Categories » ‘Politics’
December 6th, 2013 by olddog
By T. Hunt Tooley
An analysis of the U.S. secretaries of war and defense (the name was changed from secretary of war to secretary of defense in 1947) gives us some insight into the nature of the relationships within the “military-industrial complex.” Though these secretaries are not the only gatekeepers of the warfare-welfare state (and perhaps not even the most important ones), they do perform a crucial function in coordinating the collectivist, rent-seeking corporate entities with the political parties and their largely social-democratic agendas.
Of 41 secretary-ships since 1900, we are looking at 39 individuals, two having served twice under two separate presidents. These 39 secretaries came from 19 states only. The overwhelming majority were from the Atlantic seaboard. Strikingly, 41 percent of these secretaries of defense and war came from just three states: New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Casting our net a bit wider geographically catches two-thirds of the secretaries. These three states were populous ones, to be sure, but for the whole period, their average percentage of U.S. population would be something under 20 percent. Furthermore, very few came from the great cities. The secretaries from New York were far more likely to come from Clinton (Elihu Root) or Glen Falls (Robert Patterson) than New York City. These were mostly small-town kids from western Pennsylvania, upstate New York, and adjoining districts.
Perhaps less surprisingly, 52 percent attended Ivy League institutions (some of them only the professional schools at the Ivies). Of the Ivy Leaguers, 11 were Republican secretaries, ten Democrat. Yet in spite of the elite educational connections, most of the secretaries came from middle-class, and in several cases, distinctly lower middle-class backgrounds.
Not all, of course. Robert Lovett (under Truman) was a scion of Union Pacific money (hence related to a couple of banking empires). Elliott Richardson (under Nixon) was from a blue-blooded family of Boston Brahmins. William Howard Taft (under Theodore Roosevelt) was from the powerful Ohio Taft family of Cincinnati.
Their bios show that, at least in broad summary, even the most atypical of the 39 do not stray too far from the following portrait, a kind of ideal-type of war secretary.
Our model secretary of war or defense is an individual from western Pennsylvania. He comes from a sturdy middle class background which enables this bright, hard-working kid to get an Ivy League education, most likely at Yale. He writes or edits one of the college publications. Since our man is at Yale, he is sought out by a secret society, and he gets into, say, Skull and Bones (the most frequently occurring, though some others are represented), rubbing shoulders there with the elite families and fortunes.
If there is a war on after college, our man will serve a short stint in the military. He will then study law at Harvard, working afterward for a law firm or an investment bank. Making his way into state or national politics, he will serve in a number of legislative or executive positions.
Our ideal man — and they are all males — would definitely be in the Council on Foreign Relations (after 1922). After having served for three or four years as secretary of war or defense, our man will go back to “business,” almost certainly investment banking. (This is true in nearly every case, even for those who were not bankers before.) He would also maintain extensive board memberships, consultative positions, and other connections to the arms industry. And he would be connected with the worlds of both government task forces and the great tax-free foundations (Ford Foundation, Rand, etc.) and maintain close connections to Lehman Brothers, Morgan, Jacob Schiff, and Goldman Sachs.
Now, let me say that there are plenty of incidental variations in the pool. Interesting ones at that. One secretary of war had two descendants (grandson and great grand-daughter) who would be nominated for academy awards (George Dern, one of FDR’s war secretaries). One secretary of defense served twice and in between joined big pharma and successfully gained the FDA approval of Aspartame (Rumsfeld). One secretary of war established the Davis Cup in tennis (Davis). Two secretaries had previously been college roommates (Rumsfeld and Carlucci). And one of Roosevelt’s war secretaries was a strict non-interventionist (Woodring)!
As mentioned, only a few of the secretaries came from old money and privilege: in general, these men are not the shadowy banker puppet masters nor the vicious capitalists of imagination, but rather the sons of farmers, small-town attorneys, and school teachers whose ambition took them to positions of influence. Indeed, some exercised enormous influence on policy: think Stimson, McNamara, and Rumsfeld, for example. Some much less. There were no real Metternichs or Richelieus among them, no “coachmen of Europe” so to speak. Rather, they were high functionaries of the warfare-welfare state. And, it must be said, hard-working, intelligent, and capable individuals.
All this hard work was applied to procuring materials for war, getting them from the preferred sources, shaping American defense organizations so as to carry out the military plans of the president and his advisors. Maybe even ensuring that the destruction inflicted would be such that the reconstruction would yield profit to favored sectors and companies later on. These secretaries certainly provide one of the secured connections between politics and the upper-level decision-making levels of “wise men.”
I am suggesting that this specific profile may be crucial to the political process of brokering deals between the parties, the administration, high finance, the military, and arms manufacturing — in essence the military industrial complex. The modern imperium, no less than the state of the Sun King, needs highly skilled managers of even temperament and total loyalty. The “democracy” of today— Part Theater, part therapy, part oligarchy— might serve up oddballs and originals as Secretaries of state, senators, and presidents. But the defense secretaries, crucial machinery of the perpetual warfare state, are finely-honed parts of a specific make.
Parenthetically, and without attributing special significance, I observe a tendency to partisan difference in style among our defense ministers. The Democrat party has tended to choose a few more out-of-sync secretaries than the Republican party. Also, a few more Democrat secretaries came from outside the Bermuda Triangle (of New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio) of war secretaries.
On the other hand, it is likewise true that Defense is the cabinet position that probably most frequently crosses party lines, as in the case of Secretary Hagel. Clearly, at times, these guardians are simply interchangeable.
Both political parties have of course acted as fronts for the state elite, for the system of the warfare-welfare state. The appearance of tension between the two parties in matters of war-making has been theater in many ways, though many participants are, no doubt, true believers. Yet these ideas have to be conveyed against the backdrop of actual aggressive warlike activity by both parties when in power.
The indispensable interface between parties, business, and elites is guarded by a special class of loyalists, usually extremely bright individuals of modest family and social status, chosen by the state elite to do this work, and later rewarded accordingly. When we look at these men and these functions, it is hard to imagine how it could be otherwise.
It is not hard for me to imagine how it could be otherwise. All it would take to completely change government is for the people to be involved beginning in childhood. Let them see first hand how highly educated men with ambitions of rising to the pinnacle of power turn into egotistical tyrants. Soon, the people would accept these jobs instead of being intimidated by them. Once the cream has risen to the top and exposed to the air, it pollutes the whole jar. The solution is to put a cap on it.
November 6th, 2013 by olddog
Obama promised transparency in the government, but what a joke that's turned out to be. Quite frankly we have less transparency now than ever before.
Enough is enough.
As taxpaying Americans, we deserve to know what is happening in our government. We deserve to have a say in how our tax dollars are being spent and who is making those decisions.
The Federal Reserve acts as kingmaker in Washington, and we deserve to know what is happening behind its secretive doors. Now, with Congress preparing to debate the appointment of a new Chair of the FED, it is crucial we use this rare opportunity to push hard for transparency and reform at the Federal Reserve!
This is why I'm leading the fight in the US House – along with my good friend Rand Paul in the US Senate – by introducing legislation to AUDIT THE FED.
If you agree that we deserve to know where our hard earned money is going, then add your name to my AUDIT THE FED petition today.
The Federal Reserve's answer to every problem is to just print more money, and not shockingly the U.S. dollar has lost over 90% of its value under the Fed's watch.
Our government has grown too large and it is time to reign it in. Add your name to my AUDIT THE FED petition and afterwards please forward this petition to at least five of your family and friends.
Together we can fight and demand answers from our government.
Congressman Paul Broun
P.S. The Federal Reserve is sending millions of dollars overseas to banks and foreign corporations and Congress has ZERO oversight on these decisions. I have sponsored legislation to AUDIT THE FED because this money boondoggle needs to stop. Add your name to my AUDIT THE FED petition and then please forward this petition to your family and friends.
After adding your name, please chip in $5 so our campaign can afford to circulate this petition to hard working, tax paying, Americans across the nation.
Dear readers, what Congressman Paul Broun is not addressing in his petition is the fact that he is working for the same corporation that the federal reserve belongs to. The UNITED STATES CORPORATION! This petition is nothing more than a name gathering method, who unsuspecting, ignorant, but loyal Americans, identify themselves with. Congress will invite me to be President before they audit the Fed! When the SHTF you will find yourself on a collection or elimination list. You will find yourself living in a RE-EDUCATION FEMA camp or dead, in a plastic coffin shared with several other ignorant Americans. America as we know it is gone, in the same way as all other experiments in democracy. You can do one of two things at this point; rebel or submit. Just remember, we started out as a REPUBLIC!
FREE MEN, FIGHT TO THE DEATH FOR THEIR FREEDOM,
November 5th, 2013 by olddog
By Michael Gaddy
“Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public.” ~George Carlin
I have this neighbor who lives down the way, a nice enough lady it seems. The problem is she has a son who has a penchant for destroying motorized vehicles. He started several years ago with 4-wheelers and motorcycles then graduated to pick-up trucks and cars. Every so often a new vehicle appears in their yard. Within a very few days it has massive dents, headlights hanging from fenders and in one particular case, clear evidence of a roll over. Soon it is replaced with another and then another. Now, my question is: Who should bear most of the responsibility for this young man’s behavior and subsequent destruction of property and resources; the young man who does it or the mother who keeps providing him with vehicles to destroy?
I know what you’re thinking; Rebel, where are you going with this? Well, as the quote from George Carlin reveals; it’s about politics and politicians and the folks who enable them to destroy our Constitution and Bill of Rights; kill untold millions with unconstitutional wars; enslave our children and grandchildren with a debt on which they will never be able to pay the interest; provide those who will not work with the fruits of the labors of those who do; seize private property with edicts or regulations not of our own making but of the United Nations, and seek to disarm any who might at some point in the future seek to resist the tyranny other citizens have eagerly supported with their votes.
In 2012, millions of so-called Second Amendment supporters cast their votes for a candidate for president who was the only political party hack who had previously signed into law an assault weapons ban. (Romney) He was a politician who had not honored his sacred oath to the Bill of Rights, but by damn he wasn’t a Democrat. And we seek to pass laws and amendments to restrain politicians from doing what we support with our money, time and votes. Insanity squared.
Recently, I have received a multitude of emails concerning proposed ‘Liberty Amendments” by a Neocon (Mark Levin) who loves war (as long as he doesn’t have to personally fight) and hates the principles behind Nullification and the 10th Amendment. I have also received emails reference what is being called the 28th Amendment.
Most of the folks who support the 28th Amendment are unaware our Constitution does not allow Congress to exempt themselves from anything except being detained or arrested while traveling to and from sessions of Congress. (Article 1 Sec 6) I’m trying real hard to understand why a new amendment would stop these politicians from doing what they have illegally done for decades. Why should anyone believe that a member of congress who has routinely voted to violate the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights would suddenly decide to comply with a new law or amendment?
Nothing in our Constitution or Bill of Rights confers any special privileges other than due compensation on members of Congress, the Executive or the Judicial. All privileges they now enjoy are things they voted or implemented for themselves outside of constitutional restraints. In other words, any special treatment that a member of our government is given that is not available to the common person on the street is unconstitutional. Nothing in our governing documents creates special privileges for a “ruling class,” no matter what so-called ethics committees vote to allow.
Our President, our Congress and members of the Judicial Branch were all intended to be servants of the people, not their masters. They are not totally to blame for assuming powers and privileges they were never intended to have. They have done so because “we the people” have allowed that to happen; we most often encourage it. Some even act worshipful in their presence. The blame is ours as well as theirs.
Elected officials and bureaucrats take a solemn and sacred oath to our Constitution; they do not take an oath to their constituents, they do not take an oath to their political party; political action committees, large campaign contributors, agents of foreign governments or the military-industrial complex.
Public servants have but one obligation and that has been almost forgotten because the voting populace in our country does not demand it. The voters in this country want politicians who will take care of them, who will provide things that the Constitution and Bill of Rights forbids; politicians who will bring them an empire to be proud of, and the standing army and military might necessary to obtain it. Most importantly, they want that politician to be a member of their political party. When your chosen political party is more important than our Constitution, you are a huge part of the problem. Politicians see this and act accordingly.
Our country today is overwhelmingly, and hopelessly lost, both financially and morally because politicians of both parties have endeavored to provide their constituents with what they want and support. They routinely violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights because they must do so to get reelected; the politician who campaigns on honoring his/her sacred oath has not a snowball’s chance in hell of being successful because that is not what a majority of voters want.
Posturing to provide new amendments and laws to restrict the behavior of politicians is hypocritical to say the least. Politicians will honor their oaths to our founding documents when the people who put them in office demand it and use that exclusively as the benchmark for election; no new amendment or law will stop those who seek power and position from doing what it takes to be elected or reelected. Politicians who promise the most unconstitutional goodies are the ones who get elected; some over and over and over. Our history proves me correct.
A country that abides by its Constitution and Bill of Rights must first have a population that sees that as more important than personal gain, political clout, being the world’s policeman, or imposing their beliefs and corrupt government on others by force. The problems in this country originate with its people; its politicians only reflect their true character.
Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."
"The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children."
The great article above is germane only in a constitutionally active government, and not in our present state of emergency where subversive actions have manipulated every election for years. The following article is my justification. But, this is not to say we as citizens are not guilty of dereliction of duty. Ignorance is no excuse.
11 05 13 IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN DICTATORIAL CONTROL – AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE MANY DIVISIONS (AGENCIES) OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH – THE SITTING PRESIDENT MUST FORMALLY DECLARE A NATIONAL EMERGENCY . . . ANNUALLY!
by AL Whitney (C) copyright 2013
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and the AntiCorruption Society is acknowledged
This has been an ongoing ritual since 1933 according to Senate Report 93-549. Once the emergency is declared, the common law is abolished, the Constitution is abolished and we fall under the absolute will of Government “public policy”. We’re under a system of public policy, (War Powers).
All the government needs to continue is to have public opinion on their side. If public opinion can be kept, in sufficient degree, on the side of the government, statutes, laws and regulations [and Executive Orders] can continue to be passed. The Constitution has no meaning. The Constitution is suspended. It has been for over 60  years. We’re not under law. Law has been abolished. Obama reinstated ‘Presidential’ emergency powers on September 10, 2013.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 10, 2013
Notice — Continuation of the National Emergency Notice
NOTICE: CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2013. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
In last year’s Press Release, Obama provided more details regarding this ongoing “slight of hand” executed annually by those that sit in the White House:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 11, 2012
Message — Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within the 90 day period prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice, stating that the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism is to continue in effect beyond September 23, 2012.
The crisis constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on United States nationals or the United States that led to the declaration of a national emergency on September 23, 2001, has not been resolved. These actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, and maintain in force the comprehensive sanctions to respond to this threat.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 11, 2012
And to make matters worse, during a ‘declared’ national emergency “We the People” are considered enemies of the state!
Hence we have the Executive Branch’s National Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration spying on and abusing the American population.
TSA will now pre-screen taxes, car registration, passports and employment history
“Travelers are now being subjected to even more invasive screening procedures by the infamous Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Before “allowing” people to travel, the TSA is performing unwarranted checks of a wide variety of personal documents, going further than ever before into the lives of innocent passengers.”
October 12th, 2013 by olddog
A Real Eye Opener
We have been hammered with the propaganda that it was the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the readers gets sick of reading them. I also have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.
$11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare
To illegal aliens each year by state governments.
$22 Billion dollars a year is spent on food
Assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on
Primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for
Education for the American-born Children of illegal aliens, known as Anchor babies.
6.3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
30% percent of all Federal Prison Inmates are illegal aliens.
$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on Illegal aliens for Welfare & social
Services by the American taxpayers.
$200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal
In 2006, illegal aliens sent home
$45 BILLION in remittances to their Countries of origin.
The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration:
Nearly One million sex crimes committed
By Illegal Immigrants In The United States .
The total cost is a whopping
$ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS
A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME, HAVING TROUBLE
UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS
WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE
ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.
Are we THAT Stupid?
YES, FOR ALLOWING THOSE IN THE U.S.. CONGRESS
TO GET AWAY WITH DOING THIS YEAR AFTERYEAR!!!!!
If this doesn't bother you, then just delete the message.
If, on the other hand, it does raise the hair on the back
o f your neck, I hope you forward it to every Legal Resident in the United States !!!
Some of the links were bad so I removed them. Google the subjects and do your own research if you have any doubts.
October 6th, 2013 by olddog
New posting will be down from 10 07 13
Until re-flooring our home and office is complete. We are moving everything out to give the workmen the best working conditions.
We will be back in operation as soon as possible, and in the mean time please read the archives.
DEFY, RESIST, EVADE, SMUGGLE.
Pay attention folks, you’re about to read a REAL American’s words.
By Mike Vanderboegh
October 5, 2013
Speech at Hartford, Connecticut, 20 April 2013.
My name is Mike Vanderboegh and I'm a smuggler. I am from the great free state of Alabama and I am a Three Percenter.
If you need to pigeonhole my politics I consider myself a Christian libertarian. I believe in free men, free markets, the rule of law under the Founder's Republic and that the Constitution extends to everyone regardless of race, creed, color or religion.
I most especially believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms as the ultimate guarantor of liberty.
I have also been called a "seditionist" by members of the current regime. If faithfully fulfilling my oath to the Founders' Republic and unrelenting hostility to those who would undermine and overthrow it makes me a "seditionist" then I cheerfully plead guilty.
The Three Percent movement I founded has been denounced by that paragon of moral virtue Bill Clinton and I am a perennial "honorable mention" on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of dangerous folks. I have even been the subject of an eighteen and a half minute rant by Rachel Madcow on MSNBC and the current Attorney General of the United States knows — and despises — me by name because of the Fast and Furious scandal that, with my friend David Codrea, I broke the news of on the Internet. Eric Holder would not be surprised to know that the feeling is mutual.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence calls me an "insurrectionist" because I don't believe, as they do, in a government monopoly of violence, but rather in a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny. Well, as my friend Kurt Hofmann says, "It is better to be despised by the despicable than admired by the admirable" and I suppose my remarks here today will only reinforce my enemies' opinions of me. I think I can bear the burden.
Yesterday was the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775, but also of the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto in 1943 and that of the Branch Davidians at Waco fifty years later to the day — two examples of what happens when governments exercise a monopoly of violence.
EMBEDDED VIDEO ON WEB PAGE
It is proper, then, to contemplate the lessons of the date in history — April 19th — then, now and in the near future. What I say now I say with reluctance, sadness and not a little bit of dread, but say it I must.
FOR SILENCE IN THE FACE OF TYRANNY IMPLIES CONSENT — AND I DO NOT CONSENT!
Neither do I believe that you consent, for you would not be here today if you did. But what I say is not easy to say nor easy to hear and many of you will not like it.
"An unconstitutional law is void." So says the standard legal text American Jurisprudence. That is certainly true. The tricky part is how we are to make that point when the local, state and federal executive and legislative branches as well as the courts are in the hands of the domestic enemies of the Constitution. Every one who is currently trying to take away your right to arms starts out by saying "I support the 2nd Amendment." Let me tell you a home truth from Alabama — Barack Obama supports the 2nd Amendment about as much as Adolf Hitler appreciated Jewish culture, or Joe Stalin believed in individual liberty. Believe what politicians do, not what they say.
So what shall we do about this current spate of tyranny breaking out all over?
The facsimile of a semi-automatic pistol that some of you hold in your hands was smuggled into your state from the South. Manufactured in Georgia, trans-shipped to Alabama, it came across your state line in the trunk of a car. The fact that the authorities of your state have not yet banned "sponge guns" is immaterial. It could as easily been a whole trunk full of real pistols. Indeed, before this year no one thought that other firearms and related items would ever be banned — but they have been. No one thought that the authorities of your state would pass laws making criminals out of the previously law-abiding — but they did. If they catch you violating their unconstitutional laws, they will — when they please — send armed men to work their will upon you. And people — innocent of any crime save the one these tyrants created — will die resisting them.
Yet despite the cost, these unconstitutional laws MUST be resisted. For if not now, when? And if not us, who? This is no longer a "slippery slope" leading to firearm registration and eventual confiscation — it is a precipice that some states have already plunged over and that the federal government threatens to follow. Arrests are happening NOW. When, if not now, shall we resist? Will we allow ourselves to be shoved back once again, from the free exercise of our God-given, natural and inalienable rights to liberty? — Shoved back once more, muttering but compliant?
THAT IS HOW WE GOT TO THIS PLACE — WE NEVER SHOVED BACK WHEN WE COULD DO SO WITHOUT VIOLENCE. Where does it stop? When we are all disarmed slaves?
The Founders knew how to answer such tyranny. When Captain John Parker — one of the three percent of American colonists who actively took the field against the King during the Revolution — mustered his Minutemen on Lexington Green, it was in a demonstration of ARMED civil disobedience. He might have retreated at the British approach, but he didn't. He might have ordered his men to lay down their arms, but he didn't. His defiance was silent but plainly stated. A veteran of the French and Indian War, he did not want a war. He knew intimately the horrors of war. BUT HE ALSO KNEW THAT SOME THINGS ARE WORSE THAN WAR. The British could not tolerate his silent defiance — and someone fired a shot.
But even before the shot heard 'round the world, the colonists understood their weaknesses and their military needs and did something about it. They smuggled. They smuggled Dutch gunpowder and French flints. They smuggled tents and uniform cloth and artillery and ammunition. Boston was the high headquarters of anti-British smuggling and John Hancock was its prime minister. Connecticut was a small empire built on patriotic smuggling. The colonists knew what to do and they did it, regardless of the risk — regardless of all the King's ministers and the King's soldiery.
They defied the King. They resisted his edicts. They evaded his laws and they smuggled. Lord above, did they smuggle.
Now we find ourselves in a similar situation. The new King Barack and his minions have determined to disarm us. We must determine to resist them.
No one wants a new civil war (except, apparently, the Anti-Constitutional tyrants who passed these laws and the media toadies who cheer them on) but one is staring us in the face. Yes, a civil war is staring us in the face. To think otherwise is to whistle past the graveyard of our own history. We must, if we wish to avoid armed conflict, get this message across to the collectivists who have declared their appetites for our liberty, our property and our lives –
WHEN DEMOCRACY TURNS TO TYRANNY, THE ARMED CITIZEN STILL GETS TO VOTE.
Just like King George, such people will not care, nor modify their behavior, by what you say, no matter how loudly or in what numbers you say it. They will only pay attention to what you DO.
So defy them. Resist their laws. Evade them. Smuggle in what they command you not to have. Only by our ACTS will they be impressed. Then, if they mean to have a civil war, they will at least have been informed of the unintended consequences of their tyrannical actions. Again I say –
Defy. Resist. Evade. Smuggle. If you wish to stay free and to pass down that freedom to your children's children you can do no less than to become the lawbreakers that they have unconstitutionally made of you. Accept that fact. Embrace it. And resolve to be the very best, most successful lawbreakers you can be.
One last thing before I go. On Thursday I smuggled a half-dozen 30 round AR-15 standard capacity magazines into Connecticut in deliberate disobedience of the new state diktat.
So to Martin Looney, Mike Williams, Larry Cafarro and John McKinney I'd like to say this: I JUST COMMITTED A "D" CLASS FELONY, YOU TYRANNICAL MORONS — PROVE IT — WHICH YOU CAN'T — AND CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.
And I'll tell you something else. When the new ammo restrictions go into effect the first week of July (Correction: it will be in October), I'll be back — with two full crates of 7.62×39 ball ammunition and I will transfer said ammunition into the hands of a Connecticut citizen without the state's permission or paperwork.
And after I break their unconstitutional laws again, I'll be sitting in Frank Pepe's Pizza down in New Haven waiting for Looney and Company to come arrest me –
ANY TIME THEY THINK THEY CAN MAKE IT STICK AND FEEL FROGGY ENOUGH TO TRY.
© 2013 – Mike Vanderboegh – All Rights Reserve
Mike Vanderboegh, editor of the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog, broke the Fast and Furious scandal story on the Internet in December 2010 with the help of fellow citizen journalist David Codrea. A Second Amendment activist and constitutional militia advocate for more than two decades, he is the founder of the Three Percent movement, which has been denounced by Bill Clinton as a threat to public order.
Vanderboegh is a perennial honorable mention on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of dangerous folks and has been labeled an "insurrectionist" by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. However he believes that, in the words of his friend Kurt Hofmann, "It is better to be despised by the despicable than admired by the admirable." A father of three, he resides in Pinson, AL.
Website: Sipsey Street Irregulars blog
September 30th, 2013 by olddog
By Dave Hodges
In part one of this series, I documented how the banks are positioning for an economic crash by securing as many hard assets as possible. Whether it be your home that is stolen through MERS fraud, or your secure brokerage account which is stolen by Jon Corzine and MF Global, or if it is an unjust court ruling which allows the banks the legal right to steal your bank deposits, nobody’s private property is safe from confiscation.
Policing for Fun and Profit
The practice discussed in this article is called civil asset forfeiture and is often referred to as "policing for profit." It involves every aspect of law enforcement from the local police to federal authorities. Civil asset forfeiture laws permit the authorities the legal right to actually steal your private assets. No, these laws are not the RICO laws in which convicted drug dealers and money launderers forfeit their private property obtained in the commission of organized criminal activity. Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement the “legal right” to steal your assets even when you have not been convicted or even when you have not been accused of a crime. The practice makes potential thugs and thieves out of every law enforcement official who dons a badge.
No judge will ever rule that this practice is unconstitutional, which it clearly is, because the judge gets to go to conferences (i.e. vacations), can eat at for free at expensive restaurants, drive a county vehicle for free, attend football games for free and generally enjoy the perks that any common thief gets to enjoy as a result of sharing in the spoils of this unconstitutional activity.
In many jurisdictions, the money has been used to fund the re-election campaign of a local District Attorney. In Georgia, civil asset forfeiture money was used to purchase expensive football tickets for local officials. The money can also be used to pay for salaries, elaborate and expensive equipment and other perks not necessarily related to law enforcement.
The practice of civil asset forfeiture has corrupted our entire legal process and this practice is best summarized in the following the video.
When salaries and perks are on the line, rogue cops have a strong incentive to increase the seizures, as evidenced by an increase in the regularity and size of such seizures in recent years. Asset forfeiture practices often go hand-in-hand with racial profiling; and, according to the ACLU, can seriously impact low-income African-American or Hispanic people in which local police can exercise their law enforcement discretion and decide who “looks suspicious” and for whom the arduous and expensive process of trying to get one’s property back is an expensive challenge.
Victimizing Minorities for Fun and Profit
Beginning in 2006, the police in Tenaha, Texas would randomly stop, search, and would steal private property from Blacks and Hispanics traveling through the town even though there was no suspicion of criminal activity.
Typically, the police shakedown would consist of threatening travelers that if they did not turn over their cash and other identified valuables, they would be arrested on money laundering charges and have their children taken by Child Protective Services. If they turned over the cash, they would be let go. Most people would simply turn over their money. Some people actually tried to recover their money, but found they needed to hire lawyers and prove their innocence in front a judge who was profiting from the seizures, a process that was too expensive and not practical for many.
Several individuals affected by this practice joined a class-action lawsuit against Tenaha and several city and county officials, challenging these illegal stops and seizures. The ACLU joined the case, Morrow v. City of Teneha, et al., in July 2012. In August 2012, the ACLU settled a class action suit against officials in Tenaha and Shelby Counties.
James Morrow was arrested and spent the night in jail as he was traveling through Tenaha, TX. Police seized nearly $4,000 in cash and threatened to prosecute him for money laundering if he did not forfeit his money. To get out of jail, he agreed to forfeit his cash and he was let go. Morrow eventually got his money back but had to pay over $3,500 in attorney fees to recover his money. Morrow and dozens of other victims contacted the ACLU. It was estimated that as much as $3 million dollars was stolen by local officials from innocent motorists between 2006 and 2008 in over 140 cases. Morrow and dozens of others were made whole over five years later.
The examples are infuriating. An elderly couple in Philadelphia had their home seized after their son allegedly sold $20 worth of grass on the front porch. A church secretary in Virginia had $28,500 in church donations confiscated by the highway patrol because he was caught speeding.
In Tennessee, along Interstate 40, the police are shaking down out of state motorists and stealing their cash and property at rates that dwarf the proven criminality of Tenaha, TX. NewsChannel 5 in Nashville, Tennessee created the following video which clearly demonstrates how police use “civil asset forfeiture” laws to steal money from unsuspecting motorists. Please note how the Deputy District Attorney admits that her jurisdiction makes money from this process. Also make note of how a local Tennessee police chief admits that if officers do not seize “enough” cash, they could lose their jobs.
Under civil forfeiture laws, the government does not have to report how cases of individual theft that they engage in, nor are they required to report the amount of money stolen from individual citizens. Citizens don’t have to be found guilty to forfeit their assets. It is a very large loophole that law enforcement agencies are more than happy to exploit to the tune of $4.2 billion annually.
There are some common sense practices that motorists can follow in an attempt to minimize the damage. First, if you are dealing with a federal law enforcement agency, invoke your Fifth Amendment right to not answer any questions. If you make the mistake of speaking to the federal officials, they can accuse you of lying (your word vs. their word) and you can do time for this offense. Additionally, advise the officials that you are not speaking to them without an attorney present and when they mock you and ask you why, hold to your right to remain silent. When they ask you for permission to search your vehicle, tell them to get a warrant and that you are insisting on having an attorney present if they have any suspicion that you have broken any laws. They will belittle you and threaten you for not cooperating, but do not back down. If you are polite, professional, yet firm and appear to know your rights, the cops might move on to an easier, less constitutionally aware person. Also, if at all possible, film the entire encounter. And for goodness sake, try to not travel with very much cash on you, particularly if you traveling out of state, because as you have seen, the local police mafia is lying in wait.
We live in a time when banks, brokerages and the government can “legally” steal from you without following due process of law. We live in a country with no rules. Might makes right and you have about as much civil liberty as a person walking the streets of Somalia.
I used to respect all police officers, but it is difficult to not hold the entire profession in contempt, because they are the mobile tax collectors for the Sheriff of Nottingham. Claiming to be understaffed, they often refuse to respond to calls for help, but they are “Johnny-on-the-spot” when it comes to stealing your property. First the banks, now the police mafia.
Nobody knows exactly how many citizens are actually victimized by this highway robbery. Estimates place the number of victims at over 100,000 cases per year. Let’s be clear, this practice is a clear violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. I almost forgot to mention that every one of these actions by the police are consistent with a nation that is under martial law.
Dave is an award winning psychology, statistics and research professor, a college basketball coach, a mental health counselor, a political activist and writer who has published dozens of editorials and articles in several publications such as Freedoms Phoenix, News With Views andThe Arizona Republic.
The Common Sense Show features a wide variety of important topics that range from the loss of constitutional liberties, to the subsequent implementation of a police state under world governance, to exploring the limits of human potential. The primary purpose of The Common Sense Show is to provide Americans with the tools necessary to reclaim both our individual and national sovereignty.
This is not the first article on this subject I have found, but like the previous one’s, I simply cannot say anything in publically acceptable language. It make’s me want to puke to think of my friends in law enforcement doing these things. They should quit their job, and find worthy employment.
September 19th, 2013 by olddog
By James Smith
In the middle of December 2012, the Customs and Border Protection Agency presented a pre-solicitation for 50,000,000 rounds of .40 S&W caliber ammunition, ostensibly for training. The contract would provide a total of 250,000,000 rounds over the life of the 5-year contract. The contract was to be issued on 20 January 2013. CPB, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has included the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency with this solicitation.
Today, CPB and ICE announced via the solicitation process that they will be awarding the contract on or about October 7, 2013. Added to the original solicitation was this sentence:
Resulting award will be used for training/qualifications only, not for duty use, and will be used as a direct substitution in lieu of procuring like quantities of duty ammunition.
From their individual websites:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the principal investigative arm of the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, ICE now has more than 20,000 employees in offices in all 50 states and 47 foreign countries.
CBP is one of the Department of Homeland Security’s largest and most complex components, with a priority mission of keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the U.S. It also has a responsibility for securing the border and facilitating lawful international trade and travel while enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws and regulations, including immigration and drug laws.
ICE and CPB both have approximately 21,000 employees. This number is not solely agents, but administrative staff who would never be allowed to train with a firearm.
However, if every employee was allowed to train with a firearm, using this one solicitation alone, each employee would have the opportunity to fire 1,190 rounds a year.
This sort of ammunition purchase is what led to the US House of Representatives to stop DHS from entering into new contracts. There have been no news reports of this limitation being removed from DHS.
We will keep you updated on this matter as information comes available.
Read more about government munitions purchases here:
Can’t buy groceries? DHS goes on another munitions spree with your money.
Homeland Security Allocates Nearly One Billion Dollars For Explosives Storage Magazines
Bureau Of Indian Affairs Look To Quell Indian Uprising By Purchasing Over
A Half Million Dollars In New Military Grade Hardware
EXCLUSIVE: Documents Prove That Homeland Security Is Being Armed By US Military
This article first appeared at Prepper Podcast Radio Network.
James is a father of four and grandfather to four. He and his wife of almost 30 years have been prepping since 2003. They live in a small town, with neighbors as close as 10 feet away and have raised chickens for 2 years covertly on less than 1/5 of an acre. He is a former corrections officer, insurance fraud investigator, and he served in the Navy for 6 years. He currently works for a corporation dealing with the disabled population and their benefits. He is the host of The Covert Prepper show and the Prepper Podcast Radio Network News, both heard on Blogtalk Radio.
August 29th, 2013 by olddog
By Lee Duigon
Imagine how surprised and delighted I was last week when my book, “Bell Mountain” (see mini-ad on this page), won an award—a Global Ebook Award, to be exact. Yessir, I was popping my buttons over that.
But then somebody showed me another book, originally published ten years ago, that won a whole shelf-full of awards and endorsements. My book’s target audience is “Young Adults.” Folks, take a look at my competition.
“Boy Meets Boy,” by David Levithan, is described on its amazon.com page like so:
“Paul’s simple high-school life is confused by his desire for another boy who seems unattainable, until Paul’s friends help him find the courage to pursue him.” The rest of the description is along the same lines.
This tale of teenage sodomy has won the following awards: BCCB Blue Ribbon Book; YALSA Top Ten; Booklist Editors’ Choice; and a real biggie, the American Library Association Best Book for Young Adults. It’s also on half a dozen recommended reading lists, and may be found in public school libraries and municipal libraries throughout the land.
It seems there are a lot of adults who think it a desirable thing for your 14-year-old son to be engaged in homosexuality.
And Jerry Sandusky is sitting in jail because…?
It’s part of our ruling class’s slobbering love affair with sodomy. The governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, ersatz Catholic and jive Republican, says homosexuality is not a sin (he knows better than the Bible), and recently signed into law a diktat making it a crime to attempt reparative therapy for children who are troubled by unwanted desires for homosexual relationships. A psychologist could go to jail for that, just like in California. And we’ve got officers being kicked out of the U.S. military for not confessing that same-sex pseudo-marriage is “right,” and the attorney general of Oregon proposing to “rehabilitate” Christians who believe it’s wrong, and so decline to be personally involved in such perverted ceremonies. And a federal judge in New Mexico has declared that being forced to act in violation of your deeply-held religious beliefs is “the price of citizenship.”
Can anyone doubt that our country’s founders, if they were alive today, would raise armed forces to oppose this tyranny?
Oh, but it’s not tyranny! Out of the goodness of their hearts, our rulers grant that we reserve the right to believe, privately, that homosexuality is an abominable sin, as clearly stated in the Bible—as long as our actions proclaim the opposite. Get it? We can cling to our absurd religious beliefs, as long as we agree to act against them all the time. That’s what our rulers call “religious liberty.”
Who put these satanic imps in a position to tell us that? We did! In sloth and folly and apathy, we gave them the power.
But we’re not entirely to blame. How many times have we been hoodwinked by a candidate who lied to us, pretending to share our views, falsely promising to protect us—only to turn around, as soon as he’s elected, and become just another agent of Big Sodomy? How many of us pressed the button for Candidate A in the voting booth, only to have it recorded as a vote for Candidate B?
What are we to do?
Until we can fix our broken electoral system, the only thing we can do is to stand firm. Christians, I say, have a duty to pull their children out of the homosexual-proselytizing public schools and either educate them at home or in a Christian school.
We have a duty to insist that the Bible is right and our ruling class is wrong, and to act accordingly. This we must do in the millions, supported by our churches. If we can’t, or won’t, hold on to our freedom of conscience, we won’t be able to hold on to anything. We must defy those who would leave us with no freedom but the freedom to sin.
We must vote out incumbent politicians, massively. We are currently under the heel of a regime that would wipe away our religious liberties. This regime must go. If another comes along that’s just as bad, we’ll have to vote out that one, too. Who can say how many times we’ll have to do it before our leaders get the message that they are not our drovers? The important thing is to keep on doing it.
They don’t believe we can do it. They think they can just go on lording it over us forever. Whether it’s their aggressive promotion of homosexuality, or their scheme to change the electorate by granting citizenship to tens of millions of illegal aliens, they are convinced that they can radically transform our country—and it is our country—whether we like it or not.
We must not let them do it. We must fear God more than we fear them.
I can’t believe we’re living in an age when Russia may become a freer and more righteous country than America. Can you?
© 2013 Lee Duigon – All Rights Reserved
Lee Duigon, a contributing editor with the Chalcedon Foundation, is a former newspaper reporter and editor, small businessman, teacher, and horror novelist. He has been married to his wife, Patricia, for 34 years. See his new fantasy/adventure novels, Bell Mountain and The Cellar Beneath the Cellar, available on www.amazon.com
Website: LeeDuigon.com E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
When will American’s wake up to the fact that the most important thing about voting is WHO COUNTS THE VOTES.
As for me, I have never voted, and never will, until people accept open voting published by the newspapers. If you are afraid of making your vote public, then I contend you should NOT VOTE! There is no other way to assure honest voting! If your vote is not published correctly then you have an option to protest it. If it’s not open to the public, it’s not and never will be reliable. As long as we have FAGS in office, we will not have an honest election. They are intellectual lepers.
August 26th, 2013 by olddog
By John Galt
When it comes to the verifiable truth, the establishment continues to admit that they are losing. Hillary Clinton was clear when she said they were losing the war of information to alternative media:
When facts are not on your side, the strategy must shift towards appeals to emotion, or outright propaganda. We have seen this in the war on terror and the subsequent real wars that have resulted. No WMDs? No matter. Just rile people up enough to the point where they are terrorized without the presence of real terror and now you've got a plan.
Another area where emotions trump facts is gun control. And, there again, the establishment admits they are losing on both accounts: emotions and facts. Instead of fully capitulating, however, a guidebook was produced with the title: "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging." It's worth a closer look.
Much as Hillary Clinton addressed the loss in the info-war, we have Attorney General Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder expressing the need to literally brainwash the public into believing that gun control is a cornerstone solution to all that is wrong with America. Because, as the above guide suggests:
There is an intensity gap that has built up over years. In the general public, those who view themselves as supporters of gun rights are more deeply committed to and emotionally invested in their position than those supporting stronger gun violence prevention measures.
Notice that Holder discusses the obsession youth seem to have with violence from what they see "in the media" without ever addressing the U.S. government's obsession with using real guns and violence. This is what an emotion vs. fact argument tends to look like. A true "anti-gun, anti-violence" message might have included not sending guns to Mexican cartels, or preemptively waging war on the planet.
Nevertheless, we see the call from Holder to employ effective messaging through repetition; and for that, ironically, they would need the help of the media.
The 70-page document mentioned above is an instruction manual to do just that. An excellent summary of the document has been presented by Ethics Alarms, wherein they rightly point out the hypocrisy that rather than empower people to resist imminent threats of violence, the strategy manual is about exploiting violence for political gain after the fact.
“The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek,” the guide points out. “When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.” Early on, the document it makes it clear that the “communication efforts” must always concentrate on stirring up emotions, not relying on facts or engaging in substantive debate. “A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence. We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.”
Recommended phrases to use in forums and interviews include,
“It breaks my heart that every day in our country (state or city) children wake up worried and frightened about getting shot.”
“Just imagine the pain that a mother or father feels when their young child is gunned down.”
"The real outrage – the thing that makes this violence so unforgivable – is that we know how to stop it and we’re not getting it done.”
These are prime examples of how to short-circuit critical thinking and replace it with the obvious emotions any empathetic individual should have toward any violence. There is also, of course, the assumption that "gun violence prevention measures" involve anything but guns. However, the facts get in the way. Just one study, in fact, obliterates this notion. The Cato Institute's Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens used "an extensive collection of news reports from over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America."
The immediate difference between just this one statement, and what is suggested throughout the "effective messaging" manual is that it relies on a comprehensive overview of actual reports, rather than the emotional pull of one single event, or theoretical event, i.e. "imagine the pain of a mother or father…"
People have been taught through government/media messaging that any appeal to facts is callous, which gets leveraged to prove their non-factual statements. Whereas, the call to facts and logic is precisely the opposite, it seeks real-world solutions to stop violence, not just make people feel good about being involved in failed policies.
Another study conducted at Harvard makes the case for gun proliferation even clearer: the more guns a nation has, the less crime it has. This can be further supported on a state-by-state case basis.
Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws…
The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. So has this reduced crime? Of course not. As I wrote about recently, the murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city". If you can believe it, there were about as many murders in Chicago during 2012 as there was in the entire nation of Japan.
After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years and there was an 89% decline in burglaries.
However, if one wants really wants to appeal to emotions, don't worry, that is also available to supporters of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. How about some of these stories? Can you imagine the pain of your sister, mother, grandmother, girlfriend or wife not standing a chance against a violent criminal?
Approximately 200,000 women in the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every single year. (Source)
Female Marine Kills Attacker in Self-Defense: Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state) and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later. Had a 5-day waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who had been stalking her.
Minneapolis Good Neighbor Apprehends Robbery Suspect: Seeing an armed criminal rob a woman of her purse at gunpoint and pistol-whip her, a Minneapolis CCW holder pursued the robber in an attempt to capture him, which resulted in a confrontation in which the citizen had to shoot the robber, who later died of his wounds.Ohio Woman
Shoots Ex-Boyfriend That Restraining Order Failed to Stop: An Ohio woman who feared that her ex-boyfriend and father of their two children was not going to be deterred by the restraining order requiring him to stay away armed herself with a pistol and was glad she did when the ex-boyfriend broke into her home and assaulted her with a crowbar. Fearing for her life, she shot and killed the intruder. Under Ohio's newly-adopted Castle Doctrine, there is a presumption of self-defense in circumstances such as these.
Released Inmate Shot Dead During Redding, CA Home Invasion: 37-year-old Jesse Theis was released early Thursday morning from the Shasta County Jail and before sun-up Friday, he invaded a Redding, CA home. The 66-year-old female homeowner fired warning shots when she heard someone trying to force entry into her home. When the invader tried a short time later to climb into her window, she shot him dead. They had been released due to a county prison policy designed to ease over-crowding by requiring the daily release of those inmates prison officials deemed “low-risk.”
Armed Houston Dad Foils Attack on 14-Year-Old Daughter: Hearing a commotion shortly after his daughter had left for school early one morning, Richard Goodie left his house to see two men, one of them armed, accosting his daughter. Goodie’s warning shot failed to frighten off the assailants, one of whom put the daughter in a choke hold and a pistol to her head while threatening to kill the girl if her father did not back off. While the assailant was dragging the daughter away, some space opened up between the daughter and the bad guy, allowing the father to shoot the suspect in the stomach, ending the encounter and putting the second suspect to flight. No charges are expected against the father, who says he did what he had to do to save his daughter.
NC Woman Defends Family Members: A North Carolina family was returning to their vehicle at 1 a.m. after some Black Friday shopping at a Myrtle Beach, SC Walmart when they were set upon by armed robbers. One of the robbers shot a woman in the foot, even though she had surrendered her purse on their demand. The woman’s son attempted to protect his mother, and was shot at and pistol-whipped for his efforts. The woman’s sister, hearing shots fired as she entered her vehicle, picked up her own loaded pistol from the vehicle’s console and confronted the robbers. Not wanting to shoot directly at the robbers for fear of hitting her family or bystanders, she fired two shots over the heads of each robber, scaring them off. Her family credits the legally-armed woman with saving the lives of her sister and nephew.
Ohio Woman Fights Off Sex Offender: An Ohio woman had her concealed pistol permit for three years, but wasn’t sure whether she could actually use the gun if needed. She found out recently that she could when a 23-year-old sex offender accosted her at a bank and forced his way into her car while making sexually suggestive remarks. The woman was able to reach her pistol in her car console but couldn’t bring it to bear against her attacker while struggling with him in the confined space of her vehicle. Her warnings of having a gun had no effect on the assailant, so she stuck the gun out the open passenger door and fired one shot in the air, scaring him off. Police apprehended him a short time later in the same area. The woman now knows she is capable of defending herself, and urges other women to take heart from her experience and prepare to defend themselves. Police said her use of the gun was appropriate, and was exactly the reason law-abiding people get carry permits.
There are many, many more examples. And, ironically, if the above events had not taken place, and some of these people fell victim to gun-related death, they would have been exploited in a call for further gun control!
Between this messaging manual in favor of gun control, and the studies showing the negative effects of gun control, the information is out there on both sides of the argument. There is no longer any excuse to rely solely on emotional appeals … unless of course you have your facts wrong, or you are in the deliberate service of a specific political agenda.
August 13th, 2013 by olddog
By Lawrence Sellin
If current political trends continue, there are two inescapable outcomes: Hillary Clinton will be elected President in 2016 and, by the end of her eight years in office, the United States will no longer exist.
The Democrat electoral juggernaut cannot be stopped for two reasons.
First, the Democrats seem to have perfected the art of voter fraud and it may now be considered an integral component of their national campaign strategy. The results of the 2012 election suggest that massive voter fraud is not required. Selective alteration of the count in specific precincts of large swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida would be enough. That might help explain why Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton are vehemently opposed to voter ID requirements.
In parallel, the mainstream media will censor or manipulate the news in order to promote Hillary’s political ambitions, even at the expense of their own journalistic integrity and the well-being of the country.
Additional factors that will contribute to a permanent Democrat majority and a one-party state are the amnesty and the voting rights that will soon be given to 11 million or more illegal aliens.
The extent of corruption in the federal government and our political system is no longer compatible with liberty. Unless there is a significant reversal soon, it is only a matter of time that a catastrophe will be upon us, which will inexorably lead to national collapse and fragmentation.
The Republican Party can no longer be considered a political vehicle capable of providing effective opposition to the far-left policies of the Democrat Party and the propaganda of the establishment media. It too has become a party of big government, which is unresponsive and unaccountable to its constituency.
As a recent example of the tyrannical approach and abuse of power practiced by the political elite, the Republicans have joined with the Democrats to force Obamacare on the American people while at the same time exempting themselves.
In “The Discourses” (1517), Niccoló Machiavelli wrote:
“To usurp supreme and absolute authority, then, in a free state, and subject it to tyranny, the people must have already become corrupt by gradual steps from generation to generation. And all states necessarily come to this, unless… they are frequently reinvigorated by good examples, and brought back by good laws to their first principles. “
Both the Democrat and Republican parties know that telling the truth about Barack Obama would topple the corrupt status quo and terminate their exclusive grip on political power, allowing the American people to regain control of their government.
In 2008, pressured by a biased, left-leaning media, a spineless Republican Party leadership joined the Democrats in refusing to fully vet Obama and, in violation of the Constitution and common sense, permitted an ineligible candidate of questionable background to run for President.
Since 2008, a conspiracy of silence has descended upon the public discourse regarding all questions related to Obama’s eligibility and personal history. Despite the truly enormous historic Constitutional implications, the politicians and the media, not only remain silent, but actively suppress legitimate inquiry.
Disclosing the truth about Obama would also expose the rampant corruption of our political and media elite, reveal their complicity in Obama’s violations of Constitution, uncover their willful ignorance of his alleged felonies and confirm their participation in the greatest election fraud and Constitutional crisis in American history.
Nothing short of a massive political earthquake as those revelations would provide can derail an inevitable Hillary Clinton Presidency.
Only the truth will set us free.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at email@example.com.
Since it is now impossible to organize any kind of rebellion-revolution and stay out of jail or worse, and it would most likely start a civil war with the powers that be, and the nations stupid liberals against us, a revolution seems counter productive. This leaves only the most intensive education campaign as an option, and who has the credibility to design a better kind of government? As I see it, the bastards in Banking have won, and we who will not be enslaved will soon die fighting for our freedom, while the pukes that surrender, laugh their ass off. Those who support this government are not American’s, they are the lowest form of cowards. We passed the point of no return years ago, and now death before dishonor is our future. Suits the shit out of me!
August 10th, 2013 by olddog
Mirrored at Western Conservative Summit
By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
I personally know a lot of Democrats who, in reality, are Conservatives. They’re always shocked when I tell them that. And they react as if they have been stung by a life-threatening virus.
In Article One of this series, I provided two definitions of “Conservative” that appear to be splitting the GOP. I said the 2,000 attendees of the Western Conservative Summit in Denver last weekend appeared to be fairly evenly split, one group willingly accepting the Republican Party’s definition and one group which disagrees with that definition. I believe that until this definitional difference is resolved, the Republican Party will continue to be torn, continue to consist of numerous split groups of special interests, and be unable to muster the total Conservative base for support. And, without that total support, they cannot and will not win national elections.
The problem with the Party’s definition of the word “Conservative” is that it allows the meaning to change as Party objectives and issues change. People, generally speaking, do not commit themselves to changing objectives and issues. They commit to and support principles that evolve from philosophies. Conservative philosophy as defined by the Party needs to exclude from it political issues that change from day-to-day. How can someone commit to something which changes from day-to-day? Answer: They cannot and will not… at least, intelligent people will not.
Another cause of the current division within the GOP is the Party Leadership’s constant acceptance of (or compromise with) issues that not only are not compatible with Conservative principles, they are in total opposition to them. Another is a population that appears to want to entertain itself to death. Too few people have an interest in seriously studying how to preserve the foundations of our country. It would take years for a massive re-education program to effect change in social attitudes that are constantly being beguiled by the media. A politically ignorant population never remains free from tyrants seeking personal power and wealth accessible to them only by getting elected to public office and then abusing their power.
Political ideologies emerge from philosophy and the principles contained within that philosophy. It doesn’t work the other way around. The Republican Party is, in my humble opinion, trying to appeal to Conservatives on the basis of political ideology. As long as they continue with that strategy, they will be unable to solidify the support of the Party’s Conservative base.
My definition says that conservatism is based on three basic elements; 1) America’s founding documents (which guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and points out that the rights of the people do not come from government and that government works for the people, not the other way around); 2) Truth based on discernable facts (rather than media/political talking points and expert opinions – as in scientists who, until scientific evidence of fraudulent research practices were made public, were adamant that “humans are the primary cause of global warming’); and, 3) the guarantee that the Rule of Law will dominate the social order so that all people have equal access to justice, regardless of race, color, creed, or social status. There are sub-elements, but none violate these three primary principles.
That is the basis of Conservative principles and philosophy. The truth is, I don’t care what religion someone professes (if any) provided they believe in these things. Democrats (not Liberals, but Democrats) who believe in these three things could easily call themselves “Conservative” – and many Republicans who say they are Conservative would fail the definitional test.
Why does the Democrat Party have such an easy time splitting Conservatives into different groups on the basis of issues… abortion, illegal immigration, gun control, and – you name the issue? Because there is no leadership in the Party and because Republicans are not providing a strong and easily understandable philosophy of what the word “Conservative” means.
After the 2012 elections, people said that Mitt Romney’s Conservative message was not clearly given and it did not gain the support of the Republican Party’s base. That’s totally wrong! Mitt Romney – and I like the guy and I like his family – did not put forth a Conservative message. He and Paul Ryan put forth a Conservative fiscal policy view and talked about some other issues, but that falls far short of being a Conservative message based on Conservative philosophy. Mitt (and Paul Ryan, too) placed too much emphasis on “Conservative” meaning “fiscally Conservative.” Being fiscally Conservative is an issue that emerges from Conservative philosophy. It is just an issue. It is part of the philosophy, but it is not THE philosophy.
What does fiscal conservatism have to do with Conservative philosophy? If you are a constitutionalist, you know the answer to that question. People who set as the bedrock of their philosophy the Constitution of the United States know that having Ben Bernanke give $500 billion to New Zealand (this year) or $5 trillion to European and Japanese banks and corporations in 2011 is not constitutional. They know that the Federal Reserve System is not constitutional.
Thinking conservatives know that our fiscal (financial) problems come from an unconstitutional source. They know the First Amendment, Article 8 says that the United States House of Representatives is responsible for the debt of this nation, not a private corporation called the Federal Reserve. They know that to change the Constitution requires an Amendment and that passing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did not change the dictates of our founding documents. But those Senators and Congressmen who have spent too much time in Washington, D.C. don’t want to take on the issue of the Federal Reserve’s unconstitutional status and so they cannot use their greatest strength to win their most critical arguments regarding an over-spending nation that sinks us deeper and deeper into debt every day they vote on one issue or another. They want to keep things as they are when the Federal Reserve is involved… and that blasts one Republican definition of “Conservative” out of the water. It does not mean “traditionalist” if the tradition in question violates the Constitution of this nation!
When you say you are a constitutionalist, you do not get to choose which parts of the Constitution you agree with and which parts you disagree with. It’s a bit like the Holy Bible: You support it in its totality, or you do not support it at all. To do otherwise suggests that you place yourself and your judgment above the Constitution and that is unacceptable to Conservative philosophy… but it is what the Republican Party has been doing and that is why the Party has and is continuing to lose its Conservative base.
The same is true of all Republican issues. The three primary principles of Conservative philosophy – Constitution, Truth, Rule of Law – make the stand that must be taken on illegal immigration (violation of the Rule of Law), welfare and give-aways (for which there is no constitutional provision), education (Rule of Law that flows from the Constitution) – apparent. Follow the Constitution and you have all of the right answers to all Conservative issues. But Republicans seem to believe they can replace the philosophy of Conservatives with political ideology. They cannot. You’d think they’d understand that by now.
Okay, with that said, how does all of the above apply to the speeches given by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Texas Senator Ted Cruz at the Western Conservative Summit last weekend?
I said in the two articles preceding this one that I would give you answers to the errors of each of these speeches that are representative of why Republicans cannot get Conservatives to coalesce as a group behind Republican ideology. The short answer is that Republicans have no ideology… just a list of issues that give Democrats all of the ammunition they need to divide and conquer the various splinter groups. Ideology emits from philosophy – and Republicans are not functioning from a principled philosophy. They believe their ideology replaces the philosophy. It does not.
Governor Walker’s speech was very Republican. He spoke (and very well, indeed) of issues – education, balancing a budget, collective bargaining, Walker gave three guides he believes will help Conservatives elect Conservative candidates: 1) We need to be more optimistic. I would point out that people who believe in a philosophy are optimistic and that people who seek to push politicized issues and call them philosophy will gain no support from those seeking honest representation of their beliefs. Republican issues do not deal with beliefs… Conservative philosophy does.
Governor Walker told Republican candidates to talk in more relevant terminology. He’s right. People don’t want to hear words like “sequestration” thrown around. They do want to hear political messages in positive, relevant terminology they deal with in their everyday lives. But more importantly, they want to be able to tie the positive, relevant message they receive to their core beliefs – to their philosophy of life which embodies the Constitution as an American citizen, Truth, and the Rule of Law.
If Walker is looking to a presidential run in 2016, I said in my article about him that he has two major problems. Governor Walker spoke of the importance of Truth during his presentation. Leadership, which he also spoke of, is based on Truth (which also has strong ties to peoples’ philosophies of life). If you want to get the total picture of Governor Scott Walker as a politician, Google these words: “Scott Walker Operation Freedom.”
I hate to be the harbinger of bad news for Scott Walker fans (and I like him, too), but there is a mess in his past – actually, there are two of them – that need to be cleared up before he or any Wisconsin politician can become a viable national candidate for political office. Here is the shortest of the articles I found that will help explain Walker’s problem:
MILWAUKEE, Oct 12 (Reuters) – A former aide to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was convicted on Friday of stealing money from a fund for families of U.S. soldiers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A jury in Milwaukee County Circuit Court found Kevin Kavanaugh guilty of embezzling more than $42,000 from Operation Freedom, a military appreciation event held each year at the Milwaukee County Zoo.
Kavanaugh, who worked for Walker when the first-term Republican governor served as Milwaukee County executive, faces up to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine. Sentencing is expected on Dec. 7.
Kavanaugh, 62, was the treasurer of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, a charity involved in Operation Freedom, from 2006 to 2009. Walker appointed him to serve on the Milwaukee County Veteran Service Commission during Walker’s term as Milwaukee County executive.
It’s one thing to hear a politician talk about the importance of truth. It’s another thing to hold that politician accountable to providing the truth about things locked away in his or her closet. This is a particularly nasty case because it involves stealing money from the children of veterans who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the scandal goes much deeper than the Reuters article suggests. Seven people who were Walker appointees were arrested.
The point is, there are questions that must be answered and those of us who are looking for a strong Conservative leader need answers to questions that arise from the information provided from Wisconsin newspapers HERE before we offer that support.
Governor Walker’s second problem is his refusal to address the abuses heaped on the head of Wisconsin resident and Ambassador Lee/Leo Emil Wanta by his Department of Revenue, the Wisconsin County Court system (particularly Dane County), and the Governor at the time Wanta was prosecuted/persecuted, Tommy Thompson. The official Wanta biography can be found HERE and provides links to court documents that prove the abuses Wanta suffered.
The Wanta situation was not created by Governor Walker. It is in no way his fault. Rather, Tommy Thompson was Governor when the Department of Revenue attacked Wanta viciously for taxes due from a company known as Falls Vending Service, Inc. Wanta owned not a single share of stock in that company and had no responsibility for its debts in any way… the court transcripts provide complete and accurate evidence of the man’s innocence. See Chapters 3 and 4 of the Wanta biography. It is a situation that provides Scott Walker with an opportunity to prove his commitment to the truth and honor of which he speaks publicly. I have written the Governor letters, sent them registered mail – and, over a two year period, have not received a response. That tells me, Governor Walker isn’t interested in eliminating possible corruption from his state government.
There may be a simple answer to all of the above and if there is, Governor Walker needs to provide it before setting his sail for bigger seas in the national political arena. That is all I am saying.
As for the two problems I said Senator Ted Cruz faces if he is looking to throw his Senatorial hat into the Presidential ring in 2016, here they are.
The Cruz message rings true. It is a conservative message that references principle and philosophy. But he needs to be more specific as to the content of the philosophy and the principles it represents. That’s easy enough to do.
The other thing he needs to do with his message is to apply the philosophy to the issues of unemployment, fiscal responsibility, illegal aliens, Second Amendment violations of the American right to bear arms, education, abortion – all of the conservative issues that enable Liberals to keep us from solidifying into a single group because as long as they can keep us splintered into small groups over different issues, they can beat us at the ballot box.
I have no doubt that Senator Cruz can accomplish exactly the right approach to solving the only problem I identified with his speech.
It is the second problem about which Senator Cruz can do nothing. His father was born in Cuba. As a result, he is not a Natural-Born American. His mother was born in America, but his father was not. It breaks my heart because I have no doubt I would feel honored to vote for this man to be my President.
We conservatives must be very careful not to fall into the trap of absolving Barack Obama from his phony presidency – phony because he is not a Natural-Born American – by suggesting that what he did was okay because we do the same thing: Elect someone who isn’t eligible to be President.
Senator Cruz, by the way, won the Presidential straw poll vote done by the Centennial Institute’s Western Conservative Summit 2013. The others with whom he was competing: Congressman Paul Ryan, Senator Rick Santorum, Senator Jim DeMint, Governor John Kasich, Governor Susana Martinez, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Jeb Bush, Governor Rick Perry… and, of course, Governor Scott Walker.
Click here for part —–> 1, 2, 3,
© 2013 Marilyn M. Barnewall – All Rights Reserved
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com
July 29th, 2013 by olddog
By Mac Slavo
Citing extreme demand over the last year the Hornady Manufacturing company, one of the leading producers of ammunition globally, has temporarily suspended production of over 150 bullet and ammunition types in order to focus their productive capacity on more popular products.
In a statement posted on the Hornady web site the firm explains that though they have increased capacity and shipments over the last year, their efforts have been overshadowed by an increase in demand of over 200%.
Effective immediately, Hornady will focus its efforts on producing their most popular calibers, while suspending the production of lesser known projectiles and ammunition.
In the following message to distributors and retail customers Steve Hornady explains that orders for ammunition are such that it will take nearly two years to clear the existing backlog. He also assuages fears of a government conspiracy to limit ammunition, and assures customers that Hornady will not, and has not, raised their prices.
It’s important for everyone to know that our order demand is extremely high. And, even though we have temporarily suspended the production of some items, what we have left on order will take us almost two years to produce.
There is no conspiracy by the government to shut us down. This is not an effort on our part to raise prices. We haven’t raised prices. If they are higher. that’s at the store level not at the manufacturer.
We’re going to do everything we can by adding people, by adding machinery, and by adding square footage in order to try and make more of what you want to buy.
On the list of items that we’ve kept we have over 270 of our projectiles and over 140 different rounds of ammunition.
There is something in there for everyone, but there may not be some of the less popular items. By cutting down on that list – temporarily suspending them – we’re able to get more up time on our machinery and get more bullets out the door for you.
We appreciate your patience and we hope that you understand this is a temporary situation only.
Though a good deal of bullets and ammunition will no longer be available, according to Hornady’smost current production list they will still produce their most popular calibers and types like 12-gauge, .22, .223, .308, .38, .45, .50, 9mm, and 7.62x39mm.
Amid recent ammunition shortages stemming from fears of Congressional action following the Sandy Hook school shooting, as well as claims that President Barack Obama would take Executive Action to limit accessibility to ammunition and magazines, Americans drove demand to unprecedented levels with one gun sold every 1.5 seconds in the United States since December of last year.
With the government stocking over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in recent years, the global economy in the midst of collapse, and police state monitoring of American citizens expanding at an alarming rate, it has been suggested that the demand in weaponry and ammunition is indicative of a society preparing for war, a notion that has been echoed by recent assessments which suggest the U.S. government is actively preparing for the collapse of our economy and society.
Whatever the case, for those hoping to see an end to ammunition supply shortages, given Hornady’s indication that they must run at full capacity for two years just to meet existing demand, in all likelihood the shortages will continue for months or years to come.
Mac Slavo's many articles can be found on his website SHTFplan.com, where this article first appeared.
Considering how important it is for the people to be prepared, it is inexcusable for the retailers to drive up the cost of ammo and weapons. In time, the people will turn on them for this, and their profits will be eaten up protecting their stores. We should create a fire-storm of applications for a dealers license, and begin selling for a marginal profit to everyone we can.
July 10th, 2013 by olddog
By Gary Stamper, Ph.D.
Guest Writer for Wake Up World
Humanity has come to a defining moment in its 200,000+ year evolution: we are at a place where we either have to give up or we have to stand up.
Last week, amidst a backdrop of fear-creation by the security state, where you either shut up or face the consequences, my wife and I were talking about standing up to empire and what it might mean.
The slap-in-the-face awareness of the consequences-we-can-no-longer-ignore that people face for standing up to empire are finally and blatantly right in front of us. The evidence, which has been mounting since Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex in his farewell address in 1960, has been building, slowly, through Vietnam, Nixon’s resignation, the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy, the Reagan economic policies, Bush 1 & 2, the Clinton years of globalization that destroyed manufacturing in America, false flag wars, supporting dictators as long as they are our dictators, the hopium of a young Barack Obama and the incredible disappointment and betrayal as the security state moves into its fullness.
That awareness has been fully awakened by the recent charges filed against Edward Snowden.
We are no longer a nation – in the farewell words of Eisenhower – whose basic purposes have been “to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations.” He went on to say, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” ~ James Madison
That disastrous potential has come to full fruition when our government wars for profit and pursues and punishes those who would expose illegal activities rather than those sociopaths who treasonously commit them against the founding principles of this nation. I can no longer keep silent against those who violate their oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States.
How bad is it? According to Ron Tice, who worked as an offensive NSA agent from 2002 to 2005, before becoming a source for this Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times articleexposing NSA domestic spying, in the summer of 2004 he saw orders to spy on Hillary Clinton, Senators John McCain and Diane Feinstein, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Gen. David Petraeus, and a current Supreme Court Justice. In 2007, the NSA wiretapped a bunch of numbers associated with a forty-some-year-old senator from Illinois. You wouldn’t happen to know where that guy lives now would you? It’s a big White House in Washington D.C. That’s who the NSA went after. That’s the President of the United States now.” Tice went on to say:
“The abuse is rampant and everyone is pretending that it’s never happened, and it couldn’t happen…. I know [there was abuse] because I had my hands on the papers for these sorts of things: They went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of congress — Senate and the House — especially on the intelligence committees and the armed services committees, lawyers, law firms, judges, State Department officials, part of the White House, multinational companies, financial firms, NGOs, civil rights groups …”
According to Tice, “Outrageous abuses… have happened, and it’s all being kept hush hush.” (source: Reuters)
“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.” ~ Abraham Lincoln
One of the fears that has been created, is that even journalists who report on what whistle-blowers are doing can be prosecuted, has already had a chilling effect on those who would normally come forward. The results of this mean that free speech and journalism no longer exist in the U.S.
Add to that the recent unconstitutional surreptitious surveillances directed toward the Associated Press, PRISM, and American citizens, where non-violent protestors are now labeled “terrorists,” where congress upholds the Indefinite detention of Americans, and where Journalists who are investigating government secretsdie suspiciously. The message? Keep your mouth shut, don’t get involved, and do as we say, and we’ll tell you what the news is. Intimidation means it won’t be long before nobody is talking to the media.
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” ~ Isaac Asimov
It is time to choose sides. As the Burning Platform blog states:
“There is no middle ground in this debate. You are either on the side of freedom, liberty, truth, transparency and the U.S. Constitution or you are on the side of mindless obedience, oppression, deception, corruption and tyranny.”
So what does it mean in light of my conversation with my wife? It means I know that I’m very much aware that I’m walking a fine line, one that could lead me to being considered an “enemy of the state.” I love my country, but what I’m not fond of is the imperialist bent of the present government. A DHS anonymous insider who is still talking – no source link provided – says that “so-called citizen journalists will be particularly vulnerable. Watch for a serious crackdown of bloggers, online news publications and websites.”
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
There’s an enormous amount of freedom in knowing that there are things more important than I. I’m in tune with my purpose and comfortable with my decision to resist tyranny regardless of what that might mean. Of course, that’s easy to say in the comfort of our mountain home, growing much of our own food, steeped in resilience and sustainability. Who knows where I might find the point where I can no longer make that claim?
I consider myself lucky because I’ve had a near death experience, so I don’t fear death. Dying is easy. Living your purpose is hard. Although not her path in this lifetime, my wife supports my intentions, mostly because she knows that I wouldn’t be the authentic man she loves if I weren’t paying attention to what I have to do. At 68-years old, my voice is my sword, and my mind is my armor. My path will be non-violent unless violence is hoisted upon me or my loved ones.
You and I will enjoin this battle because we have no choice and we will stand side by side until we win or lose… and I have every intention of winning and living until I die. Everything is already changing, and while we can see where it’s headed, I have to believe we can still triumph.
Last, as pointed out in my previous article, it is exactly these kinds of disruptions and cognitive dissonance that spur new ways of thinking. The fascist oligarchy created by the merging of government and corporations is one of many inter-connected problems that are serving to awaken more and more people, and will hopefully serve as a catalyst for increased awareness. We are beginning to realize that we have much more in common than not, that we are connected as one, and what one loses, all lose. What one wins, all win. Life conditions determine how people respond and adapt and life for Americans, by all accounts, is changing rapidly.
Previous article by Gary Stamper:
July 5th, 2013 by olddog
By Susan Boskey
Declaration 2.0, July 4, 2013, is an idea whose time has come. It addresses many of today’s grievances held by the American people and, as such, echoes the original July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence from the British monarchy.
Declaration 2.0 only changes original phrasing when necessary to make specific grievances relevant to today and uses the original format and capitalization style. It is a declaration to free Americans from the statutory-law U.S. Government that has “become destructive,” no longer “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The phrase “free inhabitant(s)” refers to how early Americans were identified in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the country’s first constitution, ratified 1781 by 13 states.
The bold assertions made in Declaration 2.0 are based on deep research for the book, Beyond the National Myth: waking up in the land of the free. The hope is that someone or an organization will take it upon themselves to begin the process of gathering millions of signatures. There is no fixing what we already have. America and her people need a fresh start.
July 4, 2013 Declaration 2.0
The unanimous Declaration of the free inhabitants of the united States of America,
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to expose the Political Bands which have erroneously connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of men and women requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to this Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all People are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that People are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Free Inhabitants; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present United States is a history of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these Free Inhabitants of the several states. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
The United States has refused to admit that the President of the United States is NOT bound to the Constitution of 1787 because no president has ever taken the Constitution’s Article VI oath and thereby has made the U.S. Government entity an illegal, de facto government.
The United States has never acknowledged that it came into existence by a coup d’etat of the original American jurisdiction under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union which has never been lawfully repealed in writing.
The United States has refused to acknowledge the limits of its lawful territorial jurisdiction and the still-intact laws under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
The United States exists first and foremost as a commercial enterprise, and as such does not act in the best interest of the people.
The United States Government, not bound to the Constitution, has subverted its laws to forward self-serving political agendas and commercial interests.
The United States effectively dissolved unalienable rights of the people under the Creator by replacing them with legislated privileges called rights created by men and women who can also revoke them at any time. The government has been playing God.
The United States Government has endeavored to prevent the American population from understanding its alliance with a private central banking system that extracts the people’s wealth.
The United States has refused to protect the people from the merging of government and corporations aka corporatism. Especially disturbing is government domestic oversight by the Department of Homeland Security and the integration of military practices and functions with local law enforcement.
The United States has refused to protect individual property rights and has instead succumbed to a collectivist takeover of private land ownership rights and private land under a UN Agenda 21 “rights of nature” mandate.
The United States Government, due to having separate powers of the legislative and executive branches and, by giving the president both the power of head of government and head of state, has encouraged dictatorial powers thereof.
The United States has allowed presidents the unilateral law of executive orders when there is no explicit authority whatsoever for them.
The United States has erected a “multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” The IRS, Justice Department, many police, State and local revenue and other government agencies, engage in an escalating rampage of legalized theft and subsequent terror of not only those of their territorial jurisdiction but of all Americans.
The United States since the Korean War has gone to war without consent from the Congress.
The United States, dependent on deficit funding by the Federal Reserve, has rendered war to be an economic necessity beyond reasonable concerns for the well being of the people.
The United States has conspired with others to subject most Americans to a jurisdiction foreign to the original jurisdiction of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union; unrecognized by our Laws and giving authorization and force to their acts of pretended legislation:
For creating a Prison Industrial Complex as an economic engine and, aggressively employing torture of supposed terrorists:
For protecting the banking industry and executives directly causing loss of retirement and other financial damage to everyday Americans:
For authorizing warrantless searches and arrests and the murder of Americans:
For imposing multiple taxes on us without our direct consent:
For depriving us in many cases, due process as with the IRS, DHS, FBI, NSA and under the Patriot Act and subsequent more draconian laws:
For authorizing indefinite detention and deportation of any and all Americans:
For abolishing the free system of English Common Law on lands not owned by the U.S. Government while unlawfully extending the “Federal Zone” to include all land in America thereby establishing the U.S. Government by enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into non-federal lands:
For overriding our most valuable laws under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governance:
For suspending our original form of legislature declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever:
The United States has abdicated lawful government and therefore acts above any restriction by law. It plunders our private and personal property (including labor), denies us due process, and as such, is engaged in domestic war against us, destroying the lives of our people.
The United States is at this time managing large numbers of military to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy as hidden justification for economic stability.
The United States Government has curtailed dissent and punished whistleblowers; constraining our fellow citizens taken captive making it difficult to impossible thereafter for them to receive due process.
The United States has cultivated divide and conquer strategies amongst us to distract the people from recourse against an illegitimate, de facto government of vast weaponry.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of humanity, enemies in war, in peace, friends.
WE, therefore, the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World, the United States, for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these several states, solemnly Publish and Declare, that these Free Inhabitants are, and of Right, Free and Independent People of the several states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the de facto United States Government, and that all political connection between them and the United States, is totally dissolved; and that as FREE PEOPLE under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, they have full Power to Build a New Form of Governance and to do all other acts and things which the Free Inhabitants may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Who will be the first to sign their name to this Declaration, if it is posted on a Dedicated site?
Susan Boskey, freelance researcher and writer, is author of the book, The Quality Life Plan®: 7 Steps to Uncommon Financial Security www.AlternativeFinancialNow.com and more recently helped bring to market the book, Beyond the National Myth: waking up in the land of the free www.nationalmyth.org
It is absolutely heart breaking that one single citizen still supports this tyrannical government, and considering the possibility that the majority does is justification for becoming a hardcore misanthrope. The political philosophy that enabled the election of Obama to the presidency is an ineradicable disease resulting from the rejection of a Republican form of governance, and the acceptance of a false democracy. Only a government controlled education and media industry could have possibly suppressed the intellectual development of generations of American citizens to produced so many fools.
July 2nd, 2013 by olddog
By Dave Hodges
How many of you believe that this country is plunging head first into a state of revolution? How many of you believe that a plannedcurrency collapse coupled with the implementation of a brutal martial law and gun confiscation will be the trigger events which will incite the coming revolution?
Many of us in the alternative media believe that this is the likely scenario that will very soon turn this country into the most dangerous planet on the face of the earth. It might behoove us to look a little closer at the nature of revolution in order to predict where all of this is likely headed. In the present political climate, I see no way to stem the tide of unthinkable brutality and violence which seems imminent. It is in this mindset that I set about to research the topic of revolution and this series of articles reflects the results of the research. And as a result of past and common patterns of revolution, it appears as if a clear picture is beginning to emerge.
Four Levels of Warfare
Most military strategists identify four levels of conflict; (1) nuclear war is the trump card of all conflict; (2) conventional warfare; (3) guerrilla warfare; and, (4) terrorism.
It is safe to say that if our country does indeed descend into revolution, nuclear war will not come into play, for if it did, there would be nothing to rule over in the aftermath.
The United States has witnessed civil war of a conventional nature In the 1860′s as two mighty armies of that era locked horns in what proved to be the conflict in which America suffered her greatest loss of life. In the Civil War, both sides had equivalent weaponry and as a result employed conventional tactics. However, given the disparity of technology and resources between the people the globalist controlledforces of the government, a conventional war would prove to be a disaster for the rebel forces. If key elements of the military were to break away and support the people, perhaps a conventional war would unfold. However, it is not likely that the upcoming civil war will be conventional as it is not probable that the military will bifurcate and turn in on itself. The likely mode of the revolutionary war conflict facing the people of the United States is that it will consist of either guerrilla warfare or terrorism.
Guerrilla Warfare Or Terrorism?
Terrorism is the least preferred option by any insurgent group. With terrorism, there is absolutely no hope of final victory because territory is never occupied. For that reason, nobody aspires to engage in terrorism if they have a viable alternative and the American people do have a choice given how well armed we are. However, terrorism arising out a defeated guerrilla force is a distinct possibility as it would represent American guerrilla’s fallback position should they be defeated. Subsequently, does the MIAC Report which labeled Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Second Amendment Supporters, Ron Paul Supporters, Veterans and now Christians as domestic terrorists, make a little more sense as to why DHS made these bold proclamations? DHS understands has demonstrated their understanding of these facts and has prepared for what I just wrote about in the previous paragraph.
The Veterans Administration estimates that there are approximately 21.5 million veterans living in the United States. We also live in a country with over 300 million privately owned guns. These combined factors point clearly to a guerrilla war being the preferred and necessary mode of combat which will likely be visited upon the this country.
What Is Guerrilla Warfare?
Guerrilla warfare, for most of human history, is not new. Tribal war, which traditionally pits one guerrilla force against another, is the oldest form of warfare. The new “conventional” form of warfare, which pits guerrillas against “conventional” forces, is more recent as it arose in Mesopotamia 5,000 years ago.
The good news for future American freedom fighters is that guerrilla war has been getting more successful since 1945, but unfortunately guerrilla fighters still lose most of the time. An analysis of past conflicts featuring guerrilla war, reveals that only 25% of guerrilla forces, out of 443 such conflicts since 1775, were successful. The government prevailed almost 64% of the time with the remainder of the conflicts ended in a stalemate. Conversely, since the end of WWII, the percentage of success for guerrilla forces has indeed gone up to 39.6%. Yet that still means that government forces have continued to prevail 51% of the time. When the American people engage in a guerrilla war in the upcoming years, the people have less than a 40% chance of success.
Length of Guerrilla Wars
Guerrilla wars are rarely short and as a result do not favor the American culture and our collective psyche of instant gratification. When Americans flip the switch on the wall, we expect the light to come on. Will Americans set aside their entitlements as well as their entrenched soft lifestyle and rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
The Vietnamese culture with an external locus of control predominating the people where the group is more important than the individual is the perfect mindset for guerrilla fighters. This could prove to be the American rebels biggest challenge because guerrilla warfare is not something that one does like driving over a speed bump. It is a way of life, a very hard way of life filled with misery, extreme sacrifice and unspeakable losses.
For my money, the best guerrilla fighters in the modern era were the Viet Cong in which Vietnamese people were involved in some form of guerrilla war from 1942-1975. After the Americans invaded Vietnam, the forces in the north had a saying, “born in the north, to die in the south.” There were nearly two generations of Vietnamese people in which war was an unavoidable part of life. What General Westmoreland and LBJ failed to recognize was that in order to defeat and totally subdue the Vietnamese people, the Americans would have had to have engaged in unspeakable genocide because despite the fact that the US won every single battle of the war, the Vietnamese rebels were never going to give up. Do we Americans have that same tenacity to persevere like the Vietnamese?
Prior to WWII, guerrilla wars lasted an average of seven years. Following WWII, guerrilla conflicts lasted an average of 10 years. Will Americans embrace the tenets and sacrifices of guerrilla war and can it ever become a way of life? I believe that conditions would have to be unspeakably horrendous for America to embrace a conflict under theseconditions. I think that things would have to be so bad, so completely genocidal, that fighting and dying would be the only viable alternativefor America in order to embrace guerrilla warfare as a way of life. What I am saying here is that we are a very soft people.
How Close Are We to the Inevitable Conflict?
Successful guerrilla leaders such as Lawrence of Arabia, Mao, Castro and Giap all concur that there are three phases of any guerrilla war. However, before the phases can unfold there are two preconditions which must be met.
The first condition which is a prerequisite for guerrilla war, is based upon the fact that there has to be a decisive battle for the belief systems of the people as a whole. The globalists have invested billions of dollars in order to dominate the mainstream media. On the other side is the alternative media. Both sides are vying for control of the belief systems of the country.
There are two very distinct ideologies playing out today in the court of public opinion. On one hand, the future rebels are adept at exposing the loss of national sovereignty and civil liberties every chance they get. Conversely, the globalist dominated media is spending billions of dollars to convince the masses that there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory and despite some governmental incompetence, the government loves and protects its people. And the globalists are being somewhat effective. Have you ever noticed that when you are describing a globalist inspired conspiracy such as what happened at Benghazi, and no matter how well documented your position is, that your audience frequently responds with “you must be one of theseconspiracy theorists.” Our facts are rarely attacked because they are accurate, but the idea of the existence of any kind of conspiracy is what is challenged. This kind of programming coming from the media is brilliant and effective. Who is winning this war of words? The jury is still out, but the unmistakable conclusion is that the ideological battle lines for the upcoming conflict have clearly been drawn.
The globalists sell the sheep on the notion that we have to control you to protect you (from a threat of our creation), and the other side is saying “we will take our chances, give us freedom.”
The second precondition which must be met prior to descending into guerrilla war consists of both sides engaging in an arms race. In response to the Obama administration’s threat of seizing our guns for the false flag events of the Aurora Batman massacre and Sandy Hook, Americans went on a gun-buying frenzy which continues to this day. DHS has engaged in their own arms buildup as they have purchased 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition to go with 2700 new armored personnel carriers and that is not all. The federal government has invested in 30,000 drones, super soldier robots and intelligence gathering techniques which are mind-blowing. As an aside, Snowden’s public revelation related to the extent of the NSA’s illegal surveillance activities contained nothing that most of us in the alternative media did not already know. It is my belief that Ed Snowden knows a lot more than has been reported related to the reasons underlying the spying and the media is refusing to report on it.
In summary, the American people and their government have engaged in an arms race very similar in nature to two rival countries preparing to go to war.
The preconditions for armed conflict and the likelihood that the conflict will be guerrilla is very likely. In Part Two of this series, an analysis of the commonalities between past guerrilla conflicts (e.g. Giap, Mao, Castro, etc.) will be offered. Emerging from the discussion in the next part in this series is the discovery of the fact that there three overlapping phases to guerrilla war and it will be a shocking surprise to all of us as to how far along this country is in relation to these three phases. All that is needed is the right trigger event and that will be discussed in the next part as well.
As for me, I believe America will be torn apart by the division already existing, as there is no doubt in my mind that the liberal scumbags are the enemy of a free society, and my biggest concern is, I am now too old to be a part of a guerrilla fighting unit. I have not the strength, or stamina to be anything more than in the way of better men. BUT, not until I am in the ground will I stop supporting them. They will always have what ever I can give them, and I can give them plenty of support. I consider any man or woman who supports this government, an enemy of America. Check this out!
July 2, 2013
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
A few friends sent me a disturbing, shocking, gut-wrenching video yesterday.
It's amateur footage of police officers from a LA metro-area unit shooting, and killing, a man's dog. While they were arresting him. For the crime of… recording them.
Apparently the cops were in the neighborhood to make an arrest. Several people were outside watching. And one man who was out walking his dog started filming with his cell phone camera.
About 2 minutes later, the man notices the police walking towards him, no doubt to harass him for the heinous act of recording them. So he puts his dog in the car, meets the police halfway on the sidewalk, and assumes the "I surrender" pose.
The dog starts barking and actually squirms out of the car and ran over to the man, jumping on one of the officers. Another drew his sidearm. And in one of the most cold-blooded acts I've ever seen, he shot the dog. Four times.
Trust me, I recommend that you not watch this video. It turns the stomach.
Not to be outdone by the West Coast, government agents in the State of Virginia recently assaulted a 20-year old girl, guns blazing, because she was exiting a local supermarket with cookie dough, ice cream, and a box of bottled water.
The cops assumed that she had purchased alcohol; apparently they can't tell the difference between La Croix pure sparkling water and a case of Bud Light… and even still, they felt it was necessary to brandish firearms against this criminal terrorist.
It's truly mind boggling that this is what passes for professional police force in the Land of the Free.
Average, every day people get taken down and threatened with deadly force for committing egregious acts like… photographing the police. Or buying bottled water.
Meanwhile, the real criminals (i.e. the politicians, central bankers, and puppet masters) continue waging destruction and plunder on a largely unsuspecting population.
It may be premature to draw too many parallels to Hitler's Schutzstaffel force. But to see this culture of fear, submission, and intimidation continue to flourish within the Land of the Free, one can't help but wonder…
Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com
June 30th, 2013 by olddog
By Paul Rosenberg
What was “Federal”?
Nearly all of us use the word federal to refer to the United States national government, as distinct from the state governments. This has been an error on our part.
Federal was a description, not a name. It would be fair to use federative in its place. It described a type of government, not a particular organization.
For example, when we say “my friend has a fast car,” we don’t think that fast is the car’s brand name – it is merely a description of the car’s acceleration and top speed.
Federal was not the brand name of the government that James Madison designed, it was a description, like fast.
Notice how Madison distinguishes between national and federal. We have lost this distinction, and it is crucial.
The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both.
In its foundation it is federal, not national;
In the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national;
In the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal;
In the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally,
In the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
Madison – six times in this passage – distinguishes between federal and national. There can be no question about this: he is referring to two different things. Federal is NOT the same as national.
We no longer use these distinctions because the US government has become entirely national – we have nothing else to attach the tag federal to.
At the founding – as Madison was writing the US Constitution – the meanings of the words he used were these:
National powers were those of an independent central government.
Federal powers were those that came from the contributions of the states.
To be fully precise, “federal” meant a union based on a treaty. It described the type of association that was being used.
Madison distinguishes between national and federal in exactly the same way that we distinguish between a business and a club.
You can see from Madison’s words that the structure of the United States government very carefully included federally-derived powers. Madison specifies them as fundamental components.
At its origin, the national government was dependent on the states, and not vice-versa. When the states shifted their positions, the central government, which rested on top of them, had to move along with them.
Understand, this was not a case where the national government was supposed to shift along with the states - there was literally no other possibility. An analogy would be the surface of the ocean moving up and down as a wave passes. The national government rode on top of the federal arrangement – when and where it moved, the national government automatically followed – like the surface of the ocean moving with a wave. There was nothing else it could do or be.
Madison did this on purpose. It was the central controlling and protecting mechanism of his design.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the original federal structure of government in the US:
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Johnson, 1823
The capital and leading object of the Constitution was to leave with the States all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States; to make us several [separate] as to ourselves, but one as to all others.
Jefferson, as usual, understood the essence of the arrangement: Separate among ourselves, but as one toward the rest of the world – the outsiders who only saw the surface of the wave, not the waters underneath.
Jefferson (who was certainly not alone in this) saw the centralizing movement of power from the states to the capital as the great threat to the American experiment of liberty:
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Nathaniel Macon, 1821
Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction. That is: by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
The Path of Destruction
The federal structure of the US government was abolished in steps, over time. Certainly the largest factors were the confusion, ignorance, apathy and fear of the populace, which resulted in mute compliance. There were, however, watershed moments along the way. The most important of these events were the following:
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
This most important of Supreme Court rulings resulted from a complex case involving dirty deals, a politically-stacked Supreme Court and the entry of partisan politics into the operation of the American republic. By the time it was over, the Court had ruled against the man who wrote the Constitution (James Madison) and claimed the sole right to interpret it. Here’s how it went:
1. The Federalists, Alexander Hamilton being the driving force, organized into a faction (a political party) that organized and pooled their power.
2. Facing a loss of control after the election of 1800, they pushed John Adams to appoint a large group of judges and other officials in the lame duck session before he left office. Adams complied. These appointments were written for five-year terms – long enough for the Federalists to retain control through the next election.
3. Not all the commissions could be completed before Jefferson was inaugurated. One of these was slated for delivery to a hard-core Federalist named William Marbury.
4. When Jefferson took the Presidency, Marbury’s appointment was still in the Secretary of State’s office. James Madison, who now filled that office, withdrew the appointment for precisely the reasons you’d expect (being based on dirty dealing), and went about to appoint someone else.
5. Marbury ran to the Supreme Court, which was entirely composed of Federalist appointees. He demanded to be given his office.
6. In a complex ruling, the Court (led by John Marshall) ruled that Madison was wrong to withhold the appointment, but that this didn’t matter, since the underlying law from 1789 was unconstitutional.
7. The shock of ruling against the author of the Constitution aside, ‘Marbury’ brought up the important issue of constitutionality: Who decides? Even if we say there is an argument to be made for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, it is NOT in the Constitution. The Court should have said something like this:
Since it has fallen to us to decide such an important matter, we will render our opinion in this case. However, we request of the Congress and the States, that they pass an amendment to the Constitution clarifying this issue.
There is a great deal of confusion related to Marbury v. Madison that has come down to us. This ruling is universally presented in American schools as crucial to the “checks and balances” of the US government. This is deeply misleading.
Judicial review (the Supremes ruling on constitutionality) involves one branch of the national government providing a check on the other branches of the national government.
Judicial Review provided no check whatsoever on the national government as a whole.
The original design of the republic empowered the states to act as checks on the national government. This was the primary purpose of the federal structure. Without it, the national government has no check on its expansion and use of power. Thus it would seem that the states should be the interpreters of the Constitution – after all, it was they who created it.
Rules versus Justice
There is one last and important thing to mention regarding Marbury v. Madison, and that is the enthronement of rules above reality – of legal wordings over justice.
The “midnight appointments” of the Federalists used rules to manipulate the power-structure of the republic and to secure power by unintended means. James Madison, above all people, understood this. He withdrew Marbury’s appointment to conclude the abuse that was done to his system.
Chief Justice Marshall, however, ignored the injustice and parsed words instead: He went on at length over the distinctions of “nominate,” “appoint,” “confirm,” and the fixing of seals.
Then, Marshall says this:
The people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness…
The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental.
What Marshall actually says here is that the American people wish not to work so hard defending their rights. He is giving them an excuse to be lazy:
The rules will take over from here on out. You can relax.
Liberty was the primary issue of the founding of the republic; the Constitution was subsidiary to that: it was a tool, valuable only if it helped to secure liberty.
The reversal of the central order – liberty being made subsidiary to rules – dethroned liberty.
Hamilton, Marshall and the Federalists were political power-seekers. To them, liberty was little more than a word that gave them legitimacy; what they really wanted was power.
Madison’s design stood in their way; Marbury v. Madison pulled it apart.
The 14th Amendment, 1868
The 14th Amendment filled a hole in the Constitution by declaring that no state could trample an individual’s rights, such as the southern states had done by enslaving black people. (There was an earlier precedent for this, but the amendment was probably necessary.) The key section reads:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Essentially, the 14th Amendment made sure that the Bill of Rights applied to everyone, no matter what their state government did. This was, in my opinion, a reasonable addition to the Constitution.
The problem with the 14th Amendment is not the text itself, but that people took it to imply the moral superiority of the national government. That is a highly questionable assumption.
The Central Government & Slavery
When Americans talk about states’ rights, there is an instinctual objection that never fails to grip people – that without central government power, slavery would still exist. The truth, however, is the opposite. And that truth is this:
Every branch of the national government of the United States assisted slavery until 1863. You can verify this yourself; go look-up The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision.
While the southern states and the national government were supporting slavery, the northern states fought it: They nullified laws supporting slavery. (Wisconsin was exemplary in this.) The secession resolution of Georgia complains specifically about this:
For above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. [Northern state officials] shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property.
The northern states were the anti-slavery heroes, not the central government in Washington. If your school books implied the contrary, they lied.
The 17th Amendment, 1913
The 17th Amendment took the powers of the states and transferred them to Washington, by mandating the popular election of senators.
Previously, senators were elected by the state legislatures. That gave the states massive power in the central government. It provided a check on the power of the national government. If the states were unhappy with the direction of national government, they could instruct their senators to change it.
With senators being elected directly by the populace, the states were cut-out of the equation. In their place, political parties gained massive power, and nearly all power was consolidated in the city of Washington.
The argument in favor of the 17th Amendment was that state houses were corrupt and that they acted erratically, often leaving seats vacant for some time.
It is certainly true that the states were unruly. This, however, was not a crucial issue; the work of the Senate could continue regardless. Respected politicians, however, did not want to be seen as part of a disorderly body.
As for corruption in the states, that was often true, but the implied idea, that Washington was pristine, was – and remains – a bad, bad joke. But, even now, the moral superiority of the central government is often assumed, probably because many people find comfort trusting in the largest and most powerful thing.
Power always corrupts, but a structure featuring small, separate pockets of corruption is far less dangerous than one featuring a single, large seat of corruption, to which all money is gathered. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:
It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.
The government of the United States remains, but it is of a fundamentally different character than the federal republic designed by Madison. Yet, we all keep saying federal. Not only is this use incorrect, but it has prevented us from recognizing the crucial fact that the American federal republic was stolen from our great-grandparents. This is not a trivial argument over vocabulary.
Deceptions and frauds are accomplished over time by changes in the meanings of words. Sometimes this is done purposely and sometimes it happens because people are more comfortable evading the original meaning. But regardless of how much intent was involved, the meaning of federal changed radically between 1803 and 1917. Our current use of the word conveys a completely different meaning than the original. This change of definition has masked a fundamental turning point in the governance of the American people.
What you do about this – or whether you do anything at all – is entirely your choice. I am merely pointing as best I can to the truth. I will add only this:
If you call yourself an American, be one.
Originally published on LewRockwell.com
1. Will Government Tyranny Be Completed Before Humanity Wakes Up Again?
2. Death by Government 20x More Common than Death by Criminal…
Bottom of Form
Next Post: Capitalism and Greed: Do they go together?
Previous Post: Why Show Respect For Authority?
Because I’m always on the lookout for talented authors, I stumbled onto http://www.freemansperspective.com/ where I found many informative articles. Please do yourself a favor and go there, brows around and read what interest you. A good mind IS a terrible thing to waste, especially as our future is so bleak. Remember, knowledge, is intellectual ammunition. And, you cannot afford to be ignorant.
June 26th, 2013 by olddog
By Wendy McElroy
“Why do so many people not realize America has become a total state?”
Anyone who points out the politically obvious and is accused of panic-mongering has considered this question. The NSA's massive spying, the TSA frisking their children, the IRS targeting people politically, the longest war in American history, the militarization of law enforcement, the indefinite detention of prisoners at Gitmo … nothing, nothing seems to budge some people from the belief that the US is the freest, grandest nation on earth. It is an article of faith as deeply held as any belief in God.
Libertarian Class Analysis
There is no one answer but a good place to start is with a libertarian theory of class analysis. Karl Marx is usually credited with originating class analysis and the Marxist version is the one that most commonly comes to mind. Namely, people are classified based on their relationship to the means of production. Are you a worker or a capitalist?
But class analysis as an analytic tool did not originate with Marx. It was produced by 19th century radical liberal (that is, libertarian) historians who wrote in post-Napoleonic France: Charles Comte, Augustin Thierry and Charles Dunoyer. Their mentor was the great classical liberal economist J.B. Say. Perhaps the best presentation of this version of class analysis occurs in Franz Oppenheimer's book The State. Here he presents the two antagonistic principles upon which most societies operate: the economic and the political means. Or Society and the State.
Oppenheimer wrote, “I mean by Society, the totality of concepts of all purely natural relations and institutions between man and man.” It consists collectively of all voluntary exchanges of labor and goods, including intangible 'goods' like culture. It is a productive and peaceful means that brings mutual benefit to all involved or no exchange would occur.
Oppenheimer wrote, “I mean by it [the State] that summation of privileges and dominating positions which are brought into being by extra-economic power.” It consists of the systematic appropriation of labor and goods, including intangible ones like freedom of speech. It is a non-productive and violent means that benefits the thieves and harms the productive.
This one insight is the basis of libertarian class analysis: Society and the State were in basic and constant conflict with each other. The analysis classifies people based on their relationship to productivity. Are you part of an industrious Society or do you belong to the parasitic State?
Oppenheimer explained the social dynamics set in motion by the political means. Parasites naturally multiply and drain ever more resources. As the political means comes to dominate, however those who produce means see an ever diminishing return from their productivity and, so, they have little incentive to labor beyond subsistence. Society stagnates, which means there is less for the parasite to drain. And, yet, the State is now bloated and it needs an increasing amount of resources. Since it no longer has the consent and cooperation of the productive section, it must use conquest. The American State is at the stage of attempting to conquer American Society.
The Political Means Dominates America
The State is not merely the politicians and officials who run the visible structure of government. It includes every civil servant and bureaucrat. The largest employer in America is the federal government. According to the Office of Personnel Management, there were approximately 2.79 million civil servants as of December 2011. But this number is for “civilian” personnel only and does not include uniformed civil servants, such as law enforcement. Of course, every state, county and city ratchets up the civil servant count with their own employees.
The State also includes the people whose political support is purchased by the stolen labor and goods, such as disability recipients. The ranks of these recipients is swelling as the individual states aggressively encourage the unemployed to pursue disability (a federal expense). For example, in New Mexico, the number of disability recipients jumped 58.7% in nine years. NPR recently (03/22/13) ran an in-depth analysis that estimated the total number of people on disability to be “about 14 million Americans who don't have jobs and who don't show up in any of the unemployment measures we use.” Disability is only one 'welfare' program among dozens and dozens.
The State includes people ostensibly in the private sector whose job is to facilitate the theft of labor and goods – for example, lawyers who hit productive businesses with dubious suits based on Nanny State laws. Employees in the military-industrial complex, suppliers to the military, subsidized banks and corporations, the list of those who survive on tax money goes on and on.
This is the first reason why so many people will never recognize that America is deteriorating; it is not deteriorating for them because they are the beneficiaries of the political means, and the police state works to their advantage. They benefit through money and pensions but many also benefit through acquiring status or power over others. A vast number of government employees could never earn these advantages based on merit in the private sector. They have a deep vested interest in not seeing themselves as the enemies of Society. Nor are their families likely to turn against the source of food on their tables.
The Tipping Point Theory
But why are people who are not tax consumers seemingly blind to the danger of the present State? Among the many explanations, I think three are commonplace.
They may not be blind but merely silent.
Or they may not be discontented. The Austrian economist Murray Rothbard once told me how his parents lived far better during the Great Depression than they had before it. They both held onto decent jobs and prices were very low. Such people are not fertile for a discussion about the economic calamity being inflicted by a State under which they prospered.
Equally, people who have never experienced the direct violence of the State are inclined to dismiss disturbing reports from those who have. As long as they live in relative comfort, these people allow the State to process their lives. They go about the business of living instead of focusing on matters they do not control. For many, it will take a tipping within their own lives or within society at large for the business of living to include a recognition of how dangerous the State can be.
A tipping point is the critical point at which an accumulation of minor changes triggers a major and often irreversible one. The build up to a social tipping point occurs on an individual basis. The Arab Spring is an example. Enough people became individually dissatisfied to form a mass protest movement. And it happened with sudden ease. The key is “enough individuals” need to become dissatisfied for a tipping point to occur. Before it happens, however, the people who simply want to live will tend to ignore political problems out of a feeling of isolation or helplessness. Afterward, some will awaken. Perhaps they will be appalled at the brutality the State heaps upon those who challenge it, perhaps a family member will become involved in a protest, perhaps they will simply cease to feel helpless..
I suspect America is close to a social tipping point. If so, it will be caused by a bloated State consuming more and more from a Society that is already half on its knees.
How many individuals need to feel the tipping point within themselves for it to occur in a general manner? The nineteenth-century libertarian Benjamin Tucker estimated the figure at 10%. If 10% of society said “no” to a law, then the law would become unenforceable. The number or percentage is impossible to measure, of course, but it is almost certain to be far, far less than 50%. Fortunately, history has rarely required a majority for social change to occur.
Whether or not the outcome of such a tip would be from Society, or of the State, depends as much upon how many people become reluctant to say “yes” as much as it does upon the 10% who say “no.”
RELATED ACTIVIST POST ARTICLE:
Tyranny's Last Stand: The Tipping Point is Here
Wendy McElroy is a frequent Dollar Vigilante contributor and renowned individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder along with Carl Watner and George H. Smith of The Voluntaryist in 1982, and is the author/editor of twelve books, the latest of which is "The Art of Being Free". Follow her work at http://www.wendymcelroy.com.
June 15th, 2013 by olddog
By Paul Craig Roberts
It has been public information for a decade that the US government secretly, illegally and unconstitutionally spies on its citizens. Congress and the federal courts have done nothing about this extreme violation of the US Constitution and statutory law, and the insouciant US public seems unperturbed.
In 2004 a whistleblower informed the New York Times that the National Security Agency (NSA) was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by ignoring the FISA court and spying on Americans without obtaining the necessary warrants. The corrupt New York Times put the interests of the US government ahead of those of the American public and sat on the story for one year until George W. Bush was safely reelected.
By the time the New York Times published the story of the illegal spying one year later, the law-breaking government had had time to mitigate the offense with ex post facto law or executive orders and explain away its law-breaking as being in the country's interest.
Last year William Binney, who was in charge of NSA's global digital data gathering program revealed that NSA had everyone in the US under total surveillance. Every email, Internet site visited and phone call is captured and stored. In 2012 Binney received the Callaway Award for Civic Courage, an annual award given to those who champion constitutional rights at risk to their professional and personal lives.
There have been a number of whistleblowers. For example, in 2006 Mark Klein revealed that AT&T had a secret room in its San Francisco office that NSA used to collect Internet and phone-call data from US citizens who were under no suspicion. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html
The presstitute media handled these stories in ways that protected the government's lawlessness from scrutiny and public outrage. The usual spin was that the public needs to be safe from terrorists, and safety is what the government is providing.
The latest whistleblower, Edward Snowden, has sought refuge in Hong Kong, which has a better record of protecting free speech than the US government. Snowden did not trust any US news source and took the story to the British newspaper, the Guardian.
There is no longer any doubt whatsoever that the US government is lawless, that it regards the US Constitution as a scrap of paper, that it does not believe Americans have any rights other than those that the government tolerates at any point in time, and that the government has no fear of being held accountable by the weak and castrated US Congress, the sycophantic federal courts, a controlled media and an insouciant public.
Binney and Snowden have described in precisely accurate detail the extreme danger from the government's surveillance of the population. No one is exempt, not the Director of the CIA, US Army Generals, Senators and Representatives, not even the president himself.
Anyone with access to a computer and the Internet can find interviews with Binney and Snowden and become acquainted with why you do have very much indeed to fear whether or not you are doing anything wrong.
James Clapper, the lying Director of National Intelligence, who would have been perfectly at home in the Hitler or Stalin regimes, condemned Snowden as "reprehensible" for insisting that in a democracy the public should know what the government is doing. Clapper insisted that secretly spying on every ordinary American was essential in order to "protect our nation." http://news.antiwar.com/2013/06/07/us-spy-chief-slams-reprehensible-leak-of-nsa-surveillance-scheme/
Clapper is "offended" that Americans now know that the NSA is spying on the ordinary life of every American. Clapper wants Snowden to be severely punished for his "reckless disclosure" that the US government is totally violating the privacy that the US Constitution guarantees to every US citizen.
President Obama, allegedly educated in constitutional law, justified Clapper's program of spying on every communication of every American citizen as a necessary violation of Americans' civil liberties that "protects your civil liberties." Contrast the lack of veracity of the President of the United States with the truthfulness of Snowden, who correctly stated that the NSA spying is an "existential threat to democracy."
The presstitutes are busy at work defending Clapper and Obama. On June 9, CNN rolled out former CIA case officer Bob Baer to implant into the public's mind that Snowden, far from trying to preserve US civil liberties, might be a Chinese spy and that Snowden's revelations might be indicative of a Chinese espionage case.
Demonization is the US government's technique for discrediting Bradley Manning for complying with the US Military Code and reporting war crimes and for persecuting Julian Assage of Wikileaks for reporting leaked information about the US government's crimes. Demonization and false charges will be the government's weapon against Snowden.
If Washington and its presstitutes can convince Americans that courageous people, who are trying to inform Americans that their historic rights are disappearing into a police state, are espionage agents of foreign powers, America can continue to be subverted by its own government.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. What is the purpose of the spying program?
Even if an American believes the official stories of 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombing, these are the only two terrorist acts in the US that resulted in the loss of human life in 12 years. Far more people are killed in traffic accidents and from bad diets. Why should the Constitution and civil liberty be deep-sixed because of two alleged terrorist acts in 12 years?
What is astounding is the absence of terrorist attacks. Washington is in the second decade of invading and destroying Muslim governments and countries. Civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are extremely high, and in those countries that Washington has not yet invaded, such as Pakistan, Yemen and Syria, civilians are being murdered by Washington's drones and proxies on the ground.
It is extraordinary that Washington's brutal 12-year assault on Muslim lives in six countries has not resulted in at least one dozen real, not fake FBI orchestrated, terrorist attacks in the US every day.
How can something as rare as terrorism justify the destruction of the US Constitution and US civil liberty? How safe is any American when their government regards every citizen as a potential suspect who has no rights?
Why is there no discussion of this in American public life? Watch the presstitutes turn Snowden's revelations into an account of his disaffection and motives and away from the existential threat to democracy and civil liberty.
What is the government's real agenda? Clearly, "the war on terror" is a front for an undeclared agenda. In "freedom and democracy" America, citizens have no idea what their government's motives are in fomenting endless wars and a gestapo police state. The only information Americans have comes from whistleblowers, who Obama ruthlessly prosecutes. The presstitutes quickly discredit the information and demonize the whistleblowers.
Germans in the Third Reich and Soviet citizens in the Stalin era had a better idea of their government's agendas than do "freedom and democracy" Americans today. The American people are the most uninformed people in modern history.
In America there is no democracy that holds government accountable. There is only a brainwashed people who are chaff in the wind.
This column was originally published at PaulCraigRoberts.org and is reprinted here with the author's position. Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan Administration. He was associate editor and columnist with the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service. He has had numerous university appointments. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is available here.
If it has not yet occurred to you, consider that the government is not concerned with catching terrorists with cyber-warfare, they hate whistleblowers because they are waging cyber-warfare on the American citizens and don’t want us to know it. Their one and only fear is an informed public, and they are doing everything possible to intimidate the people from learning.
April 22nd, 2013 by olddog
Michal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel . His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" – "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood… Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.
MASSIE FOR PRESIDENT!
DEPORT THE OBAMA'S!
April 12th, 2013 by olddog
Please make sure all your friends in every State see these names. The vote and the bill is a matter of public record.
Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:
“To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
From Senate records- a nay indicates unwillingness to stop the unconstitutional UN treaty:
Here’s the scumbags of the union list.
MAKE SURE YOU SAVE IT! THEY ARE TRAITORS AND SHOULD BE INDICTED AS SUCH.
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Cowan (D-MA), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
King (I-ME), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Not Voting
HERE’S THE PATRIOTS LIST
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Fischer (R-NE), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heinrich (D-NM), Yea
Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Scott (R-SC), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
GOA: The Battle Will Take Longer than We’d Hoped
Posted by: The Publisher on: April 11 2013 • Categorized in: To Keep and Bear Arms
But there’s still a very good chance we can win!
“Gun Owners of America [has] been pressing lawmakers who may have wavered on this emotional issue of background checks.” – CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, April 10, 2013
We’ve been fighting these gun control battles for almost 40 years now. And we almost always win. But it’s almost always a nail-biter.
And so it is on Obama’s gun control agenda.
We’d hoped that we could stop the gun control bribe-o-thon early (and risk-free) by blocking the motion to proceed to the package. But thanks to sell-outs like Pennsylvania’s one-term senator, Pat Toomey, we’re going to have to take a different battle position and defeat the package at a later stage.
The Senate today overcame the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster and voted to move to proceed to Harry Reid’s gun control bill (S. 649). Where Reid needed 60 votes, the tally was 68-31. Click here to see if your Senator sold you out by voting to “move to proceed” to the bill.
Republican defectors who voted anti-gun were: Alexander (TN), Ayotte (NH), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Coburn (OK), Flake (AZ), Isakson (GA), McCain (AZ), Heller (NV), Hoeven (ND), Kirk (IL), Graham (SC), Toomey (PA) and Wicker (MS).
So, here’s where we are. Right after the Senate proceeded to the gun control bill, Harry Reid used his privileged recognition to put a bunch of amendments in place. In Senate parlance, they are referred to as an “amendment tree;” and they contain the universal registry bill, the Feinstein gun ban, and the magazine ban. These will be voted on in upcoming days.
As for the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer universal registry bill, don’t believe the press’ efforts to sugar-coat it. If you have ever had an “Internet … posting” on (or related to) your gun, you can sell it only by going to a dealer and filling out a 4473 and getting the government’s approval. Only a cave man would be exempt.
And once you have a 4473? Well, the ATF is going from dealer to dealer, copying the information on these forms, and feeding it into a database. But, says Toomey, he’s against universal registries. This is where it would have helped if Toomey had consulted someone who knew something about guns.
Registration and violation of privacy.
First of all, Toomey’s anti-registry language prohibits photocopying the 4473′s, but it doesn’t prohibit going into the FFL with a laptop and copying all the information. Second, ATF takes the position that the data it’s accumulating in a database is not a “registry,” so Toomey’s ban does no good. Third, guess what the sanction is for violation of Toomey’s anti-registry language? Answer: Eric Holder has to choose to prosecute himself and his own department.
But this isn’t the only bad thing about Toomey-Manchin-Schumer.
Section 107 of the sell-out also waives any federal privacy prohibitions under HIPAA to sending the names of Americans with PTSD, ADHD, and post partem depression to the gun ban database. But that’s not all.
Believe in Jesus, hand in your guns?
Because private shrinks will be able to add patients names into a federal database of the mentally ill – without due process – you will be at their mercy.
As Red State editor, Erick Erickson says, “Activist mental health providers will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the list. Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto the list.”
And as for veterans? Toomey-Manchin-Schumer reinforces the proposition that bureaucrats in the Department of Veterans Affairs can take away veterans’ rights without any due process. If a veteran has $30,000 to spend getting back the rights Toomey-Manchin-Schumer wrongly took from him, the sell-out creates yet another redundant money-trap for restoration of rights that shouldn’t have been taken away in the first place.
Repealing gun owner protections.
What if you want to travel across the country? McClure-Volkmer allowed you to do that with an unloaded gun in the trunk (18 U.S.C. 926A). But, under the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, unless you can “demonstrate,” to the satisfaction of the New York police (1) where you came from, (2) where you’re going, (3) that you’re legally entitled to possess the gun in the place you can from, and (4) that you’re legally entitled to possess the gun in the place you’re going, they will arrest you in New York.
The Toomey-Manchin-Schumer (Charles Schumer, Carries Concealed) sell-out creates a Biden-like commission to insure that the cries for gun control continue. http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104
Like sprinkles on a pile of dung, Toomey and Schumer steal some of the proposals we drafted and try to use them to get us to buy onto gun control. But it won’t work.
The gun movement is united against this disgusting pile of gun control.
Here is the new battlefield. Because of the Senate rules, many of the upcoming gun control votes will need 60 (out of 100 votes) to move forward. That will almost certainly be the case with the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer proposal. And because the entire Second amendment movement – GOA, NRA, etc. – is against the Toomey language, it virtually ensures his amendment will fail.
And if Toomey-Manchin-Schumer doesn’t pass, then Reid probably won’t have enough votes to overcome a second filibuster on the bill – as it would contain the original anti-gun language sponsored by Reid and Schumer. This all but guarantees that the legislation would die, as Republicans and a half-a-dozen Democrat Senators would then team up to keep the bill from getting the required 60 votes.
One last question or thought: Did we waste our time supporting the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster and fighting the motion to proceed? No, because we forced Obama to fire most of his ammunition, as he dragged his human props around Washington in an effort to exploit them for political gain.
If Obama had been able to wait to play this card until Toomey-Manchin-Schumer came up for a vote, that vote would be a lot harder for us to win.
But Obama has already played this card for his “they deserve a vote” theme. Okay, they’re getting their vote. But by the time we reach the vote on cloture on Toomey-Manchin-Schumer, Obama’s exploitation of the victims of Newtown will begin to be realized for the cynical exploitative political ploy that it is. And he will be less able to shift gears and use the victims for the theme “They deserve a ‘yes’ vote.”
Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat
By Jim Kouri, CPP
A recent poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police indicated that almost 64 percent of police commanders and sheriffs favor a law allowing private citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection. Almost 73 percent said that citizens should not be restricted from purchasing more than one weapon, and 96 percent say they believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.
Unfortunately most states – especially those called Blue States due to their Liberal-leanings – continue to prohibit private citizens from carrying concealed handguns.
At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons, according to WABC Radio's Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF's goal is to protect American's from unreasonable and illegal government intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.
The mainstream news media have been aware that several antigun proponents are carrying concealed firearms but have failed to expose this hypocrisy. This writer's efforts to discover how many other anti-gunners are also packing heat – a right they wish to deny other citizens – met with limited results.
Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office — the investigative arm of the US Congress — slammed Schumer's use of police resources for personal protection. It's clear that Schumer believes he's special. He wishes to ban private citizens' ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.
"No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much – he's able to protect himself," says a 25-year police veteran.
Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules — one for Americans and one for himself.
And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco – an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.
Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.
Another example is the loudmouth entertainer, Rosie O'Donnell, who once ran roughshod over conservative actor Tom Selleck because of his stance supporting the Second Amendment. Although Ms. O'Donnell doesn't carry a gun, she has three armed bodyguards who protect her, her wife and her children, something the vast majority of hardworking Americans could never afford. Isn't it comforting to know all these Liberals are looking out for us?
~ About the Author ~
Jim Kouri is a certified protection professional, writer, commentator and contributing editor for Chief of Police Magazine. A former chief at a housing project in New York City's Washington Heights district – dubbed Crack City – he serves as Fifth-Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He possesses over 25 years of law enforcement and security experience and writes a regular column for KingNewsMedia.Com. He's the author of Crime Talk: Conversations with America's Top Crimefighters and Assume The Position: Police Science for Novelists, Screenwriters and Journalists, and his magazine articles appear in many publications. He's a frequent guest on many TV and radio stations including Fox News, CNN, CBS, ABC, CNBC, and others.