PORTAL

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwLWFzEPVonC9dn44qIL5ASSs557asBGgx7UcyiQTM71fl7lk5yXWU1171I-LrLmpmXE6HCd_-iYRcWVrKJOX9kBzoht2EJ1hLyTZJgv5V7mkba99ZfFLH45gZCwNPwD0rHe25AfMkVWcX/s1600/animatfB.gif
Showing posts with label GOVERNMENT CURTAILING YOUR RIGHTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOVERNMENT CURTAILING YOUR RIGHTS. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

START TREATY / NUCLEAR ARMS VOTE IN THE US SENATE


If you go to the link, ALSO NOTICE 3 REPS and 3 DEMS WHO DID NOT CAST A VOTE!!!!!

(I DON'T WANT THEIR EXCUSES FOR WHY THEY DIDN'T VOTE,
I WANT THEM TO TAKE A STAND!)

HERE ARE THE NAMES OF THE 3 OTHER "SELL OUT" REPUBLICANS:
>>>> Not Voting - 5 <<<<
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Gregg (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)
Bayh (D-IN)

SO, applying logic;
If you DON'T CAST A DISSENTING VOTE,
isn't that the SAME THING AS TACITLY IMPLYING YOU ARE WITH THE WINNERS?

"I DO NOT WANT THEIR EXCUSES FOR WHY THEY DIDN'T VOTE, I WANT THEM TO TAKE A STAND!"

We need to keep up the pressure on these guys. THIS LITTLE NOTE HERE IS EXACTLY ONE OF THE THE REASONS THE GOVERNMENT WANTS CONTROL OF THE INTERNET AND MEDIA!

This Senate HAS PUSHED THROUGH more LAWS (which aren't Constitutional) than any other Senate has!!  They took GREATER measures to make the greatest number of Americans dependent on the GOVERNMENT than AN OTHER CONGRESS!
THIS SENATE ADVANCED THE SOCIALIST AGENDA, FOLKS!
IS THAT THE "CHANGE" YOU VOTED FOR???

People MIGHT actually WAKE UP IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CONTROL THE INTERNET!

At the risk of sounding REALLY "looney tunes", I'm going to bring something up.
(THINK OUT SIDE OF THE BOX!!!)

I THINK THEY ARE SETTING UP FOR THE 2012 ELECTIONS,

Limit the peoples access to knowlege, make them despirate financially, jump start the animosity, anger and frustration of the people to cause riots (like in Greece, France and Great Brittain), then it
GIVES THEM THE EXCUSE TO INSTITUTE MARTIAL LAW!!!!

Think it's far fetched? Begin to think analytically, IT HAPPENED IN NEW ORLEANS IN 2005 AFTER KATRINA. THE AUTORITIES WENT DOOR TO DOOR COLLECTING THE FIREARMS. I have a friend FROM New Orleans who re-located here AFTER Katrina...

Have you noticed how the timing on all of this stuff
("CONTROL" BILLS IN THE SENATE) is SPEEDING UP?

NET NEUTRALITY- INTERNET & OPINION CONTROL
START TREATY-REMOVING OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND OUR SELVES
CONTROL OF THE BANKS
CONTROL OF AUTO MANUFACTURERS
CONTROL OF THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM
CONTROL OF THE FOOD YOU EAT (ATTEMPTING ANYWAY)
NY CITY ( Bloomberg) already has control of SALT!!!

The Senate is paying off political debts now with OUR freedom, it is sameless.
They THEY go on recess... ITS ALL ABOUT THE SENATES PRORITIES, NOT THE PEOPLES.

Friday, August 27, 2010

NRA Warns Against New Gun Control Push ...From EPA - THEY ARE AFTER THE AMMUNITION!

http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/nra-warns-against-new-gun-control-push--from-epa.html

THEY ARE AFTER THE AMMUNITION!

Environmental agency ponders whether lead in bullets is poisoning wildlife.

By Paul Bedard

Posted: August 27, 2010


The National Rifle Association, already on high alert over gun control rumors, has gone to battle stations to fight a new scheme before the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict hunters and anglers from using lead bullets, shot and sinkers.



Chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox charges in a letter to the EPA that the effort amounts to "a vehicle to implement gun control



" and could end hunting by most who can't afford the higher priced alternatives to lead.



[See who in Congress gets the most money from gun rights groups.]



At issue: lead, the most widely used material for making bullets, shot, and sinkers. The Center for Biological Diversity says in a 100-page petition that lead used by outdoorsmen and women can be blamed for causing deaths in some 130 species of birds like eagles. "Lead-based bullets fragment on impact, distributing toxic lead particles widely throughout carcasses, and making it impossible for scavenging animals or humans to avoid ingesting lead along with meat," says the center, joined on petition by the American Bird Conservancy, the Association of Avian Veterinarians, and two other groups.



The NRA counters that claims lead is causing a horrific toll on wildlife is bogus. The proof, they say, is the population explosion of American Eagles around the nation, including some inside Washington's beltway.



But more importantly, says the NRA, the EPA is barred from regulating ammo or fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act. But the ammo foes think that they have found a way around that by asking the EPA to regulate elements of ammo and the element they want banned is the lead.



Cox said that would counter what Congress has intended in previous laws. "Put another way, if Congress exempts a cow from regulation, one could hardly argue that it nevertheless would allow for regulation of the hide attached to the cow's body," said Cox.



Despite the opposition from the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearm and ammunition industry, the EPA is considering banning lead. It is seeking public comment until Halloween.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Dear Failure In Chief...

Dear Failure in Chief…



I was appalled but not shocked as to your statement that supported the building of the 13 story Mosque just 600 feet, where the Twin Towers fell. You have proven your ignorance and allegiance to Islam. You said it had to do with Freedom of Religion. No moron, Islam is a Political System that wants to impose Sharia Law on our Nation. But of course, you already know that because you are a Muslim. We The People of the United States of America will fight you on this. If at all possible, we will remove you from office before 2012. You have become a danger to this Country and to its people. By allowing this Mosque, it will accomplish two things…
 
One, it will defame and dishonor all the victims of 9/11 and their families. Secondly, it will open up this Country to terrorists that will slowly and in an evil strategic manner, take over this Nation and abolish our existing laws. You have done nothing but cause dissention and division in this Country. You have failed in all of your Campaign promises. You have refused to denounce terrorist acts and in fact, have made excuses for them. You refuse to speak out against Islam and Sharia Law. Your wife has done nothing to help those women around the world and even in this country that have been abused, scarred, and murdered, by Honor Killings. You both have been silent, when it comes to the atrocities of Islam. As far as We the People are concerned, you are not only a Muslim, but you are perpetrating the biggest hostile takeover that this Country has ever seen. You are well aware that your political career is over and that you will never be reelected, so you don’t care what damage you do to this Country. You are more than a Lame Duck….You are a Rabid Duck. The Mosque is your way of “marking” your territory as a Muslim man. We The People are on the War path. We are awake and aware. And we are ready and empowered for the fight ahead. You will NOT succeed. We Will Win. Mark this down….November is just the beginning….Your days are numbered….We The People Will Have Our Say and Our Day….It’s coming!
 
Dawnellen Pappalardo
(Posted on Face Book)
 

Monday, July 5, 2010

Warning: Do NOT use the "M" or "L" word!!!




The Obama administration has acknowledged its continuing a Bush-era policy authorizing the killing of U.S. citizens abroad who are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist, in total violation of his Oath of Office to protect the Constitution of the United States and the right of citizens (*5th Amendment) to a trial when accused of a crime.
(* "No person... shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"...)

The act of assassination is obviously much worse than public outcries against unlawful detention or torture.

The confirmation came from Director National of Intelligence Dennis Blair in Congressional testimony last week. Blair said: Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich said it is not much of a stretch, in that terrorist cells have been said to be working within the United States, to expect the administration to conduct these assassinations of citizens in our country. Furthermore it is also conceivable that anyone SUSPECTED of being or acting with a administration designated terrorist organization to be murdered while sleeping or taken from their home in the middle of the night and assassinated.

This is especially worrysome considering the recent Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) information.  MIAC is part of the federal Fusion Center effort now underway around the country.

Obama has joined the Bush policy of using the war on terror to violate the rights of American citizens.  The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report in conjunction w/the Department of Homeland Security  has issued a report which specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, & Bob Barr as militia influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.

The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called militia movement and conflates it with supporters of legitimate Third Party candidates, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.

Police are educated in the document that people who are anti-abortion, own gold, display an assortment of U.S. flags, or even those that talk about the film Zeitgeist, view the police as their enemy and conflates them with domestic terrorists like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph and other domestic militia groups who have been charged with plotting terrorist attacks. FOX News reports, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano called Fusion Centers the "centerpiece of state, local, federal intelligence-sharing" in the future.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Chicago approves new handgun restrictions


Move comes days after Supreme Court
ruling cast doubt on city ban.


Mayor (MORON) "Guns is the problem" Daley


by DON BABWIN
(Associated Press)


CHICAGO — The Chicago City  Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The 45-0 vote came four days after a Supreme Court ruling made it almost certain that Chicago's handgun ban would be overturned. The high court ruled Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.

The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. It will take effect in 10 days.

The ordinance also:

— Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

— Requires residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

— Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

— Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

— Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Those who already have handguns in the city — which has been illegal since the city's ban was approved 28
years ago — would have 90 days to register those weapons, according to the proposed ordinance.

Residents convicted of violating the city's ordinance can face a fine up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.

Though Monday's Supreme Court ruling did not specifically strike down Chicago's handgun ban, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling.

Mayor Richard Daley moved quickly to get a new ordinance in place and has indicated that he expects legal challenges to the new restrictions.

Meanwhile, a northwestern Wisconsin prosecutor said he won't prosecute a range of state weapon violations in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

Jackson County District Attorney Gerald R. Fox said in a statement he will no longer prosecute people for carrying uncased or loaded guns in vehicles, carrying concealed weapons, carrying firearms in public buildings or taverns or carrying switchblades and butterfly knives.

Fox said the Supreme Court ruling invalidated Wisconsin's laws against those practices.

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Fox is inviting crime into Jackson County and if he won't enforce the state's laws he should be removed from office.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38061266/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

In Debate Over Gun-Carry Laws, Critics Are Quick to Shoot Down the Facts

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, May 2010).Published June 24, 2010 FOXNews.com


People walking the streets armed with guns must be dangerous, right? A newly revised study by the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center found that even those individuals who have legally obtained permits to carry concealed handguns are extremely dangerous. With millions of Americans already having been issued such permits from the various states, this is an important issue.

The gun control organizations have frequently made these claims in the press, and Dennis Henigan, the vice president of the Brady Campaign, will likely make these claims again when he and I appear on John Stossel’s FoxBusiness show today. But the gun control advocates inaccurately describe many shooting cases, choosing to ignore that the majority of incidents involve people properly defending themselves.

Over the past three years, the number of active permit holders in the United States has gone from about 5 million to more than 6.2 million today. The numbers issued by the state regulatory agencies show time after time that these permit holders abide by the law.

Take Florida, which currently has the most concealed handgun permit holders in the country and is one of the two most populous states with right-to-carry laws. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and May 31 this year, permits had been issued to 1.8 million people. On average, the permits had been held for quite a long time, well over 10 years. For all those individuals across the more than 22 years of legal carry, there were only 167 cases where the permit was revoked for a firearms related violation, or about 0.01 percent of permit holders. While the state doesn't provide a precise breakdown of the reason for those revocations, the vast majority were apparently for people who accidentally carried their concealed handgun into a gun-free zone, such as an airport or school.

Throughout the past 29 months, beginning January 2008, only three additional permit holders have had their permit revoked for a firearms-related violation. With more than 729,000 active permit holders, that is an annual revocation rate of 0.00017 percent.

In sharp contrast, the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center portray Florida as Ground Zero for problems with concealed handgun permit holders. They boldly assert that 17 Florida permit holders have "killed" people with their guns over the past three years and that this one state by itself accounts for 17 of the 96 "killer" permit holders nationwide. The other 79 cases are scattered across 26 other states, with no other state accounting for more than 10 cases. Florida is also said to account for 2 of the 7 cases where permit holders are said to have killed law enforcement officers.

The Associated Press articles by Erik Schelzig and by Jim Abrams have given extensive, uncritical coverage to these claims. Members of the gun control organizations have made these claims unchallenged on such places as Fox News and on the Huffington Post (e.g., here and here).

So what is the evidence? The gun control groups don't actually point to actual court cases. They look at news stories and selectively report what is reported in those stories. For Florida, there are eleven "pending cases." The gun control groups assume that anyone involved in a shooting will be convicted. Indeed, in 7 of the 11 cases no one was even charged with a crime. Three cases involved suicides, and three had convictions for some type of offense. (See this link for a detailed presentation of sources.)

But there is something that the gun control advocates conveniently omit: When a permit holder uses a gun defensively and kills an attacker in a public place, the police often arrest them. Typically, he will later be released, but the police must first investigate what happened. The police can’t just take the shooter's word for it that they used the gun defensively.

Take the four pending cases where charges were filed, two of which involved the "killing" of law enforcement.

-- Humberto Delgado, Jr. was charged with the death of a police officer. Delgado obviously engaged in a horrible crime, but there is one major problem with the stories as presented by the gun control groups. He also was charged with carrying a concealed firearm. If he had a concealed handgun permit, he obviously couldn't have been charged with this crime. Delgado was just your typical criminal, who didn't have a permit, who killed a police officer.

-- James Wonder was charged with the death of an off-duty Customs and Border Protection Agent Donald Pettit. Pettit is said to have engaged in road rage against Wonder and then followed Wonder's car into a Post Office parking lot solely to continue harassing Wonder. Pettit had over shot the parking lot and had to circle back to go into it. He had no intention to do business with either the Post Office or any other nearby business. Pettit was clearly the aggressor in the situation. The Sun-Sentinel newspaper wrote on August 29, 2008: "local lawyers said [Wonder] may be able to make a strong claim under Florida law that he was within his rights to shoot Pettit." One measure of the severity of the case is that Wonder was released on a very minimal bond of $10,000. Neither the Brady Campaign nor the Violence Policy Center noted these points in their discussion of the case.

-- Gabriel Mobley shot two people outside a bar, and the gun control groups’ discussions fail to mention the defensive nature of Mobley's actions. A friend of Mobley's had an argument with two other men in a bar. Mr. Mobley separated the men, but the two waited outside and Mobley's lawyer, Richard Della Ferra, told me that they pounced on Mobley and his friend as soon as they left the bar. Witnesses saw one of the two attackers throw a punch that shattered the friend's eye socket. Mobley says that he shot when he thought one of the two men was reaching for a weapon, and police found the DNA of one of the men on a steak knife at the scene.

-- On January 7, 2008, Adam Hill was accused of accidentally firing his gun, the bullet fatally striking a friend while the friend had visited Hill to use his washing machine. Since the case has yet to go to trial, the law office that is representing Hill was unwilling to discuss the case, but they did say that the news articles did not accurately represent what had happened in the case. The law office representing Hill in his legal case emphasized to me in a telephone discussion that news articles on these cases can be quite misleading because defense lawyers warn their clients not to talk to others about their case, including the press.

Two of the three convictions in Florida are quite different than what gun control groups represent. One involved a boyfriend who accidentally shot his girlfriend when he was showing her how to use a gun in her home. There was no evidence of arguing or any disagreement. In another case, the issue was whether the permit holder had done enough to avoid the confrontation. A convicted felon confronted the permit holder. According to newspaper accounts, even the prosecutor acknowledged: “Kallenbach was in some way defending himself during an escalating altercation between the men caught on the security video” and that "People can look at that tape and interpret it two or three different ways.”

While this discussion focuses on Florida, the just released third edition of More Guns, Less Crime provides a detailed analysis for all states from 1990 to July 1, 2008. In state after state, permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Arizona, there were 99,370 active permits as of December 1, 2007. During 2007, 33 permits were revoked for any reason -- a 0.03 percent rate. In Texas, there were 288,909 active permit holders. Of these, 160 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.05 percent. That is about one-seventh the conviction rate in the general adult population, and the convictions among permit holders are for much less serious offenses.

I went to some other cases from the gun control groups after July 1, 2008. In two of the other five killings involving law-enforcement, it also appears as if the person who fired a gun didn't have a concealed handgun permit. In one case, in Pennsylvania, Christina Korbe fired a shot killing a police officer when police raided her home. The police were serving an arrest warrant on her husband, and she didn't know it was the police who were breaking into her home, and she was concerned about the safety of her two children, ages 4 and 10.

The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center evaluate the benefits of concealed handgun laws based solely on the claimed costs -- they don't compare the cases where defensive uses occurred to the bad things that happen, but only count what they claim are the bad cases. They ignore lots of amazing defensive gun use cases. But even more bizarrely, they count legitimate self-defense cases as bad events even when no charges are filed or the permit holder is later exonerated.






Concealed carry gains momentum in much of Illinois

Steve King, who operates the Belleville Indoor Shooting Range, says law abiding residents of East St. Louis and throughout Illinois should be able to legally carry concealed handguns to defend their lives. "Much of the crime in our area is in East St. Louis," said King, "This is not meant to be derogatory toward East St. Louis. There are many law abiding people there who have their backs against the wall who must risk breaking the law to protect themselves. They should be allowed to protect themselves." And some top metro east lawmen agree. They urge that a law be adopted in Illinois to make it legal for qualified persons to pack a handgun. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states to entirely ban concealed firearms.


Read About It: The Belleville News Democrat (Ill.)

Posted: 6/28/2010 9:30:05 AM

Monday, June 14, 2010

OATH KEEPERS


OATH KEEPERS

GUARDIANS OF THE REPUBLIC, HONOR YOUR OATH. JOIN US.

 
 
Orders We Will Not Obey


“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army”
-- Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

Such a time is near at hand again. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this Army -- and this Marine Corps, This Air Force, This Navy and the National Guard and police units of these sovereign states.

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.”

Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.

Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey

Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.

Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.


In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed “assault-weapons” ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “writs of assistance,” which were essentially warrantless searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written.

We expect that sweeping warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.

The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power” by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as “military governor.” The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.

The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty.

Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm.

Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers never granted.

Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war.

Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty – as was done to the Boers, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, and to the Chechens, for example.


Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it.”NOT on Our Watch!”

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people.

Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war.

We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the seizure and forfeiture of American ships, goods, and supplies, along with the seizure of American timber for the Royal Navy, all in violation of the people’s natural right to their property and to the fruits of their labor. The final spark of the Revolution was the attempt by the government to seize powder and cannon stores at Concord.

Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone.

Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams “setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”


Patrick Henry: “Give me Liberty, or Give me DEATH!”

Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom.

Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Oath Keepers

The above list is not exhaustive but we do consider them to be clear tripwires – they form our “line in the sand,” and if we receive such orders, we will not obey them. Further, we will know that the time for another American Revolution is nigh. If you the people decide that you have no recourse, and such a revolution comes, at that time, not only will we NOT fire upon our fellow Americans who righteously resist such egregious violations of their God given rights, we will join them in fighting against those who dare attempt to enslave them.

NOTE:  please also read our "Principles of Our Republic We Are Sworn to Defend"


More About Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers is a non partisan association of currently serving military, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who will fulfill our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and not to any political party. In the long-standing tradition of the U.S. military, we are apolitical. We don’t care if unlawful orders come from a Democrat or a Republican, or if the violation is bi-partisan. We will not obey unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law. We won’t “just follow orders.” Our motto: “Not on Our Watch!” or to put it even more succinctly, in the words of 101st Airborne Commander General Anthony McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge, “NUTS!”

There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But many others do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people, and understand what that means.

The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers.

We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops.

Help us win it.

http://www.oathkeepers.org/

If the link does not work,, copy and past this into your browser:
http://www.oathkeepers.org/


Board of Directors


Sgt. Dave Freeman (RET), Las Vegas Metro, and Army veteran. National Peace Officer Liaison.

Capt. Chauncey Normandin (RET), Lowell (MA) PD, and Army veteran. Florida State Director.

Capt. Gregory Gooch (Ret), Merchant Marine, and Viet Nam Era Navy veteran. Texas State Director.

Chief Celia S. Hyde (RET), Bolton (MA) PD. Member, International Association of Chiefs of Police. Oath Keepers Massachusetts State Director.

Sgt. Rand Cardwell. U.S.M.C. veteran (Desert Storm). Tennessee State Director.

Franklin Shook. U.S.M.C. veteran (Vietnam). Montana State Director.

Robert A. Gomez, MSgt, USAF (RET). Oklahoma State Director.

David T. Helms, U.S. Army (Vet), AR Chapter President

Maj. Rex H. McTyeire (Ret), U.S. Army Special Forces, SC Chapter President

Will Obama Suspend the November Mid Term Election?

Author: J.D. Longstreet

June 12, 2010

Western Front America
Situational awareness is brought to the forefront by the author. Would it ever happen? With this administration anything is possible. As noted below, The American people are a patient people. We will put up with a lot of nonsense from our government – for a while. But we draw the line when that government ignores the constitution, as the Obama Regime and the Democrats in the Congress have done. My gut tells me this is a line the administration will not cross. Our military defends the Constitution, they have sworn no oath to carry out illegal orders from a completely corrupt President. The military has read the findings of the Nuremberg Trials.

Rational thoughts while observing the ongoing national charade.


More and more politics-watchers are coming around to the conclusion that the scheduled Mid-Term Election in November of 2010 will be a political bloodbath for the Democratic Party. It is beginning to appear as if the democrats may, indeed, lose control of BOTH houses of theCongress. As a conservative I can only hope and pray they do.

But – the democrats lust for power is so great and their zeal for socialism so intense, that I cannot see them allowing their hold on power to be placed in jeopardy by, of all things, an election where the voice of the people is actually heard.

So, the question must be asked: Will Obama and the socialist/democrats in our government suspend, postpone, or “call-off” the Mid Term Election scheduled for this coming November?


First we must remember that Obama promised during the presidential campaign to bring “Fundamental Change” to the United States. I do not believe a person alive in America today could doubt his sincerity when he said that. Plus, the evidence of that fundamental change is right before our eyes, and in our wallets. In less than eighteen months the Obama Regime has managed to take America from a constitutional republic to a socialist republic. That accomplishment alone should give you reason enough to suspect that when their power is threatened they will use the full force of the Central Government to ruthlessly crush any and all who they perceive as a threat. At this moment in history, a threat is anyone, any American, who does not agree with them.

What the Obama Regime needs is a national crisis of some kind, a national emergency, in order to suspend the election in November. There is much talk about the Obama Regime declaring marital law as the result of a national emergency. That would take care of the election.

Next question: Who decides what a national emergency is? You’ve got it — the Obama Regime!

Ok. So now I am worried about a natural disaster such as a major hurricane striking the Eastern Seaboard this summer or this fall. As all of us who live in Hurricane Alley will attest, we know from experience that we are due a major strike.

All right, already! I KNOW this all sounds paranoid as the dickens! But understand this: A little paranoia in the face of danger can save your butt! Lord knows — we are starring danger in the face every day the Obama Regime enjoys in power.

Will there actually be a Mid Term Election this year? I honesty wish I could answer affirmatively, but I fear the raw power on which the democrats are drunk may decide that for us. Understand this: there is nothing as dangerous to freedom in the US as a Progressive (Socialist) Democratic Party inebriated on raw power.


I can say this: The American people are a patient people. We will put up with a lot of nonsense from our government – for a while. But we draw the line when that government ignores the constitution, as the Obama Regime and the Democrats in theCongress have done. There is a seething rage in America today. It has cut to the quick many a patriotic American’s soul. There is a tidal wave of unrequited anger, roiled up and posed, ready to fling itself at a government it sees as a threat to America’s freedom and liberty. Woe be unto him who is caught in the deluge.

Look, some of us have a knack, a talent, a curse, call it what you will, of sensing huge changes around us well before they actually occur.

During the past few months I have sensed a change in the American atmosphere. Where there was anger, there is now rage. Believe me, there is a HUGE difference between anger and rage. Both are great motivators, but motivation by anger can be considered and well thought out. On the other hand, motivation by rage (or outrage) is often not well considered and thought out. It is more akin to lashing out, and is, therefore, to be avoided when it is possible.

But, my senses tell me it is too late to avoid the “lashing out” Americans are about to unleash.


Why do I even bring this up? I bring this up because — at this very moment that tidal wave of anger and outrage is damed up, increasing in power and intensity, waiting, just waiting, for an incident that will knock the chocks from the dam wall holding back the cascade. Postponing, or suspending, the Mid-Term Election, currently scheduled for this coming November, would be the spark that ignites a firestorm that will consume all in its path.

But those in our nations legislature, intoxicated on their acquisition of more and more raw power, haven’t seemed to notice the shadow of liberty loving Americans looming over them as they celebrate.

Elections are a sort of safety valve in America. Without a safety valve to release unwanted pressure a boiler would soon explode. This coming Mid Term Election, in November, is one of the most important safety valves ever to exist. Shut it, remove it, or disable it, and believe me, the boiler will explode with unimaginable force.

If America was one huge computer, we could simply “reboot.” Of course we cannot do that – but many are saying we CAN “reset.” That is the aim of Americans in the coming Mid Term Election.

The federal government MUST be brought back under the control of the citizens and limited to only that power, and those particular powers, granted by the US Constitution. If Americans can accomplish that — then most everything else can readily be taken care of — and a return to a constitutional republic in an America restored.

I don’t even want to think about what will happen if we are unsuccessful in saving and restoring America at the ballot box in November. It MUST happen if America is to survive.

Remember in November!



Saturday, June 12, 2010

Senators propose granting President Internet power!! A KILL SWITCH FOR THE INTERNET !!!



See the original story at:

WELCOME TO AMERIKKA, KOMRADS!


June 10, 2010 8:25 PM PDT

Read between the lines and see the potential for ABUSE!!


A new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.

The legislation announced Thursday says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.

That emergency authority would allow the federal government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people," Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who caucuses with the Democrats.
 
Do you REALLY want THIS MAN
TO HAVE ULTIMATE CONTROL
OVER THE INTERNET???
Because there are few limits on the president's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition.
We can only HOPE!

TechAmerica, probably the largest U.S. technology lobby group, said it was concerned about "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach" and "the potential for absolute power." And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit Internet traffic on private systems."

The idea of an Internet "kill switch" that the president could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or Web sites.

(They try to discredit any one or thing that doesn't agree with their position on things NOW, do you REALLY want them to have THIS KIND OF POWER??)

On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's bill, which is formally titled the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said "I commend" the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that "we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber resources."
SOUNDS like a CONVENIENT EXCUSE TO ME to limit your
1st AMENDMENT RIGHTS ON THE INTERNET!

Under PCNAA, the federal government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. "information infrastructure" would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.

The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over warrantless wiretapping. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to "conduct surveillance" of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorized.

Lieberman said Thursday that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies--cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

AND DON'T FORGET THE "OTHER" CRIMINALS, THE PEOPLE WITH OPPOSING OPINIONS THAT  MAKE THE CITIZENRY AWARE OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE DOING !!