Phoenix church by a Transient. I am familiar with transient's carrying knives. Had one fess up to a police officer that he had a knife. Heck, his knife was a KNIFE alright. Twelve inch kitchen knife shoved down his pant leg. Officer was glad that the transient brought that to his attention cause he said he might have had to shoot him had he pulled that out later. Officer should have asked if there was anything else before he searched him. Cause the officer didn't do either .. and the transient pulled another from the other pant leg when they got to the station. Fooled him twice it would appear .. as they say .. shame on him. Could cause the Governor to have second thoughts on the carrying of concealed weapons I suppose.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:When, in the entire history of this world, has any dream of 'total freedom to all' ever been a reality. Answer: NEVER, and it never will be, so dream on.You are arguing from a false premise, Jim and you know it.
The Constitution does not provide 'total freedom to all'. The Constitution merely lists the form of our government, the framework within which it must operate and the strict limitations on its size, scope, and powers.
The BOR's were added to enumerate certain inherent rights and to strictly bind the government even further in what it was authorized to do. A number of absolute 'do nots' were incorporated at that time, e.g. 'government keep out' provisions.
In forming the Republic, a contract was entered into between the people, the states and the central government, in order for an orderly society which secured the liberties of individuals and secured the ability of everyone to succeed or to fail.
The Constitution established the limitations on what government can do and established the basis for states to make laws based upon their own desires and needs and their individual state constitutions, as long as the supreme law of the land, e.g. 'the contract', was adhered to and the 'government keep out' provisions were observed.
No individual has 'total freedom' without sanction and therefore one cannot murder, rape, steal, molest or commit other crimes at will.
If one does so, one is to be sanctioned/punished for what one specifically 'did', not what one 'may' do.
The BOR's fit perfectly into this framework.
Amendment II, in particular, is a clear prohibition on government from infringing upon the keeping and bearing of arms, yet you state that 'perfection' is unattainable and therefore certain government infringements are acceptable.
Holding to 'no infringement' in no way is unreasonable nor is it 'unrealistic', nor does it open any pandora's box.
All that must happen is a simple paradigm shift back to the concept and 'reality' of punishing individual people for the actual 'commission' of individual bad acts, rather than the imposition of 'prior restraint' on certain people and on certain inanimate objects due to what individuals 'might actually do'.
Simple stuff, really.
Since the inception of the Republic, there have been a number of people amongst the populous and within government who, for whatever reasons, or to whatever degree, simply can't find it within themselves to hold to this dirt-simple operational principle.
Specific punishment or sanction for the actual commission of 'individual bad acts' -vs- prohibitions, regulations, controls on people and objects based on what they 'may conceivably do'.
A huge divide and one which has been with us since the beginning.
Thankfully, the founders saw fit to frame our Republic based upon the 'individualism ethic', rather than the 'collectivist ethic', which is exactly where gun-control, to whatever degree, springs from.
No Jeff I am not arguing from a false premise. MANY here, who label themselves as CA's, state flat out they will tolerate NO restrictions WHAT SO EVER on the RTKABA's (total freedom by ANYONE, ANY WHERE, to purchase, own, use, ANY weapon, ANY time). You and I know this can not and will not EVER occur, but they totally deny and defy reality by insisting on this. This is why I make the argument I do. I stated this 'total freedom' they DEMAND is unrealistic, has never occurred, and will never occur. Do you agree with them or me???[?]
Jeff, I am talking to you. Do you see where I am coming from here? Do you agree with them or do you agree some 'restriction' are a reality?[8D]
Back in the day that "a man was as good as his word" .. a concept which seems to be all but forgotten in our politican's today .. a person could be relied upon to do the right thing and take responsibility for their actions.
Looking over the gene pool these days, it may be far too diluted to ever work again.
Comments
You will not hear me criticize a man attempting what you are doing..as long as the clear meaning of the Second is kept in mind.
I doubt that to be a problem with you at all.
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
February 11, 2010
In Massachusetts, more than a dozen but less than twenty firearms are considered an arsenal and may get you arrested and held for "evaluation," especially if you mistrust and fear the government.
"A Massachusetts man is under arrest for the stash of guns police found in his possession," reports MSNBC, WHDH-TV, and the Associated Press. "Authorities took Gregory Girard, 45, into custody Wednesday afternoon on weapons charges after apparently finding dozens of guns inside his Manchester-by-the-Sea home."
According to the report, flares guns, handcuffs, kevlar vests, and helmets are weapons.
Girard's crime? He feared the government would impose martial law. "He was convinced that martial law was imminent," said a prosecutor.
Authorities were tipped off by his wife, a Cambridge psychiatrist. She told police she was afraid to go home and plans to file a restraining order. "He made the following statements to her, `Don't talk to people. Shoot them instead. It's fine to shoot people in the head, because traitors deserve it,'" the prosecutor said. It was not reported in what context the statements were made.
Girard rarely left the house, hoarded food and medication and warned those in adjoining apartments not to be alarmed by noises that sounded like gunfire, according to his neighbors, the report states. He had converted his third-story loft into a firing range, according to police.
In Massachusetts, this enough to get you arrested and held for psychiatric evaluation. Actually threatening and assaulting somebody is not required. All you have to do is have a couple guns, assorted military and police equipment, and talk about martial law.
In April of 2009, Massachusetts passed S18, a martial law bill. It gives the governor the power to authorize the deployment and use of force to distribute supplies and materials and and allows local authorities to enter private residences for investigation and to quarantine individuals.
"Any person who knowingly violates an order of the commissioner or his or her designee, or of a local public health authority or its designee, given to effectuate the purposes of this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of note more than one thousand dollars, or both," the legislation states.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Man Arrested for Practicing Second Amendment, Warning About Martial Law
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
February 11, 2010
In Massachusetts, more than a dozen but less than twenty firearms are considered an arsenal and may get you arrested and held for "evaluation," especially if you mistrust and fear the government.
"A Massachusetts man is under arrest for the stash of guns police found in his possession," reports MSNBC, WHDH-TV, and the Associated Press. "Authorities took Gregory Girard, 45, into custody Wednesday afternoon on weapons charges after apparently finding dozens of guns inside his Manchester-by-the-Sea home."
According to the report, flares guns, handcuffs, kevlar vests, and helmets are weapons.
Girard's crime? He feared the government would impose martial law. "He was convinced that martial law was imminent," said a prosecutor.
Authorities were tipped off by his wife, a Cambridge psychiatrist. She told police she was afraid to go home and plans to file a restraining order. "He made the following statements to her, `Don't talk to people. Shoot them instead. It's fine to shoot people in the head, because traitors deserve it,'" the prosecutor said. It was not reported in what context the statements were made.
Girard rarely left the house, hoarded food and medication and warned those in adjoining apartments not to be alarmed by noises that sounded like gunfire, according to his neighbors, the report states. He had converted his third-story loft into a firing range, according to police.
In Massachusetts, this enough to get you arrested and held for psychiatric evaluation. Actually threatening and assaulting somebody is not required. All you have to do is have a couple guns, assorted military and police equipment, and talk about martial law.
In April of 2009, Massachusetts passed S18, a martial law bill. It gives the governor the power to authorize the deployment and use of force to distribute supplies and materials and and allows local authorities to enter private residences for investigation and to quarantine individuals.
"Any person who knowingly violates an order of the commissioner or his or her designee, or of a local public health authority or its designee, given to effectuate the purposes of this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of note more than one thousand dollars, or both," the legislation states.
by Michael Boldin
lewrockwell
Recently by Michael Bolden: Colorado, South Dakota Firearms Freedom Act Introduced
Around the country, twenty-two states are currently considering a bill known as the "Firearms Freedom Act." This bill declares that guns, accessories, and ammunition made within a state, sold within that state and kept in that state are not subject to federal laws or regulations under the "Interstate Commerce Clause" of the Constitution.
Montana and Tennessee passed a Firearms Freedom Act into law in 2009, and a number of states are moving that direction in the 2010 legislative session. In South Carolina, where a Firearms Freedom Act was also introduced in 2009, some representatives have taken things a step further.
NULLIFYING GUN REGISTRATIONS
Introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly this week is House Bill 4509 (H4509), which if passed, would make law that "no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State."
No caveat for regulations under the commerce clause. No caveat for types of firearms either. This bill says NO to all gun registrations - period.
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition.
In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts:
"The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government"
and
"where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them"
In short, nullification means this: The state is taking a position that a particular federal law is unconstitutional, and thus, 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 that state is concerned.
But nullification is much more than just mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice requires active resistance to it by the people and the state government.
INTERPOSITION
In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws - that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are "duty bound to interpose" or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.
H4509 includes strong language to assert this principle:
Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition, and these requirements violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people
(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.
(C) Any person violating the provisions of this subsection (B) is guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.
Supporters of such legislation point to laws passed by other states that have effectively nullified federal laws around the country. Fourteen states have now defied federal laws on marijuana. And, two-dozen states have refused to comply with the Bush-era Real ID Act, rendering that 2005 law virtually null and void today.
Guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes.
The final goal? It's a long way off - a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.
The final goal? It's a long way off - a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.
Hey, we can dream.......right?
steve
Thanks, fella, for your efforts. Rest assured, many of us here appreciate your drive. Don't be a stranger, drop around and let us know all is well with you.
Nathan Janes
February 24, 2010
A flow of information is constantly streaming from the television set; a bombardment of words and pictures. The speed at which this information is communicated makes it easy for the signal to take control, switching the viewer's brain to stand-by as information is absorbed without analysis or question. Today the television's constant signal shapes the conclusions of the masses and produces the collective norm. The signal prescribes what is news and what is truth through the words of so-called experts and authorities, gelding the consciousness and independent thoughts of those subjected to it. Through television, the masses can be made to accept the most monstrous distortions of reality. The signal is a chill wind of continuous oppression over the minds of the masses. It controls the management of society and culture, creating uniformity across all subjects.
The fuel for this vehicle of mass deception is a technique known as perception management where an array of psychological techniques are used to alter the truth, leading the viewer to a desired conclusion. Some call this spin or propaganda while others know it as lying. According to Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister for Adolph Hitler, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Most of what can be found on the nightly news is nothing but advertisements selling more government and a false reality that benefits only those in control. Television is the dictator of information; newspaper and radio are the whisper campaign of the television's message.
It is expected that Americans will consistently prescribe to the doctrine of the television. It is subtly communicated that one should stay within the collective and never challenge the message, for doing so may be considered an aggression towards culture. The message is, "Be a good consumer; always obey authority; you know nothing; listen only to experts; be content and never question or express new ideas." This signal is being broadcast across millions of screens, indoctrinating the unconscious minds of those who choose this as their only reality. Self-censorship occurs when these individuals become so deeply indoctrinated that they are afraid to discuss any information outside the paradigm of television-created culture; they police their thoughts to ensure they won't conflict with this culture. Sadly, many people's reality today does not allow any outside information to process, instead it is written off as conspiracy or blatant lies. Our consciousness has been destroyed so much that fiction has become reality. An entire lifestyle of poisonous foods, pharmaceuticals, and fluoridated water are accepted as safe and sold to us at the cost of our health and well being.
Those of the establishment are using the incredibly powerful weapon of mass psychology as a method of controlling the minds of the masses and altering the behavior of individuals. Edward Bernays, a pioneer in the field of public relations in the 20th century, applied Sigmund Freud's theory of psychoanalysis to manipulate the masses by engineering consent. According to Bernays, "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it." Advertisers and psychologists of the billion dollar culture creation industry manufacture trends through the proliferation of insecurities; and manipulating desires and emotions. These concepts are also employed to control how individuals think about politics, as well as the possibilities and limitations within society. Those welding power within our streams of mass communication market their plans into each generation as individuals adopt specific ways of thinking and never suspect that all the major events and trends within their lifetime are actually planned by an elite few before they are even born. In our society today, culture is created from the top down. Virtually all forms of culture are created by the ruling class to build a false sense of reality, ensure social compliance, and control the future course of cultural evolution.
Predictive programming is a tool used by the establishment to acclimate the public to new ideas, trends, beliefs, and threats. It is used through television by including certain situations or ideas within the plots of many fictional shows, familiarizing the viewer with these concepts no matter what they may be watching. When similar situations occur or like ideas are circulated in the world we think that these particular things are quite natural for we have unknowingly been made familiar with them through television. By viewing nearly any popular show on television, one can see the same propaganda that will be aired on the nightly news. Propaganda on a wide array of subjects has been interwoven into a great number of television shows. Just a few of these subjects include global warming, vaccinations, torture, terrorism, national security, the militarization of police, and the degradation of the family unit. Through predictive programming, television shapes culture and prevents individuals from asking questions.
Crisis' are created on a daily basis and broadcast across the airwaves to keep individuals in a state of panic and fear. Whether it be the threat of a pandemic or terrorism, the constant state of crisis has created a form of mental illness as we are slowly acclimated into an age of crisis. By using Hegelian dialectic, the television promotes the problem, guides our reaction, and presents the solution. The problem of terrorism was exclaimed, a strong emotional response was evoked, and it was stated that our rights need be sacrificed in order to protect us from the threat. We've lost personal sovereignty under the guise of terrorism; we're stopped and searched; we're watched by cameras as we go about our lives; and we're encouraged to spy on our neighbors. We have been trained to accept the life of a prisoner.
America is in a state of enlightened despotism where most individuals live only to satisfy selfish inner desires and remain ignorant of the state of the world around them. In most public places one can find a television transmitting propaganda around the clock ensuring the masses remain focused on trivial matters. From birth we take the world as it's presented on television. We don't question it and any serious criticism of TV is becoming psychologically impossible in society. Who would suspect getting born into a world where everything around you is a continuous lie? The youth of today are convinced that the experts and personalities on television are the authority of credible information while parents and older generations are foolish with dated ideas. Children are conditioned to disconnect from what is truly important to their well being and instead focus on mindless trivia, sports, celebrity gossip, and buying an array of material things. They invest their psychological worth in fantasy characters on television while ignoring or even scorning individuals contributing to the betterment of humanity. They are discouraged from getting involved in their local community and often lack the ability to think independently or to resist corruption. As their children's minds are molded by television, there is barely a murmur from the public.
For over half a century, our society has lived under this signal of mental programming and conditioning. The message is clear: don't be a leader, don't engage in critical thinking, and don't care about the people in your life. Until individuals become aware of the current information war, our standard of living and our liberties will continue to be degraded and we will continue to lose communities and meaningful relationships between people. Currently, pockets of resistance are beginning to spring up everywhere as some unplug the signal and regain control of their own thoughts. Informed individuals are canceling their cable and satellite subscriptions and instead spending time with their families and children while participating in meaningful experiences. They are seeking alternative news sources. They are reading about those who weld incredible influence over culture like Edward Bernays, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Charles Galton Darwin, Plato, Bertrand Russell, and Aldous Huxley. However, it is a continuous battle to educate the masses for the television remains our greatest threat to individual sovereignty and the largest obstacle to becoming a truly informed individual. Fortunately, unplugging from the signal is easy. The television can simply be turned off. Through doing so, you may realize nearly our entire world is now a hoax; things once known as truth are fake. We have been trained like dogs to be obedient to our television; our master has had our minds on a tight leash. Let us never forget the truth will not be televised.
Doesn't have much to do with the 2nd but I found it to be a damn good article.
Very good post Steve. It should be over in GD.
I guess I am a conspiracy type, since I have chosen the internet as my source of info, like you and this article.
I have chosen the redpill. The matrix is no place for a freedom lover.[;)]
Thanks Steve.
We do not watch TV in our family. For this and other practical reasons. I know when I am talking to someone whether they are TV addicts. Most people are. Why else would you pay for the content that is on cable and go out and spend hundreds of dollars on a device so you can watch that drivel.
The braindead TV addicts have a great celebration every year called the Super Bowl where they sit around eating and drinking crap while watching messages that tell them to eat and drink more crap. Drug habits make for better citizens than those addicted to TV.
abclocal
Reported by Paul Meincke
February 24, 2010 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A grandfather is taking his 2nd Amendment fight to the U.S. Supreme Court in what is expected to be a landmark case. Otis McDonald, 76, is suing the city of Chicago over its handgun ban.
McDonald says he wants the right to protect himself from gang members who threaten the Morgan Park neighborhood where he lives.
McDonald's case will be argued before the nation's high court next week. ABC 7's Paul Meincke talked with McDonald.
McDonald is a retired maintenance engineer who moved to Chicago in the early 1950s with $18 in his pocket. At this point in his life, he says, he surely didn't set out to make history, but that's clearly where he finds himself.
"I have a strong drive to do what I can to right what I see is wrong," said McDonald.
For the better part of four decades, McDonald has lived in Morgan Park. He and his wife raised their family here. Ten years after they first moved in, Chicago enacted its handgun ban, an idea McDonald -- at the time -- applauded.
But, in the years that have followed, McDonald says his neighborhood has changed. More crime. He has been broken into three times, and he has long since concluded that the gun ban is a bust.
"It doesn't work," McDonald said. "It doesn't work simply, because the senior citizens, the law-abiding citizens like myself, is being victimized by saying you can't have a handgun in your own home. Why? Tell me what I can't have in my own home. I'm not out robbing nobody."
After attending an NRA rally four years ago, McDonald was recruited by gun rights activists to serve as a possible plaintiff in legal action against the city.
"I was skeptical at first. You know. I'm thinking, 'Wait a minute here - little ol' me.' Hey, I'm all up in here with lawyers and things," said McDonald.
McDonald joked with the lawyers that his color must have a bearing on his selection, but he ultimately decided that race and politics were secondary to a cause he believes in. So, he agreed to be the lead plaintiff, "McDonald v. the City of Chicago and Mayor Richard M. Daley."
"Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society? If they think that's the answer they're greatly mistaken. Then, why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West where you have a gun and I have a gun and we settle it in the streets?" said Mayor Daley.
"I don't think anybody involved in this case -- certainly no one I've met -- is hoping for the right to own a handgun in Chicago so they can say, 'Wow, finally I can go knock over that 7-11'," said David Sigale, attorney for McDonald.
When the case is argued next Tuesday before the Supreme court, Otis McDonald will be in the audience, mindful that whatever the legal outcome his name is now etched in history.
"I didn't think too much about that. I just find myself here and I pray every night, and let the lord give me the strength to endure," McDonald said.
Otis McDonald presents a public face on the debate different than the more traditional white, rural gun rights advocate. That aside, the question before the Supreme Court next week is whether its decision in the summer of 2008 to strike down the Washington, DC, handgun ban can apply equally to Chicago and beyond.
(Copyright c2010 WLS-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
check the link for short interview clip
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
March 29, 2010
In the wake of the FBI and Homeland Security raid on the Hutaree militia in Michigan over the weekend, the government has released its indictment.
"Nine members of a Lenawee County-based militia group were planning to `levy war' against the United States and `oppose by force' the nation's government, according to an indictment released this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit," reports the Detroit News. "The five-count indictment was unsealed this morning and alleges that between August 2008 and the present, the defendants were attempting to use bombs and other weapons to oppose the U.S. government."
In addition to weapons charges and use of a "weapon of mass destruction" (sic), the government plans to charge the defendants with sedition.
Sedition is regarded as falling one step short of the more serious crime of treason.
The seditious conspiracy charge carries a maximum prison term of 20 years. The charge of using a "weapon of mass destruction" may result in a life sentence for the defendants.
The accused include: David Brian Stone, 45; his wife, Tina Stone, 44; his son, Joshua Matthew Stone, 21, all three of Clayton; and his other son, David Brian Stone Jr., 19, of Adrian. Also, Joshua Clough, 28, of Blissfield; Michael Meeks, 40 of Manchester; Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind.; Kristopher Sickles, 27, of Sandusky, Ohio; and Jacob Ward, 33, of Huron, Ohio.
"This is an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society," Andrew Arena, FBI special agent in charge, told the newspaper. "The FBI takes such extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States."
The Department of Homeland Security has worked closely with the Southern Poverty Law Center, long a source of conspiracy theories about militias.
In 2004, the FBI revealed the SPLC was involved with government operative and convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and the Aryan Republican Army at Elohim City. McVeigh's contact at Elohim City was Andreas Carl Strassmeir, a former German intelligence officer. Peter Langan, the son of a retired U.S. Marine intelligence officer and said to be the leader of the Aryan Republican Army, was a government informant.
Radio talk show host and racist firebrand Hal Turner recently admitted in federal court that he worked for the FBI as a "National Security Intelligence" asset. "Turner also claims the FBI coached him to make racist, anti-Semitic and other threatening statements on his radio show, but the newspaper also found many federal officials were concerned that his audience might follow up on his violence rhetoric," the Associated Press reported in November, 2009.
Turner's code name was "Valhalla" and "he received thousands of dollars from the FBI to report on such groups as the Aryan Nations and the white supremacist National Alliance.
The FBI, under its long-running COINTELPRO, subsidized, armed, directed and protected the Klu Klux Klan and other racist groups.
"Because the Hutaree had planned a covert reconnaissance operation for April, which had the potential of placing an unsuspecting member of the public at risk, the safety of the public and of the law enforcement community demanded intervention at this time," said Barbara McQuade, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Hutaree means "Christian soldier," according to the group, and members say they are preparing for battle with the Anti-Christ.
The indictment accuses the Christian group of planning to kill a member of law enforcement, possibly after a traffic stop, to "prompt a response by law enforcement." The alleged goal of this murder, according to the government, would be to "intimidate and demoralize law enforcement, diminishing their ranks and rendering them ineffective."
The indictment says the group then intended to use the incident to spark a "war" against law enforcement, using bombs, ambushes and prepared fighting positions.
It remains to be seen if the FBI had informers and agents provocateurs in the Hutaree militia.
please check link at top for further links and a short news clip
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/hutaree.militia.plans/?hpt=Sbin
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/TheLaw/michigan-christian-militia-hutaree-targeted-law-enforcement/story?id=10228716
Time will tell.
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
April 6, 2010
The Baghdad snuff video released by WikiLeaks has yet to receive much corporate media play. MSNBC, however, covered the video. In a discussion of the video, Brett McGurk of the Council on Foreign Relations and an NSC member for Bush and Obama, defended the mass murder episode. McGurk said the soldiers fired on journalists because they thought they saw an RPG launcher.
How is it trained soldiers mistook camera equipment for an RPG launcher?
In fact, part of the mission of the military in Iraq is to target journalists. This was admitted by Eason Jordan in 2005. Jordan at the time was the head of CNN's news division. During a panel discussion in Davos, Switzerland, Jordan said "he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy."
Prior to Jordan's remarks, Pentagon publicist Victoria Clarke said that journalists who not vetted by the Pentagon were "putting themselves at risk." In other words, they would be targeted.
Harvard University professor and columnist David Gergen - who serves as an apologist for the elite on CNN - told the neocon and concentration camp apologist Michelle Malkin he was "startled" by Jordan's comments. "It's contrary to history, which is so far the other way. Our troops have gone out of their way to protect and rescue journalists." Gergen and Rep. Barney Frank were outraged by Jordan's comments. Connecticut Democrat Christopher Dodd was also outraged, according to the New York Sun.
There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Gergen, Frank, and Dodd are not outraged by the murder of innocents. They are angry that the media reports it. In 2003, Kate Adie, former chief news correspondent for the BBC, told Radio One Ireland that media not "embedded" with the Pentagon in Iraq would be "targeted down."
Emmy Award and Peabody Award winner Jordan was obliged to step down from CNN after making his comments. Telling the truth has consequences, especially for members of the Mockingbird corporate media.
U.S. troops deliberately slaughtered journalists at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad in 2003. Two journalists, Taras Protsyuk of the British news agency Reuters and Jose Couso of the Spanish network Telecino, were killed because they were not "embedded" with the Pentagon. On the same day, the Pentagon targeted the Baghdad offices of Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV, two Arabic-language news networks that have been broadcasting graphic footage. In both instances, the Pentagon claimed soldiers had come under fire.
In 2005, Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was targeted. Sgrena had been held hostage for a month by a little known Islamic group before the incident. "If a high-profile journalist whose capture and release made the international headlines can be gunned down along with Italian intelligence agents by US troops, how many Iraqi men, women and children have suffered the same fate for failing to obey US military orders? Only a few of the worst instances have been reported in the international media," Peter Symonds wrote on March 7, 2005.
In fact, over a million Iraqi men, women, and children have been killed since Bush invaded Iraq in early 2003. Bill Clinton killed 500,000 children before Bush. Bush Senior killed hundreds of thousands before Clinton. Obama is continuing this policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The establishment demands we honor the troops engaged in this sort of brutality and mass murder. Our support for the troops, however, means we support mass murder approaching the scale practiced by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Most Americans are completely ignorant or do not care that they are party to war crimes and mass murder.
The CIA and Pentagon have targeted WikiLeaks because they do not want the American people to know the truth - the United States, working at the behest of an international cartel of criminal bankers and corporatists, is assigned the task of taking down all who would resist their move toward world government and the imposition of a global slave labor plantation. The Muslim and much of the Arab world has been targeted because it continues to resist. The next target is Iran.
some food for thought
Infowars
It has a good video. Thanks for the comments fellas.
I second that movement.
Thank you, I think if they guessed what was waiting for them they may not act nervous outwardly, but you know and I know the prospect being very bad for them would cross their minds from time to time..."what if"...and that should be enough to quietly scare the hell out of them if they had any sense at all. If I were so honored to be on a Republic tribunal and I find them guilty they are in dire straights, because I will swing them myself, none of this time wasting nonsense of prolonged appeals to smile and sign books on tv, these people are criminals as much as those that they chastise.
There are many laws on the books that are rarely enforced. When someone is in the Gov's crossbars what do they typically get them on?
Tax evasion.
Las Vegas Sun
By Steve Kanigher
Wednesday, April 7, 2010 | 2 a.m.
WHAT OPPONENTS SAY
More guns open the door for more danger. The wild, wild West wasn't a safe place precisely because more people carried guns.
An increased presence of firearms increases the possibility that a bystander could be hit by a stray bullet, or that a criminal will get a citizen's gun and use it for no good. Even some Second Amendment advocates say an individual openly carrying a gun in a public area can result in the same reaction that a false warning of fire can in a crowded theater.
WHAT PROPONENTS SAY
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so anyone openly carrying a firearm should not need a permit - and, in fact, in Nevada, that is the case.
Advocates of the state's open-carry law say that not everyone who carries a gun is a bad person, and that if more people carried firearms, those people who do wish to use them unlawfully would think twice before doing so.
HOW METRO POLICE ARE TOLD TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE OPENLY CARRYING GUNS
Metro's 20-minute refresher course on open carrying of firearms, produced in-house, begins with the statement that Nevada is an open-carry state.
It goes on to tell officers that there are three ways to "engage" a person who is openly carrying a firearm: a consensual stop, in which an officer casually walks up to an individual and attempts to engage in conversation but does not make an arrest if the person simply walks away; a "Terry stop," in which an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person may have committed a crime or is about to do so; or an arrest.
The training depicts three scenarios using still photos.
The first scenario, which occurs on the Strip, involves an anonymous tip shortly after midnight of an armed white or Hispanic man, roughly 5-foot-10 with a medium build. The tipster says the individual is wearing a blue shirt, black baggy shorts and has a black bandana hanging from a rear pocket, which can be considered a gang symbol. When officers arrive, they see that an individual closely matching that description has a cup in his hand and is 30 feet away from a large group of people. The officers are instructed to approach the individual to determine his frame of mind. If intoxicated, he could be arrested for possessing the firearm. He also would be in trouble if he were an underage drinker or an ex-felon in possession of a firearm. If he's not intoxicated and there is no suspicion that he has or is about to commit a crime, there is no reason to detain him.
In the next scenario, which takes place after 3 a.m. in a neighborhood known for drug peddling and gang violence, a woman calls police to report a young Asian man in her backyard with a gun and a small dog. By the time police arrive a few minutes later, they spot a man matching the description wearing a beanie and walking a dog on a leash on the sidewalk. The officers are instructed to approach the individual and ask him whether he was in the backyard - which would have been trespassing - and to try to determine whether the beanie could be used as a mask. Because he has no burglary tools and the woman did not report any theft or property damage, the officers are instructed to let him go if they have no other reason to detain him.
In the final scenario, officers at the Fremont Street Experience one evening during a festival of live entertainment come upon seven armed adults - five white men, a black man and a white woman - standing around but not drinking. In that instance, officers are instructed to leave those individuals alone.
Just about everybody on the Metro Police force has heard of Tim Farrell, and he sometimes gets mistaken for a law enforcement officer.
Farrell is simply a 29-year-old wireless Internet engineer - and a gun rights crusader. He is one of what appears to be a growing number of people taking up the "open-carry" cause, advocating a constitutional right to openly carry firearms.
"The open-carry movement has gained momentum over the last four or five years because people are waking up to their rights," Farrell says. "I don't need a permit to exercise free speech. I don't need a permit to be tried by a jury if I'm accused of a crime, so why do I need a permit to carry a gun if I have a constitutional right to carry a gun?"
Nevada is a better place than most for Farrell because it is "an open--carry state." Nevada reiterates the right to bear arms in its constitution and does not have blanket restrictions on law-abiding citizens' open carrying of firearms.
That's why a dozen or so people who attended the March 27 Tea Party rally in Searchlight were able to openly carry firearms.
One was Dave Stilwell, a 44-year-old truck driver from Las Vegas who always carries a gun for self-defense.
He says he was jogging back from a garage sale near his house one morning last May with his .45-caliber pistol on his hip. Around Jones Boulevard and Cheyenne Avenue, a Metro patrol car rolled up slowly behind him.
A shopkeeper had called police after seeing the gun, said the officer, who took the pistol from Stilwell, removed the magazine and the bullet in the chamber, checked the ID number on the gun and then returned the weapon and ammunition to Stilwell before driving away.
"I just told the officer I was exercising my body and my rights," he said. "In retrospect, I didn't think that was such a big deal.
"I knew I would have contact with police at some point. Even though it's my legal right to carry a gun, there's a lot of propaganda out there, a lot of inaccurate information. When I started to open carry a couple years ago, I would have guessed that 90 out of 100 people didn't think it was legal."
So have open-carry advocates latched onto the Tea Party movement? Stilwell said that although he attended with gun in holster, his reason for going was to join others who care about their rights.
"Rights are becoming more prevalent because people feel like their backs are against the wall because of the government," he says.
Farrell is not a Tea Partyer. He describes himself as libertarian and pro-choice on abortion. He and Stilwell are on the same page when it comes to guns, however.
Like Stilwell, Farrell says he carries his handgun wherever he goes, for self-defense. He says he has never been kicked out of a casino or other place of business but finds himself educating business owners who question why he is so brazenly armed.
Farrell says he has worn his gun many times into his neighborhood restaurant and bar near the U.S. 95-Summerlin Parkway interchange. But as he walks in one recent afternoon, a bartender who spots the gun is taken aback. She says the only pistol-packing customers she has served are undercover cops.
"So what I should have done is asked to see your concealed weapons permit because that is something that's mandatory," she tells Farrell.
"I don't have a concealed gun on me," he replies. "I do have a concealed-weapons permit but you do not need a concealed-weapons permit for a nonconcealed gun."
"I mean, a regular permit just to carry the gun around," she says.
"There is no permit in this state for that," he tells her.
"It used to be years ago you would have to give your weapons to the bartender," she says.
"This bar is private property, obviously," Farrell says. "You can set whatever rules you want."
"You can pull that out on me and shoot," she tells him. "You see what I'm saying?"
"Well, of course. And that's one of the reasons to carry openly, is for self-defense but it's also to educate others as well that, one, it's not against the law and, two, that not everyone with a gun is a bad guy. Certainly if there was a bad guy coming to rob you, he wouldn't let you see the gun until it was too late."
With that, the bartender goes about her business.
It undoubtedly helps that Farrell is not one of those guys who wears head-to-toe camouflage gear. He wears polo shirts and bluejeans.
He doesn't have a gun collection. "I have a handgun and a shotgun, that's all, just to keep me and my wife safe."
When Farrell read Stilwell's blog post about how he had been stopped by police, Farrell researched state and local laws, as well as police regulations and then conducted an experiment.
On the night of June 24, he holstered up his loaded 40-caliber Glock 23 pistol and proceeded to a sidewalk on Las Vegas Boulevard, just south of Charleston Boulevard, where he was certain he would be noticed by police. He was.
It wasn't his first encounter with the law. While vacationing in Nashua, N.H., early last year, he was stopped on foot on the way to a bank by police who asked about his gun. Minutes later he was allowed to go about his business with gun in tow. Such is life in the "live free or die" state, apparently.
The Las Vegas Strip encounter was far more intense, with police arriving in squad cars and on motorcycles in a show of force, guns drawn. Farrell was handcuffed and his gun was confiscated, its bullets removed. Over the course of the next 23 minutes, Farrell invoked his right to talk to an attorney, told police not to touch his gun, and that he hadn't consented to being searched and detained. He refused to answer questions about whether he possessed a registration card for the weapon, and invoked his right to remain silent.
Bottom line: He hadn't committed any crime. After police ran a background check on Farrell, confirming his gun was properly registered, and finding that he also has a concealed-weapons permit and is not a dangerous criminal, he was uncuffed. He was handed back his gun but the bullets were dropped down one of his pants pockets and the empty magazine was placed on an irrigation box 100 feet away. He was ordered not to move until police drove away.
"I understand the need for officer safety," Farrell said. "These guys have a tough job. But officer safety does not trump my rights. To stop me there has to be something other than the fact I have a gun. They shouldn't have even taken my gun."
Based on complaints from Farrell, Metro's Citizen Review Board and internal affairs division each launched investigations into his case last summer. Although the officers involved were cleared of wrongdoing, Metro's force had to take a refresher course on how to handle individuals who openly carry firearms.
Last month, a five-member panel of the Citizen Review Board found that police had complied with department policy related to the incident but that neither the policy nor police training at the time Farrell was stopped was specific enough on "open carry" stops. The board concluded that the police action was "the result of ambiguity among officers on how to handle an individual asserting his Second Amendment right to openly carry a gun in public."
While cadets are trained in Metro's police academy on how to handle constitutional rights, including those involving gun possession, the agency's thick policy and procedure manual is silent on open-carry issues.
Andrea Beckman, the Citizen Review Board's executive director, says Farrell's case "brought to light the significance of how to train police officers on open carry." Farrell's case, in fact, was the first open-carry dispute heard by the board, and his name is now familiar throughout Metro.
A little more than a month after "the Farrell incident," Metro's 3,000 officers took their refresher course.
"When we don't respond to something the way we should have, we're quick to correct ourselves," Metro Patrol Division Deputy Chief Kathleen O'Connor says.
The review board noted, however, that one police sergeant who confronted Farrell needed more training because it was clear from the sergeant's testimony that if he had been given a test after the refresher, he would have failed.
The open-carry issue is tricky for police, O'Connor says, because officers are caught between preserving an individual's open-carry rights and protecting the public from potential harm.
Of course, some police officers are not the only ones uncomfortable with the idea of lots of citizens walking around with guns on their hips. Opponents say the more guns that are being toted around, the greater the possibility that a bystander could be hit by a stray bullet, the more likely it is that a criminal will get a citizen's gun and use it for no good. Even some Second Amendment advocates acknowledge that an individual who openly wears a gun in a crowded public area might result in the same reaction that a false warning of fire can in a crowded theater.
There are exceptions to Nevada's open-carry rights. Among them is a state law that prohibits average citizens from carrying firearms on college campuses, at public or private schools and at day care centers without written permission from the heads of those facilities. An individual also cannot legally possess a firearm while intoxicated.
Local laws prohibit possession of guns in Clark County parks or in vehicles within North Las Vegas city limits.
Violation of the North Las Vegas "deadly weapons" ordinance, on the books since 1978, is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The ordinance provides exceptions to the weapons ban as it pertains to "ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation." The ordinance has only been enforced in conjunction with traffic stops for other violations, such as speeding or suspicion of criminal activity, police say.
It also appears to violate the state law that gives the Legislature, not local governments, the power to regulate firearms, UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Thomas McAffee says.
"The state statute does permit some older local registration requirements, but the city ordinance here is a complete ban on possession in a motor vehicle, which seems to clearly fall within the scope of the state reservation of authority," McAffee says.
Michael Davidson, North Las Vegas' chief criminal attorney, said his interpretation is that the ordinance is legal because when the state law was last revised in 2007, the intent was to preserve pre-1989 local gun laws that had nothing to do with firearm registration. He said there have been dozens of cases in recent years where convictions that included violation of that ordinance have been upheld in North Las Vegas Municipal Court without a single appeal of the weapons ban made to District Court in Clark County.
"The intent was to go after gangbangers, not mom and pop in the RV," Davidson says.
Farrell and other local open-carry advocates counter that North Las Vegas' law is unconstitutional on its face, no matter the intent.
These advocates staged peaceful protests in North Las Vegas last year - picking up litter "to show we're just regular guys" - and in January in front of Bally's on the Strip, where numerous tourists had their pictures taken with Farrell and roughly 20 of his fellow gun-toters.
Farrell had given a Metro watch commander a courtesy heads-up before his armed group headed down to the Strip. The police commander thanked him for the warning, acknowledged the group's right to assemble, but also pleaded with Farrell to cancel his plans.
The tourists who took pictures, however, encouraged Farrell and his posse to keep standing up for the Constitution, he says, and that's what he intends to do.
TenthAmendmentCenter
Walter E. Williams
If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long.
Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.
While the odds on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called "a long train of abuses and usurpations." Solutions to our nation's problems require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008 presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3 billion that same year?
What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of politicians?
One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations, you're probably a candidate for some medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.
Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs?
They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.
The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There's no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior "was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel's corruption. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized corruption that's a part of Washington's daily dealing.
Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does.
Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined . (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist.
Before you judge me for that statement, I would like to add (and I forget who was supposed to have said it first):
"Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that someone is NOT out to get you"
I think if a person is not overly concerned about what is transpiring in this country and in turn other country's around the world, there in should lie the real area of concern.
[xx(]
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
The final goal? It's a long way off - a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.
Hey, we can dream.......right?
Thank you Mr. Mod![8D]
You summed it up very well. But I have learned these 'dreams' only come true is 'story books and movies' not in the real world. So you MUST fight like he ll to get what you can when you can and it will NEVER reach this ideal/pure/perfect state you dream about. While the 'dreamers dream' and talk tough we fighters fight for their and our rights![V]
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
The final goal? It's a long way off - a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.
Hey, we can dream.......right?
Thank you Mr. Mod![8D]
You summed it up very well. But I have learned these 'dreams' only come true is 'story books and movies' not in the real world. So you MUST fight like he ll to get what you can when you can and it will NEVER reach this ideal/pure/perfect state you dream about. While the 'dreamers dream' and talk tough we fighters fight for their and our rights![V]
I have to say Jim, that I can only feel saddened for you, if none of "your" dreams have ever came true in the "real world"
Many....MANY of "my" dreams have come true, in the "real world"
I have had to work/fight for some of them, but it was worth it.
The way I see it, the difference between people like you, and "strict" Constitutionalists, is the "platform" they start the fight FROM.
People like you, who say they live in the "real world" ACCEPT that there will be infringements on our rights. The degree, is the only point of contention.
(who gets to decide the degree? Nevermind, I will not get into that right now)
The strict Constitutionalists DO NOT ACCEPT "ANY" infringements.
Then there is the other side. The gun grabbers who WANT THEM ALL.
The Schumers, Feinsteins, Pelosis, and the Brady bunch, etc.
Picture a football field.
On one side....the gun grabbers.
The other side....strict Constitutionalists.
The battle....tug-of-war.
Both sides start on the goal line.
And the battle rages.
Now if "your" team were to start.
The gun grabbers are on the goal line.
Your team starts on the 20 yard line. 30? 40?
To start the battle, you have ALREADY conceded part of the field.
You will never get that portion of the field back.
Like I said, the two teams fighting the gun grabbers, are starting the fight from two different platforms. Even if your team wins, it still looses the yardage that they had already given up, before the battle began.
It is easy for me to decide which team that I want to be on.
And to what degree I want that team to win.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
The final goal? It's a long way off - a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.
Hey, we can dream.......right?
Thank you Mr. Mod![8D]
You summed it up very well. But I have learned these 'dreams' only come true is 'story books and movies' not in the real world. So you MUST fight like he ll to get what you can when you can and it will NEVER reach this ideal/pure/perfect state you dream about. While the 'dreamers dream' and talk tough we fighters fight for their and our rights![V]
I have to say Jim, that I can only feel saddened for you, if none of "your" dreams have ever came true in the "real world"
Many....MANY of "my" dreams have come true, in the "real world"
I have had to work/fight for some of them, but it was worth it.
The way I see it, the difference between people like you, and "strict" Constitutionalists, is the "platform" they start the fight FROM.
People like you, who say they live in the "real world" ACCEPT that there will be infringements on our rights. The degree, is the only point of contention.
(who gets to decide the degree? Nevermind, I will not get into that right now)
The strict Constitutionalists DO NOT ACCEPT "ANY" infringements.
Then there is the other side. The gun grabbers who WANT THEM ALL.
The Schumers, Feinsteins, Pelosis, and the Brady bunch, etc.
Picture a football field.
On one side....the gun grabbers.
The other side....strict Constitutionalists.
The battle....tug-of-war.
Both sides start on the goal line.
And the battle rages.
Now if "your" team were to start.
The gun grabbers are on the goal line.
Your team starts on the 20 yard line. 30? 40?
To start the battle, you have ALREADY conceded part of the field.
You will never get that portion of the field back.
Like I said, the two teams fighting the gun grabbers, are starting the fight from two different platforms. Even if your team wins, it still looses the yardage that they had already given up, before the battle began.
It is easy for me to decide which team that I want to be on.
And to what degree I want that team to win.
Well said. The fight is continuous and on-going. It is daily. Never give up, never surrender, never spot them an inch.
The great principle ;
Weapons in the hands of citizens keep the Republic safe.
The INSTANT you concede that government ought to decide whom gets or keeps a weapon..'for the safety of others'..you have given up a HUGE chunk of territory..and rendered the Second null and void.
For that government will keep pushing controls and laws until gun owners are all fenced in to a tight little corral from which there will be no escape.
Better by FAR to accept a few stupid people running amok with weapons...soon taken care of by decent citizens...then government controls that WILL lead to the death of millions.
Grasp what Pickenup is saying, Jim ?
The great principle ;
Weapons in the hands of citizens keep the Republic safe.
The INSTANT you concede that government ought to decide whom gets or keeps a weapon..'for the safety of others'..you have given up a HUGE chunk of territory..and rendered the Second null and void.
For that government will keep pushing controls and laws until gun owners are all fenced in to a tight little corral from which there will be no escape.
Better by FAR to accept a few stupid people running amok with weapons...soon taken care of by decent citizens...then government controls that WILL lead to the death of millions.
Yes Hb I do. But Mr Mod is totally clueless as to what I said. His response has literally nothing to do with what I said!!! Yes I have 'dreamed' of a hunting rifle that would shoot MOA, and I have realized this. But you see this is and was a 'realistic' dream, not a 'day dream' which is what you all are having! When, in the entire history of this world, has any dream of 'total freedom to all' ever been a reality. Answer: NEVER, and it never will be, so dream on.[;)]
The Constitution does not provide 'total freedom to all'. The Constitution merely lists the form of our government, the framework within which it must operate and the strict limitations on its size, scope, and powers.
The BOR's were added to enumerate certain inherent rights and to strictly bind the government even further in what it was authorized to do. A number of absolute 'do nots' were incorporated at that time, e.g. 'government keep out' provisions.
In forming the Republic, a contract was entered into between the people, the states and the central government, in order for an orderly society which secured the liberties of individuals and secured the ability of everyone to succeed or to fail.
The Constitution established the limitations on what government can do and established the basis for states to make laws based upon their own desires and needs and their individual state constitutions, as long as the supreme law of the land, e.g. 'the contract', was adhered to and the 'government keep out' provisions were observed.
No individual has 'total freedom' without sanction and therefore one cannot murder, rape, steal, molest or commit other crimes at will.
If one does so, one is to be sanctioned/punished for what one specifically 'did', not what one 'may' do.
The BOR's fit perfectly into this framework.
Amendment II, in particular, is a clear prohibition on government from infringing upon the keeping and bearing of arms, yet you state that 'perfection' is unattainable and therefore certain government infringements are acceptable.
Holding to 'no infringement' in no way is unreasonable nor is it 'unrealistic', nor does it open any pandora's box.
All that must happen is a simple paradigm shift back to the concept and 'reality' of punishing individual people for the actual 'commission' of individual bad acts, rather than the imposition of 'prior restraint' on certain people and on certain inanimate objects due to what individuals 'might actually do'.
Simple stuff, really.
Since the inception of the Republic, there have been a number of people amongst the populous and within government who, for whatever reasons, or to whatever degree, simply can't find it within themselves to hold to this dirt-simple operational principle.
Specific punishment or sanction for the actual commission of 'individual bad acts' -vs- prohibitions, regulations, controls on people and objects based on what they 'may conceivably do'.
A huge divide and one which has been with us since the beginning.
Thankfully, the founders saw fit to frame our Republic based upon the 'individualism ethic', rather than the 'collectivist ethic', which is exactly where gun-control, to whatever degree, springs from.
quote:When, in the entire history of this world, has any dream of 'total freedom to all' ever been a reality. Answer: NEVER, and it never will be, so dream on.You are arguing from a false premise, Jim and you know it.
The Constitution does not provide 'total freedom to all'. The Constitution merely lists the form of our government, the framework within which it must operate and the strict limitations on its size, scope, and powers.
The BOR's were added to enumerate certain inherent rights and to strictly bind the government even further in what it was authorized to do. A number of absolute 'do nots' were incorporated at that time, e.g. 'government keep out' provisions.
In forming the Republic, a contract was entered into between the people, the states and the central government, in order for an orderly society which secured the liberties of individuals and secured the ability of everyone to succeed or to fail.
The Constitution established the limitations on what government can do and established the basis for states to make laws based upon their own desires and needs and their individual state constitutions, as long as the supreme law of the land, e.g. 'the contract', was adhered to and the 'government keep out' provisions were observed.
No individual has 'total freedom' without sanction and therefore one cannot murder, rape, steal, molest or commit other crimes at will.
If one does so, one is to be sanctioned/punished for what one specifically 'did', not what one 'may' do.
The BOR's fit perfectly into this framework.
Amendment II, in particular, is a clear prohibition on government from infringing upon the keeping and bearing of arms, yet you state that 'perfection' is unattainable and therefore certain government infringements are acceptable.
Holding to 'no infringement' in no way is unreasonable nor is it 'unrealistic', nor does it open any pandora's box.
All that must happen is a simple paradigm shift back to the concept and 'reality' of punishing individual people for the actual 'commission' of individual bad acts, rather than the imposition of 'prior restraint' on certain people and on certain inanimate objects due to what individuals 'might actually do'.
Simple stuff, really.
Since the inception of the Republic, there have been a number of people amongst the populous and within government who, for whatever reasons, or to whatever degree, simply can't find it within themselves to hold to this dirt-simple operational principle.
Specific punishment or sanction for the actual commission of 'individual bad acts' -vs- prohibitions, regulations, controls on people and objects based on what they 'may conceivably do'.
A huge divide and one which has been with us since the beginning.
Thankfully, the founders saw fit to frame our Republic based upon the 'individualism ethic', rather than the 'collectivist ethic', which is exactly where gun-control, to whatever degree, springs from.
No Jeff I am not arguing from a false premise. MANY here, who label themselves as CA's, state flat out they will tolerate NO restrictions WHAT SO EVER on the RTKABA's (total freedom by ANYONE, ANY WHERE, to purchase, own, use, ANY weapon, ANY time). You and I know this can not and will not EVER occur, but they totally deny and defy reality by insisting on this. This is why I make the argument I do. I stated this 'total freedom' they DEMAND is unrealistic, has never occurred, and will never occur. Do you agree with them or me???[?]
WSJ
By MIRIAM JORDAN
Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.
It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.
The bill could still face a veto from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. A spokesman for Ms. Brewer said she has not publicly commented on the bill. Ms. Brewer, a Republican, has argued for stringent immigration laws.
Under the measure, passed Tuesday by Arizona's lower house, after being passed earlier by the state Senate, foreign nationals are required to carry proof of legal residency.
Immigrants' rights groups roundly criticized the bill. "The objective is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they leave the state," said Chris Newman, general counsel for the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling."
The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, was in a committee session Tuesday and couldn't be reached, his offices said. Mr. Pearce, a Republican, represents the city of Mesa, in Maricopa County, whose sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has gained a national reputation for his tough stance on immigration enforcement. A spokesman for Mr. Arpaio didn't return a request for comment.
The bill is different from an earlier version, giving protections for church and community organizations from criminal prosecution for transporting or harboring illegal immigrants.
In a statement, Tuesday Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) called the measure "a comprehensive immigration enforcement bill that addresses the concerns of our communities, constituents and colleagues."
"This updated version gives our local police officers the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, while protecting the civil rights of citizens and legal residents."However, human rights groups are certain to challenge the measure in court, said Joe Rubio, lead organizer for Valley Interfaith Project, a Phoenix-based advocacy group, calling it "an economic train wreck." He added that "Arizona's economic recovery will lag way behind the country's if we keep chasing away our workforce. Where do the legislators think business will find workers?"
The bill in some ways toughens up a situation that the Obama administration had tried to roll back. Under a program known as 287g, some local law enforcement agencies were trained to enforce federal immigration laws by checking suspects' immigration status.
Mr. Arpaio, the Maricopa county sheriff, had been one of the most aggressive enforcers of 287g. However, the Obama administration in recent months has sought to scale back that program, and had reduced the resources it made available to Mr. Arpaio's office and others.
-Tamara Audi contributed to this article
we need a little of this down here in south Texas
Arizona Clears Strict Immigration Bill
WSJ
By MIRIAM JORDAN
Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.
It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.
The bill could still face a veto from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. A spokesman for Ms. Brewer said she has not publicly commented on the bill. Ms. Brewer, a Republican, has argued for stringent immigration laws.
Under the measure, passed Tuesday by Arizona's lower house, after being passed earlier by the state Senate, foreign nationals are required to carry proof of legal residency.
Immigrants' rights groups roundly criticized the bill. "The objective is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they leave the state," said Chris Newman, general counsel for the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling."
The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, was in a committee session Tuesday and couldn't be reached, his offices said. Mr. Pearce, a Republican, represents the city of Mesa, in Maricopa County, whose sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has gained a national reputation for his tough stance on immigration enforcement. A spokesman for Mr. Arpaio didn't return a request for comment.
The bill is different from an earlier version, giving protections for church and community organizations from criminal prosecution for transporting or harboring illegal immigrants.
In a statement, Tuesday Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) called the measure "a comprehensive immigration enforcement bill that addresses the concerns of our communities, constituents and colleagues."
"This updated version gives our local police officers the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, while protecting the civil rights of citizens and legal residents."However, human rights groups are certain to challenge the measure in court, said Joe Rubio, lead organizer for Valley Interfaith Project, a Phoenix-based advocacy group, calling it "an economic train wreck." He added that "Arizona's economic recovery will lag way behind the country's if we keep chasing away our workforce. Where do the legislators think business will find workers?"
The bill in some ways toughens up a situation that the Obama administration had tried to roll back. Under a program known as 287g, some local law enforcement agencies were trained to enforce federal immigration laws by checking suspects' immigration status.
Mr. Arpaio, the Maricopa county sheriff, had been one of the most aggressive enforcers of 287g. However, the Obama administration in recent months has sought to scale back that program, and had reduced the resources it made available to Mr. Arpaio's office and others.
-Tamara Audi contributed to this article
we need a little of this down here in south Texas
Apparently this bill as well as the concealed weapons bill are both on the Governor's desk waiting for her to make a decision. Meantime news today from Phoenix is that a priest and an nun were both stabbed in a Phoenix church by a Transient. I am familiar with transient's carrying knives. Had one fess up to a police officer that he had a knife. Heck, his knife was a KNIFE alright. Twelve inch kitchen knife shoved down his pant leg. Officer was glad that the transient brought that to his attention cause he said he might have had to shoot him had he pulled that out later. Officer should have asked if there was anything else before he searched him. Cause the officer didn't do either .. and the transient pulled another from the other pant leg when they got to the station. Fooled him twice it would appear .. as they say .. shame on him. Could cause the Governor to have second thoughts on the carrying of concealed weapons I suppose.
[xx(]
Repeal 17th Amendment (Direct Election of Senators)
Repeal 23rd Amendment (Electors for Washington DC)
Repeal Federal Reserve Act
Restore gold & silver backed currency
Repeal "executive orders" that effect things outside of the executive branch of the government
Repeal PATRIOT Act
Repeal National Healthcare
Repeal No Child Left Behind
Amend Constitution to properly define interstate commerce
Bring the National Guard home and place them under the command of the Governor
Restore the State Militia system
Defeat or repeal Cap and Trade
Repeal American Heritage Rivers Initiative
Eliminate Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Place troops on the border to secure it
End birthright citizenship
Eliminate the Bureau of Land Management
Eliminate the Department of Education
Eliminate the EPA
Repeal the Emergency and War Powers Act
Repeal NAFTA
Eliminate Personal Income Tax Division of the IRS
Eliminate National Endowment for the Arts
Eliminate National Wild Horse and Burro Program
Eliminate Dept. of Education
Eliminate Dept of Energy
Eliminate FEMA
Eliminate FDIC
Eliminate Freddy Mac & Fannie Mae
Eliminate Administration on Aging
Eliminate Administration for Children and Families
Eliminate Administration on Developmental Disabilities
Eliminate Administration for Native Americans
Eliminate Children's Bureau
Eliminate Family and Youth Services Bureau
Eliminate Head Start Bureau (HSB)
Eliminate Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI)
Eliminate Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Eliminate Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
Eliminate Office of Community Services Block Grant (OCS)
Eliminate Office of Family Assistance (OFA)
Eliminate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Eliminate Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)
Eliminate President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID)
Eliminate Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Eliminate Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Eliminate Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Eliminate Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Eliminate Indian Health Service (IHS)
Eliminate National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Eliminate Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
Eliminate Office of Minority Health (OMH)
Eliminate Program Support Center (PSC)
Eliminate Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin.(SAMHSA)
Eliminate Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONCHIT)
Eliminate Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (CFBCI)
Eliminate Employees' Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB)
Eliminate Employment Standards Administration (ESA)
Eliminate The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
Eliminate Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)
Eliminate Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
Eliminate Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Eliminate Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Eliminate Women's Bureau (WB)
Eliminate Job Corps
Eliminate Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
Eliminate Internet Access and Training Program
Eliminate Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Human Resources
Eliminate Bureau of Information Resource Management
Eliminate Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Eliminate Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of International Organization Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
Eliminate Bureau of Legislative Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations
Eliminate Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Eliminate Bureau of Public Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Resource Management
Eliminate Bureau of South Asian Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation
Eliminate Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
Eliminate Office of International Information Programs
Eliminate Office of the Legal Adviser
Eliminate Office of Management Policy
Eliminate Office of Protocol
Eliminate Office of the Science and Technology Adviser
Eliminate Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
Eliminate Office of War Crimes Issues (They blew the Bush war crimes)
Eliminate Bureau of the Public Debt
Eliminate Community Development Financial Institution Fund (CDFI)
Eliminate FHA
Eliminate HUD
and that's the short list
Give me liberty or give me death.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Repeal 16th Amendment (Income Tax)
Repeal 17th Amendment (Direct Election of Senators)
Repeal 23rd Amendment (Electors for Washington DC)
Repeal Federal Reserve Act
Restore gold & silver backed currency
Repeal "executive orders" that effect things outside of the executive branch of the government
Repeal PATRIOT Act
Repeal National Healthcare
Repeal No Child Left Behind
Amend Constitution to properly define interstate commerce
Bring the National Guard home and place them under the command of the Governor
Restore the State Militia system
Defeat or repeal Cap and Trade
Repeal American Heritage Rivers Initiative
Eliminate Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Place troops on the border to secure it
End birthright citizenship
Eliminate the Bureau of Land Management
Eliminate the Department of Education
Eliminate the EPA
Repeal the Emergency and War Powers Act
Repeal NAFTA
Eliminate Personal Income Tax Division of the IRS
Eliminate National Endowment for the Arts
Eliminate National Wild Horse and Burro Program
Eliminate Dept. of Education
Eliminate Dept of Energy
Eliminate FEMA
Eliminate FDIC
Eliminate Freddy Mac & Fannie Mae
Eliminate Administration on Aging
Eliminate Administration for Children and Families
Eliminate Administration on Developmental Disabilities
Eliminate Administration for Native Americans
Eliminate Children's Bureau
Eliminate Family and Youth Services Bureau
Eliminate Head Start Bureau (HSB)
Eliminate Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI)
Eliminate Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Eliminate Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
Eliminate Office of Community Services Block Grant (OCS)
Eliminate Office of Family Assistance (OFA)
Eliminate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Eliminate Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)
Eliminate President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID)
Eliminate Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Eliminate Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Eliminate Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Eliminate Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Eliminate Indian Health Service (IHS)
Eliminate National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Eliminate Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
Eliminate Office of Minority Health (OMH)
Eliminate Program Support Center (PSC)
Eliminate Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin.(SAMHSA)
Eliminate Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONCHIT)
Eliminate Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (CFBCI)
Eliminate Employees' Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB)
Eliminate Employment Standards Administration (ESA)
Eliminate The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
Eliminate Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)
Eliminate Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
Eliminate Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Eliminate Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Eliminate Women's Bureau (WB)
Eliminate Job Corps
Eliminate Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
Eliminate Internet Access and Training Program
Eliminate Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Human Resources
Eliminate Bureau of Information Resource Management
Eliminate Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Eliminate Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of International Organization Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
Eliminate Bureau of Legislative Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations
Eliminate Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Eliminate Bureau of Public Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Resource Management
Eliminate Bureau of South Asian Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation
Eliminate Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
Eliminate Office of International Information Programs
Eliminate Office of the Legal Adviser
Eliminate Office of Management Policy
Eliminate Office of Protocol
Eliminate Office of the Science and Technology Adviser
Eliminate Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
Eliminate Office of War Crimes Issues (They blew the Bush war crimes)
Eliminate Bureau of the Public Debt
Eliminate Community Development Financial Institution Fund (CDFI)
Eliminate FHA
Eliminate HUD
and that's the short list
Give me liberty or give me death.
Repeal 16th Amendment (Income Tax)
Repeal 17th Amendment (Direct Election of Senators)
Repeal 23rd Amendment (Electors for Washington DC)
Repeal Federal Reserve Act
Restore gold & silver backed currency
Repeal "executive orders" that effect things outside of the executive branch of the government
Repeal PATRIOT Act
Repeal National Healthcare
Repeal No Child Left Behind
Amend Constitution to properly define interstate commerce
Bring the National Guard home and place them under the command of the Governor
Restore the State Militia system
Defeat or repeal Cap and Trade
Repeal American Heritage Rivers Initiative
Eliminate Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Place troops on the border to secure it
End birthright citizenship
Eliminate the Bureau of Land Management
Eliminate the Department of Education
Eliminate the EPA
Repeal the Emergency and War Powers Act
Repeal NAFTA
Eliminate Personal Income Tax Division of the IRS
Eliminate National Endowment for the Arts
Eliminate National Wild Horse and Burro Program
Eliminate Dept. of Education
Eliminate Dept of Energy
Eliminate FEMA
Eliminate FDIC
Eliminate Freddy Mac & Fannie Mae
Eliminate Administration on Aging
Eliminate Administration for Children and Families
Eliminate Administration on Developmental Disabilities
Eliminate Administration for Native Americans
Eliminate Children's Bureau
Eliminate Family and Youth Services Bureau
Eliminate Head Start Bureau (HSB)
Eliminate Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI)
Eliminate Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Eliminate Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
Eliminate Office of Community Services Block Grant (OCS)
Eliminate Office of Family Assistance (OFA)
Eliminate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Eliminate Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)
Eliminate President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID)
Eliminate Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Eliminate Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Eliminate Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Eliminate Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Eliminate Indian Health Service (IHS)
Eliminate National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Eliminate Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
Eliminate Office of Minority Health (OMH)
Eliminate Program Support Center (PSC)
Eliminate Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin.(SAMHSA)
Eliminate Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONCHIT)
Eliminate Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (CFBCI)
Eliminate Employees' Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB)
Eliminate Employment Standards Administration (ESA)
Eliminate The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
Eliminate Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)
Eliminate Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
Eliminate Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Eliminate Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Eliminate Women's Bureau (WB)
Eliminate Job Corps
Eliminate Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
Eliminate Internet Access and Training Program
Eliminate Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Human Resources
Eliminate Bureau of Information Resource Management
Eliminate Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Eliminate Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of International Organization Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
Eliminate Bureau of Legislative Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations
Eliminate Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Eliminate Bureau of Public Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Resource Management
Eliminate Bureau of South Asian Affairs
Eliminate Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation
Eliminate Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
Eliminate Office of International Information Programs
Eliminate Office of the Legal Adviser
Eliminate Office of Management Policy
Eliminate Office of Protocol
Eliminate Office of the Science and Technology Adviser
Eliminate Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
Eliminate Office of War Crimes Issues (They blew the Bush war crimes)
Eliminate Bureau of the Public Debt
Eliminate Community Development Financial Institution Fund (CDFI)
Eliminate FHA
Eliminate HUD
and that's the short list
Give me liberty or give me death.
Sounds like a good place to start.
[8D]
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:When, in the entire history of this world, has any dream of 'total freedom to all' ever been a reality. Answer: NEVER, and it never will be, so dream on.You are arguing from a false premise, Jim and you know it.
The Constitution does not provide 'total freedom to all'. The Constitution merely lists the form of our government, the framework within which it must operate and the strict limitations on its size, scope, and powers.
The BOR's were added to enumerate certain inherent rights and to strictly bind the government even further in what it was authorized to do. A number of absolute 'do nots' were incorporated at that time, e.g. 'government keep out' provisions.
In forming the Republic, a contract was entered into between the people, the states and the central government, in order for an orderly society which secured the liberties of individuals and secured the ability of everyone to succeed or to fail.
The Constitution established the limitations on what government can do and established the basis for states to make laws based upon their own desires and needs and their individual state constitutions, as long as the supreme law of the land, e.g. 'the contract', was adhered to and the 'government keep out' provisions were observed.
No individual has 'total freedom' without sanction and therefore one cannot murder, rape, steal, molest or commit other crimes at will.
If one does so, one is to be sanctioned/punished for what one specifically 'did', not what one 'may' do.
The BOR's fit perfectly into this framework.
Amendment II, in particular, is a clear prohibition on government from infringing upon the keeping and bearing of arms, yet you state that 'perfection' is unattainable and therefore certain government infringements are acceptable.
Holding to 'no infringement' in no way is unreasonable nor is it 'unrealistic', nor does it open any pandora's box.
All that must happen is a simple paradigm shift back to the concept and 'reality' of punishing individual people for the actual 'commission' of individual bad acts, rather than the imposition of 'prior restraint' on certain people and on certain inanimate objects due to what individuals 'might actually do'.
Simple stuff, really.
Since the inception of the Republic, there have been a number of people amongst the populous and within government who, for whatever reasons, or to whatever degree, simply can't find it within themselves to hold to this dirt-simple operational principle.
Specific punishment or sanction for the actual commission of 'individual bad acts' -vs- prohibitions, regulations, controls on people and objects based on what they 'may conceivably do'.
A huge divide and one which has been with us since the beginning.
Thankfully, the founders saw fit to frame our Republic based upon the 'individualism ethic', rather than the 'collectivist ethic', which is exactly where gun-control, to whatever degree, springs from.
No Jeff I am not arguing from a false premise. MANY here, who label themselves as CA's, state flat out they will tolerate NO restrictions WHAT SO EVER on the RTKABA's (total freedom by ANYONE, ANY WHERE, to purchase, own, use, ANY weapon, ANY time). You and I know this can not and will not EVER occur, but they totally deny and defy reality by insisting on this. This is why I make the argument I do. I stated this 'total freedom' they DEMAND is unrealistic, has never occurred, and will never occur. Do you agree with them or me???[?]
Jeff, I am talking to you. Do you see where I am coming from here? Do you agree with them or do you agree some 'restriction' are a reality?[8D]
Back in the day that "a man was as good as his word" .. a concept which seems to be all but forgotten in our politican's today .. a person could be relied upon to do the right thing and take responsibility for their actions.
Looking over the gene pool these days, it may be far too diluted to ever work again.
[:(]