The Stealthy backdoor theft of this right has been engineered perfectly. The only two ways to legally exempt the rights of a person is to Continue reading
Marion County, FL — In August of 2014, multiple deputies with the Marion County Sheriff’s office conducted a drug bust. During the bust, Derrick Price ran from deputies Jesse Terrell, Trevor Fitzgerald, James Amideo, Cody Hoppel and Adam Crawford. However, once he realized he could not outrun the pickup truck, he quickly stopped, put his hands up, and laid face down on the ground — completely surrendering. Continue reading
More and more, Americans who are guilty of nothing more than noncompliance with the status quo are being targeted by an out-of-control system that bears virtually no resemblance whatsoever to the nation’s constitutional founding principles.
The latest example of “the system” run amok involves a Missouri home schooling family that has filed suit against a local sheriff and another officer after they forcibly entered the family’s home in 2011, used a Taser on the father, pepper spray on the mother and forced their three children into the custody of government social service workers.
Continue reading
A rapper exiting an Atlanta bank, found himself in handcuffs and on the ground with guns pointed at his head after police stopped him for making a substantial withdrawal from his account, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting. Continue reading
Tragic news is coming through on a young MMA Fighter who doctors say may never walk again following a run-in with local police.
According to reports, Donovan Duran, a promising Martial Artist was handcuffed than abused until paralyzed by the La Junta Police, in Colorado.
Officers responded to a call from Duran’s family stating that he was a drunk MMA Fighter, and the officers moved in under a drunk and disorderly violation. Continue reading
On January 30, 2015, a health food store in Henderson called the police after a disgruntled customer, attempting to return some protein powder, allegedly threatened to rob them. The store described the suspect to police as a black male wearing a black and tan t-shirt who left in an SUV. Continue reading
In 47 out of 50 states, American police officers have killed at least one person so far this year. In some, the number of officer-involved homicides dwarfs numbers from entire countries.
A video obtained by the Colorado Springs Independent shows an incident that’s at the center of an excessive force lawsuit that’s being prepared against the Colorado Springs Police Department.
The paper released the video as part of an in-depth report looking into the issue of police brutality in Colorado Springs.
A police officer in Federal Heights, CO has pleaded guilty of attempted third-degree assault after video emerged of him beating and literally torturing a restrained suspect while his colleagues looked on.
(RawStory) Missouri highway patrol officer who criticized the department after a handcuffed man fell into water and drowned has been more harshly punished than the officer who failed to secure a life vest on the deceased man.
Veteran state trooper Randy Henry was demoted from sergeant to corporal and transferred from his post of nearly three decades at the Lake of Ozarks, the Springfield News-Leader reports. In March, Henry told public officials during a committee hearing that lack of training, but also recklessness and poor judgment contributed to the death of 20-year-old Brandon Ellingson last year.
McKinney, TX — A weekend pool party in Texas turned violent after a McKinney police officer on a power trip began brutalizing a young woman.
According to video post on Facebook, the police were called to a McKinney residence because of the large number of people attending a pool party.
The police officers were in some sort of feeding frenzy as they were rounding up young teens, armed only with their swimsuits and forcing them to a patch of grass on the roadside.
As the video begins, one officer is seen doing a barrel roll as if he’s in a war zone.
A video was released on Friday May 29th showing Jacksonville police refusing to issue tickets to unmarked patrol cars which were in violation of the city parking signs.
The maker of the video states: “I conducted an audit at the Jacksonville Florida Jail where cops are constantly parking in violation of there[sic] own signage. Not one cop was willing to enforce their own restrictions simply because it is a fellow cop.”
Watch the video below
Chicago Police Officers Jerome Finnigan, left, and Timothy McDermott with an unidentified man | Photo from court fileIt’s a racially charged photo the Chicago Police Department didn’t want the public to see: two white cops posing with rifles as they stand over a black man lying on his belly with deer antlers on his head. Continue reading
New York, NY– On May 14, copwatcher Michael Barber of the Copwatch Patrol Unit was out doing a great public service in which he frequently engages – filming the police. As he was doing so, he captured something absolutely amazing. Continue reading
Late on Tuesday afternoon I sat at my desk and watched the New York Times video of Walter Scott’s shooting. I saw Scott, clad in a green shirt, running away from North Charleston Police Officer Michael Slager. The uniformed officer pumped eight shots in Scott’s direction, striking him five times. I watched as Scott fell to the ground. I listened as the unidentified witness who recorded the incident repeat in disbelief, “Oh, shit!” And then I went on Twitter. Continue reading
Here’s a statistic for you: It’s been 31 days since the release of the White House Task Force on 21st Century Policing report, but the number of fatal police encounters is already over 100 and counting. That’s an average of more than three people killed each day in March by police in America. Continue reading
What starts as a routine traffic stop turns into an argument. Tempers flare, handcuffs come out and soon, the suspect is dead — but the media can’t report which officer fired the shot that ended the driver’s life.
Federal drug agents may be racially profiling and unjustly seizing cash from travelers in the nation’s airports, bus stations and train stations. A new report released by the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice examined the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s controversial use of “cold consent.”
In a cold consent encounter, a person is stopped if an agent thinks that person’s behavior fits a drug courier profile. Or an agent can stop a person cold “based on no particular behavior,” according to the Inspector General report. The agent then asks people they have stopped for consent to question them and sometimes to search their possessions as well. By gaining consent, law enforcement officers can bypass the need for a warrant. Continue reading
On Sunday, Los Angeles Police Department officers fatally shot a homeless man. It is being reported that man suffered from mental illness and did not have a weapon at the time of the incident. The video can be seen HERE. Continue reading
Lawmakers in Missouri have put forth a bill that would bar public access to any videos taken by police. Watch the video below for the full story.
This is just another reason your government wants control of the internet.
Also listen to this interview below we did with Jason Bermas, creator of the films “Loose Change”, “Fabled Enemies”, “Invisible Empire”, and most recently “Shade: The Motion Picture”.
CLICK HERE FOR THE INTERVIEW W/ JASON BERMAS ABOUT POLICE STATE
The shooting death of a 13-year-old California boy believed to be carrying an assault rifle unfolded in no more than 10 seconds, police said. Andy Lopez Cruz, who was later found to be carrying a plastic replica, was struck by seven bullets. Continue reading
After moving to the border state of Arizona, I learned quickly that it isn’t prudent to drive a car into Mexico because the Federal Police like to pull over “American-looking” tourists and shake them down for cash (yes, Virginia, the Mexican national police force does profile).
The practice of Mexican police harassing traveling Americans for their cash is so prevalent, most insurance companies require a special rider on one’s insurance policy before covering a car trip into Mexico. Continue reading
WEST PARIS, Maine — Maine State Police say a teenager from West Paris is recovering Sunday morning from gunshot wounds after being shot by a state trooper Saturday night.
James Reynolds, 18, is being treated at Central Maine Medical Center in Lewiston, according to a news release from the Maine Department of Public Safety.
Reynolds was shot by Trooper Jason Wing as the trooper was investigating a report of a suspicious man along the Roy Road in West Paris, according to police. State Police said Reynolds was armed with a hunting rifle.
The shooting occurred at about 6:45 p.m. Reynolds was flown by a LifeFlight of Maine helicopter to the Lewiston hospital.
Wing has been placed on administrative leave with pay, which is standard state police procedure following a shooting. A team of investigators from the Maine Attorney General’s Office, assisted by state police, is investigating the incident and the final report of the shooting is likely to be released in several weeks. The Attorney General’s Office investigates all shootings in Maine involving police officers.
May 28, 2013 In Sacramento, California, a man was beaten to death by police at a metro PCS store on Folsom Blvd. He sustained 10 blows to the head with a baton, after being handcuffed, as he was unarmed. The police originally came after a worker at the store called, claiming the man was ‘talking incoherently’, and may be a threat, while he was unarmed. When the police came, the man allegedly tried to barricade himself in the store, and resist being locked in a cage by police. Following the police forcing him outside the store and handcuffing him on the ground, a female police officer proceeded to beat his head with a baton while he cried out in agony, as he was handcuffed and face down on the pavement. While the police, in desperate defense of their official story, called this man ‘violent’, resisting being locked in a cage for what he may or may not have done, is known as self defense to many. It appears even the slightest move, will grant you an instant death sentence from the constitution-less police of this new era.
In the face of the outrageous IRS intimidation scandal now sweeping across America, gun control advocates are changing their tune. All of a sudden, the idea that the federal government could engage in tyranny against the People of America is no longer a “conspiracy theory.” It’s historical fact right in your face thanks to all the recent scandals now bursting onto the scene: IRS intimidation, secret targeting of non-profit groups for possible “thought crimes,” the Department of Justice seizing AP phone records and so on.
Just which liberals are changing their minds on all this? Piers Morgan, for starters. The man who once called Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America a “very stupid man” on live national television is suddenly reversing course. Here’s what Morgan now says in the wake of the IRS intimidation scandal:
“I’ve had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here saying to me, well the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government, and I’ve always laughed at them. I’ve always said don’t be so ridiculous. Your government won’t turn itself on you. But actually when you look at this [IRS scandal]… actually this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government. I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior, I think what the Department of Justice has done to the Associated Press is bordering on tyrannical behavior.”
Here’s the video: (until YouTube bans it)
InfoWars.com, by the way, is now publicly challenging Piers Morgan to admit the U.S. government has become “fully tyrannical,” not just “bordering on tyrannical.” It begs the question: If using the IRS as a political weapon to intimidate people over thought crimes, books, Facebook posts and prayers isn’t full-on tyranny, what exactly will it take for Morgan to admit a full tyranny is now upon us? The government knocking on his door?
Going even further than Piers Morgan, “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough also admits gun owners were right all along, saying:
“I have been saying for months now… that I believe in background checks. After Newton, after Chicago, we need background checks. And my argument has been, don’t worry,background checks aren’t going to lead to a national registry. The government’s never going to create a national registry, right? … I don’t have to even complete my sentence, do I? My argument is less persuasive today because of these scandals. Because people say hey, if they do that with the IRS, asking people what books you read, then how can I trust them with information about my Second Amendment rights? This is DEVASTATING! This IRS scandal is devastating all across the board…”
Well yeah, Joe. This is what we’ve been warning you about all along, you see?
See the video here:
To be a progressive / liberal person, you have to hold to the belief (i.e. have “faith”) that governments can never go rogue. Governments can never become tyrannies. Governments are always and forever trustworthy and compassionate.
Every progressive government policy logically follows from those core beliefs: government should regulate what people eat, control how businesses run themselves, monopolize national health care, grant amnesty to undocumented illegal immigrants, take all the guns away from the citizens and concentrate power into its own hands. This is all justified because you can trust the government, right? … RIGHT?
Enter exhibit A: The IRS intimidation scandal. The targeting of political enemies. Thought crimes. The IRS demands to know all your Facebook posts, the titles of the books you’ve recently read and even the contents of your PRAYER! The IRS then uses this information to selectively delay only the applications of non-profits that teach the Constitution, or patriotism, or are opposed to Obama. Can you say criminal corruption and total abuse of power? This is anti-American and traitorous!
Enter exhibit B: The Department of Justice, run by the nation’s top criminal Eric Holder,runs a vicious surveillance and secret police campaign against none other than theAssociated Press. When the outrageous behavior of the DoJ comes to light, Eric Holder claims, “I know nothing! Nothing!” (Same story for Obama… they knew nothing!)
Exhibit C: The Benghazi narrative pushed by the White House is now obviously a total lie, and this lie strongly influenced the presidential debates and 2012 election. The Benghazi attack was actually a terrorist attack — and the White House knew it! But they covered it up, lied to the public, and even stood down U.S. forces to make sure the ambassador was killed so that he couldn’t spill the beans on the U.S. weapons transfers being made to terror groups in Syria.
What do exhibits A, B and C prove? That you can’t trust the government!
Now the illusion of trustworthy government has been completely shattered. If the IRS would selectively intimidate and threaten Constitutional groups it didn’t like, what else is the government capable of?
All of a sudden those of us who warned everybody about gun confiscation, FEMA camps and false flags don’t seem so outlandish anymore. Now almost everyone realizes the government is capable of ANYTHING. Especially the Obama administration, which respects no laws and no limits to its power. (Drone strikes, secret kill lists, the continuedrunning of secret military prisons, bypassing Congress with executive orders, and so on.)
Now the Second Amendment makes total sense. Why do we even have a Second Amendment? The honest, blatant answer is so that as a last-ditch firewall against a tyrannical takeover, the American people can march on Washington with rifles in hand and shoot all the criminals dead. That is the essence of the Second Amendment — a last-ditch failsafe for liberty. The only real way to keep government in line, after all, is to make sure those who hold office know that if they become outright traitors to America and refuse to abide by the limits of government described in the Constitution, they might be shot dead by citizens who take their country back by force. (I’m not calling for such an action, by the way. I’m only explaining the historical context of the Second Amendment and what it really means.)
When citizens are well armed and have the power to do such a thing, that power should never actually be needed because the government fears the people and thus stays within the limits of power. But when the people are disarmed, the government fears nothing and so expands out of control, functioning as a rogue, tyrannical cabal of mobsters and criminals. Read your history books if you don’t believe me. This is the repeated story of government’s rise and fall throughout history.
Ultimately, this is why the Obama administration wants to take your guns away: Not to make the children safer but to make the citizens defenseless against government tyranny. And yes, that tyranny exists right now. The debate is over. The gun grabbers lost and the Second Amendment won.
Now, the Obama administration is permanently discredited, and the strength of the Second Amendment movement is stronger than ever. Just as it should be.
So I want to thank Piers Morgan, Joe Scarborough and all the other gun control advocates who are now rethinking the logic of their positions and concluding the government can’t be trusted after all. And if the government can’t be trusted, then it only follows that the citizens are the final defense against government tyranny. Furthermore, that role of citizen defense is only viable if the citizens are well-armed with rifles and hi-capacity magazines.
The more the government knows there are millions of law-abiding citizens who are armed and trained in rifle skills, the less that government is likely to overstep its limited powers and try to concentrate power in its own hands.
http://www.naturalnews.com/040398_gun_control_trust_in_government_tyranny.html#ixzz2TjwqKO00
19 people were wounded in New Orleans over the weekend when an alleged gang shootout broke out in the middle of a mother’s day parade. three suspects are still at large, and the hunt for them so far has involved similar tactics as those used in Boston. At this point there is no indication that this was a planned terrorist attack, but regardless, police are still using the full on storm trooper approach that has now become commonplace in the western world.
Blackbluedog.com reported that:
“There were over 300 people participating in the event, north of the city. Police say that the number of victims stands at 12 and there are three suspects who were responsible. The individuals who did the shooting were seen running toward Claiborne Avenue and a door-to-door search is being conducted to find those who are responsible.”
While a number of mainstream media sources are reporting that door to door searchers are being conducted, there is no outrage or even concern for the innocent human beings who are having their rights and privacy violated by jackboot thugs. It is definitely true that this is tragic circumstance, but tragic circumstances are no excuse to violate the rights and privacy of others. It is definitely upsetting when these kinds of things happen, but we should not let our good-natured emotions be used against us.
With that being said this investigation is also being crowd sourced, and it is likely that people nearby with cell phone camera evidence will make a lot more progress than police breaking down doors.
“An initial $2,500 cash reward was initially offered, which was later raised to $10,000 amid the massive manhunt for parade shooting suspects. The money is offered to anyone who can provide information that will help track down and arrest the suspects. In the same way investigators of the Boston Marathon Bombings appealed for crowdsourced photographs, police have urged anyone with any images from the ‘second line’ of the parade to step forward.”
As of now there has been no indication as to whether the police even know who they are looking for or not. We will bring more details on this story as they become available, and if you have any information about this situation please feel free to comment below.
Several NJ Senators were unknowingly recorded on a hot microphone mocking gun owners and scheming for “a bill to… confiscate, confiscate, confiscate”
It seems that our State Senators in New Jersey look at the Second Amendment as a joke, and mock gun owners who took the time to testify at their committee meeting. Remember New Jersey may have the second most strict gun laws now!
The following link is to a You Tube video:
Video Description:
Audio captured and brought to attention by NJ2AS members
Loretta Weinberg (D-37), Sandra Cunningham (D-31), and Linda Greenstein (D-14), Nellie Pou (D-35)
What’s that you say?! They aren’t coming for our guns you say?!
This is INCREDIBLE!
We’ve narrowed down to who we believe was speaking in this video.
From waypasthadenough
The Second Amendment, as the rest of the Bill of Rights, is an acknowledgement of our natural-born rights, not a granting. The entire Bill of Rights is about keeping the governments in their place. The Second Amendment is about the common person’s right to own weapons of war so that we can keep the governments in their place by keeping the ‘monopoly on force’ in the hands of the people where it belongs, as in ‘We the people.’ Remember that? It will not be infringed any further and the ‘gun laws’ in existence will be repealed. End of discussion.
Guns don’t kill, governments do. Gun free zones are the problem, they allow armed criminals to kill. Arm the teachers, the administrators and the parents. Don’t allow the “Liberal”(commie) trash who control the so-called educational system to teach mindless pacifism that is ensconced in their arrogance of false civility.
If we have violent criminals in prison who have been convicted of a crime and can’t be trusted with weapons why is the govt. turning them back out on the street? So they can point at them and say “See, the sheeple can’t be trusted with guns.” The ‘crime’ argument is a red herring.
Time to repeal all of the ‘gun laws’ including GCA ’68 and the NFA; Shut down the evil BATF Nazis and try them for treason, and murder where appropriate and distribute their retirement funds among their victims; Then enforce the Bill of Rights on places such as Commiefornia and New Yawk and Chigawgo and if necessary bring the troops home and have them restore Liberty here and remove Amerika’s natural born traitors in the process.
Millions will dig the ditch they are told to dig then wet their pants when the machine gun bolts slam home and die stupidly wondering “How did this happen to me?” The tiny minority will have to do what will be required.
It’s time to stop arguing over the culture war. It’s time to stop hunkering down for the apocalypse. It’s time to stop waiting to get beamed up. It’s time to start thinking Normandy.
If you sit home waiting your turn you deserve to have your gun taken from your cold dead hands.
The Founders didn’t wait for the Brits to knock down their doors. They gathered at the green and stood up like men and they killed government employees all the way back to Boston.
What will you do when it’s time to hunt NWO hacks, republicrats and commies(“Liberals” and ‘progressives’)?
Don’t understand? Go to willowtowndotcom and read the quotes page first. Then read my column “Prepping for Slavery.”
More from IntelliHub:
NJ State Senator’s Hot Mic On Guns: “Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate”
by Dean Garrison
Freedom Outpost
May 12, 2013A few air-headed New Jersey State Senators proved that claim on Thursday when they had their own unknown “open-mic” moment. Though this may never compare to King Obama’s intimate moment with Medvedev, it has to rank as one of the top ten open-mic moments in the history of communist America.
The Examiner Reports:
A microphone left on after the gavel fell at a New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing Thursday shows the “true view” of some of the senators toward gun owners, and provides proof that gun confiscation is a goal on which they agree, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs revealed in an email to members and supporters today. The group is the official NRA state association.
“The discussion that was caught, apparently among several senators and staff, is outrageous, and reveals legislators’ true view of gun owners,” ANJRPC reports.
“The discussion appears to be among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14), and at least one member of Senate Democratic staff,” the gun group’s email explains.
Interesting lines allegedly coming from Weinberg, Cunningham, Greenstein and company include the following:
“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”
“They want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but they don’t have any regulations to do it.”
“They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”
“That’s the line they’ve developed.”
I personally don’t care about personal attacks toward gun owners and pro-2nd amendment Senators. Sticks and stones, as they say…
What should concern the people of the great State of New Jersey and Americans all across the land is this “confiscate, confiscate, confiscate” garbage.
It is unclear which of the Senators uttered these remarks but I have a message for her and all of her sexually retarded, emotionally immature friends.
MOLON LABE! Yeah I’m talking to you princess…
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” -Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. (1920)
Come on. You didn’t think I would throw those insults without a solid psychological basis for doing so. Did you? I’m no Sigmund Freud but when she repeats the word three times I feel like she must be triply-troubled. We had better get her on that confiscation list for the mentally unstable as soon as possible. She might be a left-wing terrorist in the making. Just saying.
Would you dial up a known criminal, like a murderer or rapist, to come help you after you’ve been the victim of a crime? No? Then why in the world would you call the police after you’ve been assaulted, robbed or otherwise violated?
The police do not consider their job to protect you. They used to at least pay lip service to “keeping the peace”, but nowadays in the USSA it is clear their job is to enforce the law. In fasco-communist America, the law stopped being about your protection decades ago. The law is about the expansion of state power and control. That’s why there are so many of them, with more coming all the time.
There are literally thousands upon thousands of reasons in the Federal Code for the police to arrest you. That’s the very essence of a police state. Everything is literally a crime. As Lao Tsu said in the 6th century, BC: “The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished…The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be…”
In an environment like this, police cannot merely be keepers of the peace. They must be enforcers of the law. And enforcers use force, of course—intimidation and sudden and shocking violence in order to make you obey. And compliance is exactly what the police expect. They long ago stopped being “public servants” and became more akin to plantation overseers. Rapper and philosopher KRS One pointed out the similarities in his track, “Sound of da Police”:
“The overseer rode around the plantation
The officer is off patrolling all the nation
The overseer could stop you what you’re doing
The officer will pull you over just when he’s pursuing
The overseer had the right to get ill
And if you fought back, the overseer had the right to kill
The officer has the right to arrest
And if you fight back they put a hole in your chest!”
The most egregious example of this switch from protection to abuse is the so-called War on Drugs. The heightened prosecution of drug use (which was entirely legal a century ago in the US and in fact widely used in many products) has been right at the heart of the state’s increased monitoring and intrusion into personal life.
Do you want protection from theft and physical aggression? Or do you want “law enforcement”? Law enforcement is what allows the police to bust down your door and arrest you on suspicion that you may be using a plant that the state doesn’t like. Protection from theft and physical aggression is something that could be much better provided by free market transactions. You could simply buy yourself an alarm system or weapon. Or you could pay for bodyguards and remote ’round-the-clock monitoring and dispatch from a firm who will send people to actually help you and not gun you down. These people would also never bust down your door, kill your pets and hold automatic weapons to the heads of your children on suspicion that you might own plants that some politicians and voters don’t like. In every way, the private market protection option seems much better than the public option.
CALL THE COPS AT YOUR OWN RISK
An 83-year-old grandmother recently learned the hard way of the dangers of calling the police. Debra Towler of Altavista, Virginia, called 9-1-1 and hung up without making a report. This triggered an automatic officer dispatch to her home. The police claim to have heard gunshots from inside Mrs. Towler’s home. But even if that’s true – and police regularly lie to cover up their mistakes – odds are that Mrs. Towler fired those shots for the same reason she called the police: she thought her home was being invaded. That would explain why she ran out the back door to her sister’s house when officers tried to get in the front door. It would also explain why this church-going octogenarian wouldn’t drop her gun when the police started barking orders at her from afar. They responded by gunning her down.
This woman would have been alive if she’d simply defended herself instead of calling the publicly funded police. If there really had been intruders, she probably frightened them off by being armed. In any case the police would not have arrived in time to save her from being robbed or assaulted. All the police can do is show up to ask a few questions and interrogate the victim or some witnesses in case the victim is dead. Sometimes, apparently, the police themselves cause the victim’s death.
If just one private protection company did this one time, the typical statist would be calling for that company to be shut down with the murderers jailed. Yet when the publicly funded police botch things up this badly, the typical person finds a reason to blame the victim. A free market protection company – perhaps provided by the same company that insured Mrs. Towler’s home – would have treated Mrs. Towler like a customer whose harm they are paid to prevent. The publicly funded police force is under no such pressure to provide customer service. Their priorities are to enforce whatever nonsense laws are on the books and to use whatever lethal violence they deem necessary to keep themselves out of harm’s way.
Why do people put up with a monopolistic police force? Think about it. You are forced to pay (with taxes) for police who aggress against you for personal behavior that’s not anybody else’s business.
Again, the police cannot stop a criminal from harming you or from stealing your property. They can only show up to “investigate” the crime after it’s been committed. The only way police can be truly proactive is when it comes to enforcing intrusive laws about personal behavior that doesn’t harm anyone else, like driving faster than the ridiculously low posted speed limits, or not wearing a seat belt or bicycle helmet, or using plants that politicians and your neighbors don’t like.
I HAVE NOT NOR WILL EVER CALL THE PUBLIC POLICE
In my 41 years I have never once called the government (9-1-1) for any type of emergency. I’ve always instinctively known it was immoral and, in most cases, useless. Here in Mexico no one would ever consider calling the cops for anything—they know what the Americans are now learning. Here, the police are far more like tipsy Barney Fifes than they are like robocops.
A month ago my wife called. She was with our $10-a-day bodyguard, but he didn’t have his pistol on him that day and she said three very large men were following her in Walmart. I told her to go to the very back of the store and tell some staff what was happening and wait for me.
I arrived in less than 5 minutes on my scooter with my gun and sprinted to the back of the store. I saw my wife and bodyguard safely standing there and was relieved. We then went to the kitchen area of the store and got both my wife and my bodyguard some sharp butcher knives. We then went through the checkout and cautiously exited the store, with everyone well-armed (not to mention my bodyguard is a professional boxer and my wife takes kickboxing and Kung Fu lessons each week and is a powerlifter —and I’m a former amateur boxer).
By that point the three men had left. Whether it was a real threat or not is anyone’s guess. But this form of self-protection beats government protection any day. Not only was my response time certainly faster, and my “skin in the game” meant I’d fight anyone to the death to protect my wife, whereas government police will almost always choose their own safety over yours. But a really interesting thing happens when you stand up for yourself and don’t depend on others for your protection. It feels great.
Plus, there is the fact that the government police who we could have called likely would have tried to beat, rob or kill us. This happens all the time, worldwide—not just in the USSA. In Tunisia, for example, women are charged with indecency for being raped by cops. In the US, beatings and shootings by cops are the issue, not rapes (usually). Look at this recent thug scrum in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, New York. After watching police pile on and abuse this young man, even the guy who called the police wishes he hadn’t called to report the young man sleeping in the community center.
“I regret making the call,” says the caller, “I should have let him sleep.” I believe a lot more Americans are going to be expressing similar sentiments in coming years. They will learn the hard way that calling the cops is most likely to make a bad situation worse. Your average person in the USSA still probably labors under the illusion that the police are actually there to help them, and that the public police option actually is superior to the customer-service based private options. That’s a very dangerous illusion. In fact, it could easily cost you your life. Just ask Mrs. Towler. If you’re stuck in the dangerous USSA police state, then TDV Homegrown can help you understand how to survive unscathed.
Rule #1: Never call the cops. Just like with health, prevention is a far best treatment for criminal acts. Check out TDV Homegrown for more details. (If you have the option of getting free of the USSA police state entirely, then try out a TDV Weekly Basic subscription for some great insights on expatriating.)
DON’T EVEN TALK TO THE POLICE
The police cannot help one bit once the crime is committed. They are unlikely to figure out who committed the crime. And they care more about somebody getting convicted for the crime than they are about the right person getting convicted for the crime. Police will lie in court. They don’t care about finding the culprit. They just want a conviction. And any patsy will do. So don’t talk to them. Ever. They will happily see innocents carted off to jail as long as they get to look like they’re doing their jobs.
Their own safety is far more important to them than your safety. After all, they are the sacred praetorian class, defenders of the law and the lawmakers, while you’re just a subject who is forced at gunpoint to pay for their salaries. You’d be far better off being a voluntarily paying customer.
http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2012/10/15/call-the-cops-at-your-own-risk.html
President Obama has side-stepped Congress by implementing portions of the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty through an executive order which can be used to ban the import of all firearms, ammunition and related supplies and accessories.
While patriots across the nation rejoiced when the US congress rejected flat on its face an attempt to force the United States into the UN Small Arms Treaty just weeks later a more sinister ulterior motive has been revealed.
Today, President Obama by passed congress and signed an executive which gives the federal government a power to completely ban the importation of guns, ammunition and even parts and accessories related to firearms.
While the UN Small Arms Treaty would have prevented the United States from both importing and exporting weapons, Obama has effectively signed on to the treaty with his new executive order while allowing the United States to export weapons of deaths to covertly funded clandestine operations in overseas nations where it seeks to further its imperialistic agenda.
At the same time, with nearly every other nation in the world signing on to the UN Small Arms treaty, other nations are now banned from doing the same which further leverages the United State’s power of shotgun diplomacy in nations that refuse to be puppets for the globalist elites that control America.
Back in the homeland Americans now face a dire situation.
With the United States government already having complete control over domestic corporations the power to ban all international imports effectively create what is nothing short of a firearm and ammunition killswitch.
At the same time, despite our elected representatives rejecting such legislation flat on its face, dictatorial executive orders continue to be enacted.
Not only are we being subject to international rules and regulations mandated by the UN, without any representation in the process, we also not longer are being represented in major political decisions being made at home.
This comes as the media has spent the last several days repeatedly selling the public on the notion that it is okay for the government to suspend the constitutional rights of a citizen at anytime and haul them off to a CIA blacksite to be tortured in the wake of the Boston Bombings.
In this video BeforeItsNews.com staff writer Alexander Higgins joins Arch Angel to discuss the newly signed executive order and how it has effectively set the stage for the government to completely suspend the constitution.
This hard hitting piece from Mac Slavo at ShtfPlan.com explains the order in detail.
Obama To Ban Importation of Ammo, Magazines and Accessories Without Congressional Approval
Over the course of the last month, while Americans were distracted with the threat of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and the devastation wrought by the Boston bombings, President Obama was quietly working behind the scenes to craft laws and regulations that will further erode the Second Amendment.
Congress, and thus We the People, may have unequivocally rejected federal legislation in March which aimed to outlaw most semi-automatic rifles, restrict magazine capacity, and force national registration, but that didn’t stop the President from ceding regulatory control over firearms importation to the United Nations just two weeks later. What the UN Arms Trade Treaty, passed without media fanfare by 154 counties, would do is to restrict the global trade of, among other things, small arms and light weapons. Opponents of the treaty argue that loopholes within the new international framework for global gun control may make it illegal for Americans to purchase and import firearms manufactured outside of the United States.
To further his gun-grabbing agenda, however, President Obama and his administration didn’t stop there.
Now they’re taking another significant step against Americans’ right to bear arms – and they’re doing it through Presidential Executive Action, a strategy that, once again, bypasses Congressional oversight and the legislative process.
…it appears that the BHO Administration is taking executive action on firearms importation. Take a few minutes to read this: After Senate setback, Obama quietly moving forward with gun regulation. Here is the key portion of the article:
“The Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services — U.S. Munitions Import List references executive orders, amends ATF regulations and clarifies Attorney General authority “to designate defense articles and defense services as part of the statutory USML for purposes of permanent import controls,” among other clauses specified in heavy legalese requiring commensurate analysis to identify just what the administration’s intentions are. Among the speculations of what this could enable are concerns that importing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] may go forward to reflect key elements within the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”[Emphasis added.]
Depending on how it is implemented, the implications of this change could be huge. With the stroke a of a pen and without the consent of Congress, ATF bureaucrats could make ANY gun part or accessory (including magazines) or ammunition that were originally manufactured or perhaps even those designed for military use no longer legal for importation for civilian use. That might mean no more milsurp parts sets. No more milsurp magazines. No more milsurp ammo. No more milsurp optics. Perhaps not even spare firing pins. This could be ugly.
I strongly recommend that you stock up on magazines, ammunition and spare parts for any of your imported military pattern guns, as soon as possible! Once an import ban is implemented, prices will skyrocket.
Source: James Rawles’ Survival Blog via The Prepper Website
Just five days ago the President vowed to push forward on gun control without Congress and Nancy Pelosi argued that no matter what Congress says, gun control is inevitable.
This latest round of Executive Actions is what they meant.
A direct on attack on the Second Amendment is difficult if not impossible, so they are trying to slither their way in through the backdoor by restricting international trade so we can’t import new firearms, by restricting access to accessories and gun parts, by heavilytaxing ammunition and gun purchases, by mandating policies like forcing gun owners to have liability insurance, and of course, by identifying potentially dangerous gun owners and simply taking their firearms because of public safety concerns.
The President recently suggested that the American people have spoken, and that they want guns to be restricted, banned and heavily regulated.
If that’s so, then how is that a bipartisan Congress overwhelmingly rejected the President’s bid to restrict and outlaw private ownership of millions of weapons and gun accessories?
Going through the United Nations and now implementing Executive Actions to bypass America’s Constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances is an act of desperation.
Those who would take our rights have been left with no choice but to try and force their agenda upon us through dictatorial means.
Over the course of the last month, while Americans were distracted with the threat of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and the devastation wrought by the Boston bombings, President Obama was quietly working behind the scenes to craft laws and regulations that will further erode the Second Amendment.
Congress, and thus We the People, may have unequivocally rejected federal legislation in March which aimed to outlaw most semi-automatic rifles, restrict magazine capacity, and force national registration, but that didn’t stop the President from ceding regulatory control over firearms importation to the United Nations just two weeks later. What the UN Arms Trade Treaty, passed without media fanfare by 154 counties, would do is to restrict the global trade of, among other things, small arms and light weapons. Opponents of the treaty argue that loopholes within the new international framework for global gun control may make it illegal for Americans to purchase and import firearms manufactured outside of the United States.
To further his gun-grabbing agenda, however, President Obama and his administration didn’t stop there.
Now they’re taking another significant step against Americans’ right to bear arms – and they’re doing it through Presidential Executive Action, a strategy that, once again, bypasses Congressional oversight and the legislative process.
…it appears that the BHO Administration is taking executive action on firearms importation. Take a few minutes to read this: After Senate setback, Obama quietly moving forward with gun regulation. Here is the key portion of the article:
“The Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services — U.S. Munitions Import List references executive orders, amends ATF regulations and clarifies Attorney General authority “to designate defense articles and defense services as part of the statutory USML for purposes of permanent import controls,” among other clauses specified in heavy legalese requiring commensurate analysis to identify just what the administration’s intentions are. Among the speculations of what this could enable are concerns that importing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] may go forward to reflect key elements within the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”[Emphasis added.]
Depending on how it is implemented, the implications of this change could be huge. With the stroke a of a pen and without the consent of Congress, ATF bureaucrats could make ANY gun part or accessory (including magazines) or ammunition that were originally manufactured or perhaps even those designed for military use no longer legal for importation for civilian use. That might mean no more milsurp parts sets. No more milsurp magazines. No more milsurp ammo. No more milsurp optics. Perhaps not even spare firing pins. This could be ugly.
I strongly recommend that you stock up on magazines, ammunition and spare parts for any of your imported military pattern guns, as soon as possible! Once an import ban is implemented, prices will skyrocket.
Source: James Rawles’ Survival Blog via The Prepper Website
Just five days ago the President vowed to push forward on gun control without Congress and Nancy Pelosi argued that no matter what Congress says, gun control is inevitable.
This latest round of Executive Actions is what they meant.
A direct on attack on the second amendment is difficult if not impossible, so they are trying to slither their way in through the backdoor by restricting international trade so we can’t import new firearms, by restricting access to accessories and gun parts, by heavily taxing ammunition and gun purchases, by mandating policies like forcing gun owners to have liability insurance, and of course, by identifying potentially dangerous gun owners and simply taking their firearms because of public safety concerns.
The President recently suggested that the American people have spoken, and that they want guns to be restricted, banned and heavily regulated.
If that’s so, then how is that a bipartisan Congress overwhelmingly rejected the President’s bid to restrict and outlaw private ownership of millions of weapons and gun accessories?
Going through the United Nations and now implementing Executive Actions to bypass America’s Constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances is an act of desperation.
Those who would take our rights have been left with no choice but to try and force their agenda upon us through dictatorial means.
It was called the strongest pro-gun bill in the country, and now it’s the law in Kansas.
The law is designed to counter the push by liberal federal lawmakers for increased restrictions on gun rights. It nullifies any new limits on firearms, magazines and ammunition – whether enacted by Congress, presidential executive order or any agency.
If Congress would have passed the Senate amendment expanding federal background checks, for example, the Kansas law would nullify it in the state.
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican, signed Senate Bill 102 into law yesterday, which exempts Kansas from any laws the federal government might pass that would infringe on Second Amendment rights.
Specifically, the Kansas law prevents federal law enforcement officials from enforcing any laws restricting Second Amendment rights.
To ease concerns by some lawmakers over showdowns, federal officers would not be handcuffed or jailed, but they would be prosecuted.
The law is significant not just because of its intent, but because of who signed it. Brownback is a major political figure in the Republican Party who served as a congressman and a senator for the state until election as governor in 2010. Throwing his weight behind a “nullification” law lends credibility to a growing trend.
An impressive 32 state legislatures have now introduced pro-Second Amendment “nullification” bills. The progress of the bills can be tracked at the Tenth Amendment Center’s website.
Montana began the trend with its Firearms Freedom Act. The law is currently tied up in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments last month. The Cato and Goldwater Institutes have filed a friend-of-the-court brief, “arguing that federal law doesn’t preempt Montana’s ability to exercise its sovereign police powers to facilitate the exercise of individual rights protected by the Second and Ninth Amendments.”
As WND reported, several more states have now passed laws modeled after Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act. Earlier this month, Arizona joined Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Tennessee and Montana.
The laws are generally justified by references to the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to firearms. The Ninth Amendment makes it clear that citizens have rights not specifically listed in the Constitution. And the Tenth Amendment says states have powers not specifically given to the federal government or specifically denied to states.
Supporters of states’ rights have said the Tenth Amendment can nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional or beyond the federal government’s powers.
“Nullification” has been used as a legal argument to try to overturn everything from pro-slavery laws to Obamacare, always unsuccessfully. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law and that federal courts have the final say on interpreting the Constitution.
But with the momentum of 32 states having introduced pro-Second Amendment nullification bills, that may change.
Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, said there are many ways to nullify a law.
“The courts can strike a law down. The executive branch could refuse to enforce it. People in large numbers might refuse to comply. A number of states could pass a law making its enforcement illegal. Or a number a states could refuse to cooperate in any way with its enforcement.”
Before it became law, Boldin called the Kansas measure the strongest nullification bill in modern American history.
A key provision of the Kansas’ Second Amendment Protection Act reads:
(a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
Boldin wrote yesterday that another key part of the law is that Kansas “would not be allowed to participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood in 1861.”
That’s because any federal laws undermining the Second Amendment would not be part of what Kansas agreed to when it joined the U.S.
According to Boldin, there is another key factor that may swing power in the favor of states seeking to enforce nullification laws.
He wrote, “The federal government does not have the manpower to enforce all its laws. State and local law enforcement often times carry the water during investigations and actual arrests.
“If states pass laws banning both state and local participation – in any way – with the enforcement of a federal law – that federal law would never be enforced.”
As WND reported earlier this month, a key supporter of Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act says nullification laws are needed to break a near-monopoly on guns by the federal government.
According to Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the “current federal scheme of regulating the supply system for new firearms in the U.S. is so complete it might actually constitute a government monopoly on the supply of firearms.”
“Under current federal regulation, no firearm may be made and sold to another person without federal government permission – not one firearm,” he said.
To submit to a government gun monopoly, he said, would be to believe “that the Constitution is an old, dead, obsolete and meaningless piece of paper, the Ninth Amendment is as worthless as the rest, and has no relevance to the [Montana Firearms Freedom Act].”
Derek Sheriff reported at the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center that Arizona’s bill asserts the state’s “sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and the people’s unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment.”
“They also emphasize the fact that when Arizona entered the union in 1912, its people did so as part of a contract between the state and the people of Arizona and the United States,” he said.
Kurt Hofmann of the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner said the surging movement across the states is “a challenge to the federal government’s grotesquely expansive use of the interstate commerce to regulate – well … everything, whether it has anything to do with interstate commerce or not.”
“Liberty doesn’t just happen – it needs to be worked for,” he said. “Getting that work done can make the difference between having to work for liberty, and having to fight for it.”
Marbut, who has described himself as the godfather of the Firearms Freedom Act movement, has reported previously that while the Constitution’s Commerce Clause can be viewed as regulating interstate commerce, it also can be viewed as having been modified when the later Second Amendment assuring citizens of the right to own weapons was adopted.
No less significant, he suggests, is the Ninth Amendment, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Boldin said Washington likely is looking for a way out of the dispute.
“I think they’re going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out the case,” he told WND. “When they really start paying attention is when people actually start following the [state] firearms laws.”
WND reported that when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation, officials there took the unusual step of including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who “enforces or attempts to enforce” federal gun rules on a “personal firearm.”
The penalties could be up to two years in prison and $2,000 in fines for an offender.
But the bellwether likely is to be the lawsuit agaisnt the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.
As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3, 2009.
Marbut argues that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/new-law-protects-2nd-amendment-from-feds/#vemd78M1tKKbBb4f.99
What in the world is happening to America? Over the past couple of decades, the federal government has used just about every major national tragedy as an excuse to take even more liberty and freedom away from us. And without a doubt, the Boston Marathon bombing was a great national tragedy. I don’t think that any of us will forget the images that we have seen over the past week. All of those responsible for this attack should be exposed, hunted down, tried and punished. Unfortunately, what always seems to happen is that it is the American people that seem to get punished the most for these tragedies. Over the past couple of decades we have been told again and again that if we will just give up a little bit more freedom that the authorities will be able to keep us safe. But you know what? It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to keep us safe. There is no way in the world that the federal government can protect us from all of the bad guys in the world. We are a country that is absolutely teeming with “soft targets” - malls, churches, schools, concerts, sporting events, etc. No matter how much money we spend, there is no way that the federal government will ever be able to provide enough security for all of those soft targets. Even if our society morphed into something that resembled George Orwell’s “1984”, the government would still never be able to guarantee our safety. Unfortunately, in the aftermath of this attack there will inevitably be calls for “increased security” and “more anti-terror legislation”. The answer always seems to be to expand the emerging police state. But it is getting to the point where all of this “security” is becoming absolutely suffocating, and yet it doesn’t seem to be keeping us any safer. So where does all of this end? Are we going to completely throw out the entire U.S. Constitution in a desperate attempt to feel a little bit safer? Or are we going to choose to live our lives without fear no matter what others may try to do to us?
Benjamin Franklin once made the following statement…
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Sadly, the way that the American people have responded to national tragedies over the past couple of decades would have made our founding fathers greatly ashamed. The American people have beenway too willing to give up liberty in exchange for the promise of safety.
We have been told that the terrorists hate us because of our liberties and freedoms. But we have also been told that in order to be “safe” from those terrorists we have got to give up those liberties and freedoms.
So who is really winning?
We seem to have forgotten some of the most basic lessons in life.
If you cower in fear when a bully comes after you, what is the bully going to do?
The bully is just going to keep coming after you because his actions are being rewarded.
Those that are trying to create fear love it when you become fearful. It is exactly what they want.
The appropriate response to a great national tragedy is to reject fear and to continue to boldly live our lives as if nobody could ever shake us.
But instead, the atmosphere of fear in America continues to grow.
And yes, there are common sense things that our government should be doing to keep bad guys away from us.
For example, the number one thing that the federal government should be doing is to secure the border. Every single day, thousands upon thousands of people that we don’t know anything about pour into this country. And yet the federal government has absolutely refused to secure our borders for decades.
Until the federal government secures our borders, they should not ask any of us to sacrifice a single ounce of liberty or freedom in the name of “national security”.
But even as the Obama administration treats our border security like a joke and continues to import huge numbers of people from radical areas of the Middle East, they continue to tell us that “domestic terror” is the next great threat that we are facing.
Many of our other politicians are buying into this philosophy as well. Senator Lindsey Graham says that the attack in Boston is a perfect example of “why the homeland is the battlefield“.
So if “the homeland is the battlefield”, then who is the enemy?
Well, a U.S. Army Reserve training presentation recently identified evangelical Christians as “religious extremists“, and since Barack Obama entered the White House there have been numerous government reports that have identified Christians, “constitutionalists”, patriots, anti-abortion activists, conspiracy theorists and gun owners as “potential terrorists”.
So where does all of this end?
Are the American people rapidly becoming the enemy?
Will we be constantly scared to death of one another?
Will the entire nation exist in a never-ending environment of fear?
Will we eventually have the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security patrolling every mall, every church, every school, every concert and every sporting event?
Unfortunately, the bad guys will always be able to find a soft target, and there will be more terror attacks in the future no matter how much security we pour on. Once upon a time this nation was greatly blessed with peace and security, but now that hedge of protection is gone. The federal government could give the Department of Homeland Security trillions of dollars a year and it would not make much of a difference. We live in a world that is becoming increasingly unstable, and bad guys are going to do bad things.
Yes, there are some common sense things that we can do to make our nation more secure. At this point, the federal government is not doing most of those things.
But no matter how hard we try, bad things are going to happen. When those bad things happen, what we can control is how we respond to them.
That is why what just happened in Boston is so alarming. The entire city was put into a complete lockdown for nearly two days. It was a preview of what could happen nationwide if martial law was declared. It was an over the top display of force that clearly demonstrated to the rest of the world how incredibly frightened we are.
Some of the things we saw in Boston were absolutely disgraceful. For example, you can see video of an innocent Watertown family being ripped out of their home at gunpoint right here.
Do you know what this tells the rest of the world?
It tells them that terrorism works.
It tells them that one small incident is enough to send the entire nation into a full-blown panic attack.
You can see some more photos of martial law in Boston right here. Instead of making things better, this is just going to make the atmosphere of fear in this nation even worse.
And you know what? None of those heavily armed men even found the second suspect. He was actually found by a neighbor that had gone out to take a smoke.
Like most Americans, I absolutely hate terrorism in all the forms that it takes.
But we are not going to prevent future terrorism by treating the U.S. Constitution like a piece of trash. We have now shown the world that we are willing to throw out our most important constitutional rights the moment that a “threat” arises, and this is just going to encourage even more terrorism.
You see, those that engage in terrorism want attention and they want to create fear. When we give them attention and we allow them to create fear we give them exactly what they want.
Is there anyone out there that can defend what we just saw in Boston? I can’t imagine any American that still loves the Constitution being proud of what just happened. I think that Karl Denninger put it quite eloquently the other day…
By effectively occupying a part of the Boston metro area they made an utter mockery of the 4th Amendment. There was no “hot pursuit” and thus no argument available to them allowing searches of private property without consent or a warrant. Not only did they search without a warrant there were multiple reports through the day of seizure of firearms, among other things.
Sadly, most Americans seem to be more than willing to disregard the U.S. Constitution these days. Most of them are incredibly scared and they just want someone in a position of authority to assure them that they will be safe.
So I am sure that in the months ahead we will see “security” get even tighter in this country. With each subsequent tragedy, it will just get tighter and tighter until we can barely even breathe.
This is not the answer to any of our problems. In fact, it is just going to make many of the problems that we are facing as a nation far worse.
Nancy Pelosi has been sworn into Congress eleven times. Each time, she has taken the same oath to defend the American Constitution. This oath states, in relevant part, that “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same….”
Proving that both her listening and critical thinking skills are a bit sub par, Pelosi believes she’s taken a different oath, one that obligates her and her fellow Congressmen to “protect and defend the constitution and the American people.” In other words, based on an imaginary oath to protect and defend the American people, she is violating her real oath to protect and defend the American Constitution.
After President Obama’s aggressive push for gun control went down in flames on Wednesday, Pelosi immediately promised the American people that she would continue to ignore her oath of office and, instead, attack the Constitution. During a press conference, she announced that gun control is “inevitable.” Said Pelosi, “It’s a matter of time. It might be inconceivable to the NRA that this might happen; it’s inevitable to us.”
Ignoring that recent polls show that only 4% of the American people give the gun control issue priority in their lives, Pelosi blithely announced that “Something must be done, because that’s what the American people expect and what they deserve. We’re just not taking no for an answer.”
Using the usual illogical thinking we’ve come to expect from Democrats, she attacked those Democrats who voted against gun control of turning their back on public safety – even though there’s no evidence that any of the proposed legislation would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. Buoyed by magical thinking, Pelosi tried to shame those Democrats who placed their careers and the Second Amendment ahead of the Progressives’ gun grab, people control agenda:
It always makes me wonder at a time like this how important we each think we are, that any one of us thinks our survival politically is more important than the safety of our children, that we can’t have the courage to take a vote. You’re afraid of the gun lobby? How about the fear of the children who had to face that violence in the classroom?
Now that you’ve had a moment to laugh at Pelosi’s ignorance and irrational thinking, remember that this is not the time for those who genuinely support the Constitution to relax. The Left, in its overwhelming arrogance, will never stop its quest to disarm American citizens. Because we know human nature, and because we know evil exists, we also know that there will be other Sandy Hooks, and that the Progressives will again try not to let a crisis go to waste.
Even though the gun bills died in the Senate, they didn’t in Connecticut, or New York, or Colorado, or Maryland. It’s up to us to remind other Americans that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. If we give up on this message, then the next time something bad happens, or the time after that, or even the time after that, Nancy Pelosi will win.
Are we allowed to talk about martial law, the militarization of police, and the complete shutdown of cities on command? Or will that get the glorious law enforcers to storm and kick in our own doors now? Just what are the rules in effect today? Just what sort of precedent is being set here right before our eyes?
It was your commoner citizens who located the Boston bombing suspect after finding him hiding in a boat. This was after the martial law decree had arbitrarily been lifted, and it was now ordered permissible to go out in one’s backyard again.
Is martial law the answer to sticky incidents with fleeing suspects? Can this now apply to any suspects or any manhunt in the United States, anywhere, for any reason?
One might argue that clearing the streets under military decree is very useful for a particular purpose when pursuing a suspect: allowing a “free fire zone” of automatic .40 caliber hollow point gunfire, the known preference of the new “Homeland Security” apparatus. So what precedents are we setting now, in terms of rewriting the entire law enforcement paradigm, arguably a much more serious concern than a single 19-year-old bleeding suspect. Yeah. What the fuck actually happened last week in Boston?
Governor Deval Patrick took an unprecedented security step, asking people in Boston, Watertown, and several other nearby communities — totaling a million people — to “shelter in place” — stay at home behind locked doors and open up only to police officers with proper identification.” – Boston Globe
“Asking?” Martial law is just a friendly request, and the Globe dutifully disseminates. CBS News counts “thousands of heavily armed law enforcement officers and scores of military-style tactical vehicles,” but is quick to have an expert standing by to justify it as “perfect sense.” Just perfect. All that for one bleeding, injured 19-year-old.
One wonders how many tank divisions and predator squadrons might have been called in if this was one of the much-fabled “cells” we hear so much about on TV. I’m not disputing the need to capture the suspect, an obviously dangerous person, given what he is accused of doing. I am disputing the federal intervention, the military suspension of the Constitution and the militarization of local policing – all greatly warned about numerous times as we descend into outright authoritarianism, clamoring for the federal troops and toys to come and save us. Not only were the public politely “asked” to stay within their homes, authorities also pushed the “media back further and further from the action unfolding (CBS).” This bodes well for a free and open society.
In the midst of all this bombing hysteria the House of Representatives (sic) passed CISPA, with more government/private sector spying. Less accountability for the mishandling of your private data, and more total information awareness totalitarianism is ensured. That is the direction that every single one of these bills travels, bar none. Nearly every act of Congress concerning security of any sort increases government and corporate surveillance powers, diminishes accountability, oversight and the public’s right to challenge their own surveillance by authorities both public and private. We are living more and more in The Matrix, with 4th Amendment protections now considered “quaint” and of a bygone era that no longer has any relevance today.
Praise for surveillance cameras has been noted since Boston with calls for more public surveillance, more facial recognition, more integration of things like traffic cameras and license plate readers.
I think CCTV cameras are much more needed in urban areas. - Rep. Peter King (R), New York, House Committee on Homeland Security
Of course he does. He thought that before this latest photo-op. The answer is always more security, more surveillance, more intrusion, and less individual protection from government and from the private corporate sector.
A tremendous catharsis overwhelmed Boston with the announced capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, as if that explained and ended everything. When you enact martial law with thousands of machine gun wielding stormtroopers and armored personnel carriers in the streets, and then make them go away, the people will be grateful. No doubt.
But this is where the story should be entering a new phase of discovery, intense investigation and disclosure. Sorry Boston; this is far from the end.
It was the FBI, apparently, who had monitored the two Chechen brothers for years, according to their own mother. Zubeidat K. Tsarnaeva claims the FBI had contacted her and her sons repeatedly over the past 5 years. She even claims that the two were “controlled” by the Feds and “set up” in some kind of sting operation. If that sounds baseless, well we have already had an admission by FBI that they “interviewed” the older brother Tamerlan back in 2011. Further, the Wall Street Journal reports that this FBI interview was in response to a “request by the Russian government.”
Scratch the vinyl. Say what?
Russian intelligence / counter-terrorism is already reported to have asked FBI to check out the older brother, now deceased, whom the FBI says blew up bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon. The FBI admits to talking to this suspect. They then claim, absurdly to have “closed the file” because they allegedly found nothing “suspicious.”
Do these suspected terrorist files even get closed at all? We’re straining credulity here.
Magnitudes more disturbing than any of that is the actual on-the-record activity by the FBI in at least 17 “terrorism” cases with so-called “foiled plots” since the 9/11 attacks. What the FBI does routinely – and this is not in dispute – is to orchestrate terror bombings with targeted individuals. These bombings are suggested and assisted by an undercover FBI provocateur. Often fake explosives and arms are provided. The targeted individuals are strictly monitored, and then set up and arrested with spectacular headlines and a grateful public that was saved from yet another act of senseless terror. The plots are provoked by the government itself in a controversial practice that many call “entrapment.”
Was the Boston Marathon bombing such a case of a sting that was somehow allowed to succeed?
What is the evidence?
Little is known about the operational planning, other than a vague claim by the boys’ mother alleging “control” and “set up.” However, some highly suspicious evidence has emerged from the bombing incident itself. Two main things remain unexplained, and corporate media has not, to my knowledge, investigated the most disturbing evidence the public has seen so far. This corporate media blackout is indicative of unreported, behind the scenes answers likely given by authorities when nosy reporters inquire about these matters.
First: We have the cross-country coach from the University of Mobile, AL saying that authorities announced “training exercises” by the bomb squad at the start of the race. Bomb sniffing dogs were present and used, according to Alastair (“Ali”) Stevenson, who ran the race. Repeated public address announcements told the runners and spectators to “…not worry, this is just a training exercise.”
A lengthy list of justifiable questions springs to mind, which any reporter worth his lunch would immediately want to ask. Yet, none of these questions, and none of the responses to them were published last week. But how could that be?
Let’s start with the absurdity of running a “training exercise” with the bomb squad in the middle of a sprawling, 26-mile-long, city-wide event that draws 500,000 spectators and more than 22,000 runners. It’s not really a time for an “exercise,” but a time to actually protect the public, no? Am I out of line here? I’m sure someone will inform me if I am.
Is this phrase “training exercise” a public relations lie to calm the sheeple, when in fact it is not an “exercise” at all, but a live security detail searching for possible explosives?
Other obvious questions concern who participated in this exercise? Which agencies and which private entities? What were the specifics of the exercise? Did this alleged exercise open up security holes by giving away critical information about security procedures to numerous parties beyond the control of law enforcement? Were explosives, real or fake, involved? Why is information regarding this exercise covered up?
The little matter of who was involved brings up big main question number two.
Second: Photographic images from the finish line / bombing of the Boston Marathon show a collection of suspicious characters acting in some semi-official capacity. What little can be discerned from the photos suggests they may be military mercenary contractors, possibly from a company called Craft International.
These men wore large black backpacks, very similar to the exploded backpack seen in photos immediately after the bombing. They also stand in positions very near the location of one of the bombs. They communicate with one another. One seems to hold a device in hand, perhaps a radiation detector. Others, who are dressed identically, rush over to a FBI bomb squad truck, which arrives minutes after the detonations. They talk with FBI personnel.
This all suggests that these men were coordinating with the FBI bomb squad all along. Is this the “exercise?” It also suggests that the FBI’s bomb squad (a federal entity) was already present before the bombings even happened. Why is a federal bomb squad unit at a marathon race even before bombings occur?
I’ll unload just one more question, concerning these mysterious, unnamed operatives. How can private military mercenaries be involved in any way, shape or form with domestic security on US streets, and notably at an event that turned out to be highly insecure, in the extreme?
Perhaps our society has reached that tipping point into utter insanity and breakdown.
The two brothers Tsarnaev have been established by the FBI as the only perpetrators, the onlysuspects, the only reason for the Boston bombings to have occurred. An FBI press conference went so far as to caution the entire media and public against looking elsewhere:
For clarity these images should be the only ones, I emphasize the only ones, that the public should view to assist us. Other photos should not be deemed credible and they unnecessarily divert the public’s attention in the wrong direction and create undo work for vital law enforcement resources. - Special Agent Rick DesLauriers, the head of the FBI’s Boston office
I find it hard to interpret this diktat as anything other than a direct order to narrow one’s thinking and evidentiary standards. The entire nation has been cautioned that all other evidence is to be deemed by the civilized world as not “credible.” As George W. Bush said a decade prior, at the United Nations: “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories…”
One might expect such direct state orders inside Soviet Russia, but in our allegedly free society with its proudly proclaimed “free press” this is disturbing. The FBI has just discredited the entire concept of investigative journalism and assumed the role of sole authority on all information related to this case. The media is cautioned not to entertain any additional facts, no matter how they may appear to bear on the case. Nothing that doesn’t come directly from the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to be considered “credible” by anyone. Period.
So, is this the end of the so-called “free society?” Land of the free, home of the brave? Or is our new paradigm the land of the surveilled and controlled, home of the cowering, with martial law and propaganda for all?
And with so many thousands upon thousands of law enforcers available at the touch of a button, how about sending, say, one of them to investigate at least 14 counts of manslaughter and massive criminal negligence at that Texas fertilizer plant explosion? Or is that not in the script?
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev lies in critical condition since Friday evening, but as of Sunday morning:
“Boston Mayor: Bombing Suspects Acted Alone” – Reliable Stenography by Time Magazine & Associated Press
How the hell would he know?
Several hours later:
Bombing suspect throat injury prevents questioning Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for now - Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is in a hospital, sedated and unable to be interrogated because of a throat injury. Authorities want to know if anyone else was involved. – Christian Science Monitor
Welcome, my son. Welcome to the machine. – Pink Floyd
Joe Giambrone is a filmmaker and author of Hell of a Deal. He also edits The Political Film Blog, which welcomes submissions. polfilmblog at gmail.
During the occupation of Boston it was widely reported that the bombing suspects had robbed a 7/11. That turned out to be false. The robbery was perpetrated by others. That’s right; with a massive police state presence, criminals were undeterred. But how convenient for officials to let the story float for nearly a day?
It’s looking like that is not the only whopper coming from officials (shocking, I know). Police Chief Wiggum has been providing all sorts of details throughout the affair and since. Here he goes into great detail about the “shootout” in the early hours of Friday morning. According to Wiggum, the older brother all of a sudden decided to come out from behind cover and walk right up to the cops, unloading his gun in the process. When he ran out of ammunition, says Wiggum, one of the heroes in blue tackled him. As officers were handcuffing him, Wiggum explains, his younger brother decided to charge them with the stolen SUV. The donut eaters were able to leap away just in time, leaving the older brother not only to be run over but dragged down the street as the younger suspect hightailed it out of there.
This all happened after what Wiggum describes as a 5-10 minute gun battle. So how did the remaining suspect elude the cops? Was there no police helicopter? Did someone at the top want him to get away?
One thing is for sure, Wiggum’s story is completely contradicted by an eye-witness. She says the cops ran over the older brother, and then, in what seemed to be retaliation, filled him full of lead.
According to Vice President Biden, “President Obama literally has a buttload of executive actions coming down the pike” on gun control, the phrasing of which stirs disturbing surrealist images in my mind.
Okay, I paraphrased him. His actual words were, “[T]he president is already lining up some additional executive actions he’s going to be taking later this week.” I still can’t tell, Biden–are you speaking literally or figuratively? You haven’t specified!
You know what? On second thought, I think a ”literal buttload of executive actions” would be less disturbing than “additional executive actions.” This is of course doublespeak for “executive orders,” a term this administration has been cautious to avoid, despite running the government on these orders. Liberals don’t like executive orders—or at least they pretend not to—so this administration uses the term “executive action.”
Obama spent his first term trying to get Congress to pass the most unpopular legislation of modern times, socialized health insurance, in the form of Obamacare. That was at a time when healthcare was at the bottom of Americans’ list of priorities for our benevolent leaders to work on.
Obama won that battle as only a corrupt politician can: unfairly, with bribes.
The President has chosen the battle to waste his second term on, and that is gun control, yet another issue near the bottom of Americans’ list of priorities. Fortunately for them (us), it appears as though Obama has lost, with the Senate voting down the Manchin-Toomey background-check bill.
Obama was visibly angry the other day, pouting at the podium to publicly shame those who voted against the bill, which would have expanded background checks to personal and gun-show sales, but only for law-abiding citizens–those who don’t commit mass-shootings–and not to those who would commit mass-shootings since those people don’t submit to background checks.
“No matter,” says Biden, as paraphrased by me again. “We don’t like the way the vote turned out, so Obama’s going to ignore the vote, bypass the rules, and just write his own laws from the Oval Office. What do you think this is, a constitutional republic? You think it matters whether your representatives represent you or not? We in the executive branch make the rules, not your representatives.”
You have to wonder at some point if this administration really does believe that congressional voting procedures are a mere formality they must go through, the hoops through which they must jump in order to keep up the illusion that the will of the American people is represented. They are either knowingly being tyrannical, dictatorial, or else they do not understand that voting in Congress is not just for show. As in so many other areas of this administration, it comes down to those two possibilities: either Obama’s failures stem from a place of malice and ill will, or from a cavity in his brain that renders him incompetent and ignorant.
Whatever it is, neither possibility bodes well for us.
(Fox News) Controversial gun legislation cleared a key Senate hurdle Thursday, as lawmakers voted 68-31 to start debate on the package which includes expanded background checks and new penalties for gun trafficking.
Senate Democrats, joined by 16 Republicans, were able to overcome an attempted filibuster by GOP senators opposed to the current bill. Those senators could still slow-walk the debate, but the Senate will eventually begin votes on amendments — one of which is considered crucial to winning support for a final vote.
The White House called Thursday’s tally an “important” but “early milestone,” as both sides of the issue prepare for a grueling debate — one that is being waged in Washington and on the airwaves.
The amendment likely to be at the front of the line is one from Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., which would scale back the call for universal background checks. The plan would expand checks to gun-show and Internet sales, but exempt certain personal transactions.
The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights supporters voiced concern about the new proposal, saying it still goes too far. But the plan, offered by two lawmakers who are at the conservative end of their respective parties, could help ease opposition ahead of a final vote.
The legislation required at least 60 votes to advance Thursday. If the bill ultimately passes the Senate, it would still have to pass the Republican-dominated House.
“The hard work starts now,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acknowledged after Thursday’s vote.
He assured Democrats that a proposal to renew the assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines would get a vote as an amendment, though it was dropped from the main bill amid intense opposition. The main bill also includes a measure to increase school safety funding.
Reid lost two Democrats in Thursday’s vote — Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., and Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, both lawmakers from states with a strong tradition of gun ownership.
More than a dozen Republican senators for days had threatened to hold up the bill Thursday. They voiced concern that the proposal — namely, the background checks provision — would infringe on Second Amendment rights and impose a burden on law-abiding gun owners. They also expressed frustration that, while Manchin and Toomey touted their compromise measure, the bill on the table Thursday did not yet include that. Rather, it included a stricter background checks provision.
“Because the background-check measure is the centerpiece of this legislation it is critical that we know what is in the bill before we vote on it,” Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; and Mike Lee, R-Utah, said in a statement. “The American people expect more and deserve better.”
Thursday’s vote follows an intense week of lobbying by gun control advocates, including the families of the victims of the December mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. That shooting prompted calls at the state and federal levels for new gun legislation.
Advocates like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group are likely to spar intensely with the NRA and conservative lawmakers in the coming days as lawmakers debate the bill and advance to a final vote.
