The Institutionalization of Tyranny by Paul Craig Roberts
Republicans and conservative Americans are still fighting Big Government in its welfare state form. Apparently, they have never heard of the militarized police state form of Big Government, or, if they have, they are comfortable with it and have no objection.
Republicans, including those in the House and Senate, are content for big government to initiate wars without a declaration of war or even Congress’ assent, and to murder with drones citizens of countries with which Washington is not at war. Republicans do not mind that federal “security” agencies spy on American citizens without warrants and record every email, Internet site visited, Facebook posting, cell phone call, and credit card purchase. Republicans in Congress even voted to fund the massive structure in Utah in which this information is stored.
But heaven forbid that big government should do anything for a poor person.
Republicans have been fighting Social Security ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it into law in the 1930s, and they have been fighting Medicare ever since President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law in 1965 as part of the Great Society initiatives.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Napolitino vs. Napolitano on Gun Control by Gary North
Napolitino vs. Napolitano on Gun Control by Gary North
Judge Andrew Napolitano.
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
Judge Andrew Napolitano.
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
Malum Prohibitum: The Evil Legal Language of Progressivism by William L. Anderson
Malum Prohibitum: The Evil Legal Language of Progressivism by William L. Anderson
Let me give an example that I believe will explain my position. Many of the same people who are outraged that Ortiz and Heymann could drive a brilliant young man to his death by converting what essentially was a small violation based upon Malum Prohibitum into a series of "crimes" punishable by up to half a century in prison no doubt fully support that Gov. Andrew Cuomo was able to do in the State of New York this past week.
To the lavish praise of the ultra-Progressive New York Times, Cuomo got the state legislature to pass sweeping gun laws that turned legal possessions into illegal contraband. In the future – with the full support of Progressives everywhere – SWAT teams will violently invade the homes of many gun owners to confiscate weapons that pose no danger to anyone and whose law-abiding owners either will be killed or arrested and become treated as though they were dangerous murderers. We know these things will happen, and I would even surmise that Greenwald and nearly every mourner at Aaron Swartz’s funeral would agree that New York authorities would be legally and morally correct.
When a man who has owned a gun – say a World War II vintage M-1 Garand – for many years but fails to register it with the authorities in New York, even if that gun is locked in a safe and is unloaded and has not been fired in a generation, the police can and will swoop into his house armed to the teeth. If the man or any member of his family is gunned down in the SWAT melee, at very best Progressives will see it as unfortunate "collateral damage" in the enforcement of a "good law." Yet, that man and his family will have posed no greater threat to society than did Aaron Swartz and an army of his "hacker" friends, but the response of the Progressive "community" will be poles apart.
I say this not to condemn Greenwald – certainly one of the greatest living champions of human rights – or anyone associated with Aaron Swartz, nor do I accuse them of being hypocrites. What we have to understand is that the very essence of Progressivism is the belief that the State and its agents must decide what is right and what is wrong, and that Malum Prohibitum carry the same moral and legal weight as the ancient legal doctrine of Malum in Se. All Progressives – Right or Left – believe these things and cannot imagine a world without such doctrines.
The idea of Malum in Se is that some things are unlawful in and of themselves, and that everyone recognizes the wrongness in the acts. Murders, theft, assault, robbery, rape, lying in a legal proceeding, and other such actions have been illegal throughout history in almost every culture. That people have managed to avoid capture and punishment or that people given State privilege are able to do these things and not be sanctioned does not make them "legal" in the minds of most people, but serves as a cause of outrage.
Unfortunately, Malum Prohibitum has replaced Malum in Se as the guiding legal force in American criminal law. The vast majority of the two-million-plus people in American prisons, both state and federal, and the many millions more in the criminal justice system, are there because they allegedly violated "laws" based upon Malum Prohibitum, and we have to understand that the laws and punishments that flow from that doctrine are severe and arbitrary and have turned this country’s "justice" system into a maw of injustice.
Even though at least one "mainstream" U.S. law professor has said that the draconian punishments that Ortiz and Heymann were seeking involved a "fair reading of the law," people naturally are outraged that an original act that in itself was more symbolic that really did not impose harm on others could be legally interpreted as the legal (and moral) equivalent of terrorism with some of the harshest punishments this side of execution being dangled before Swartz. I will go even further: This entire legal episode was based totally upon Malum Prohibitum and that Swartz did not engage in real harm, but simply broke a set of rules that arbitrarily were imposed.
The legal essence of the True American Revolution of Progressivism was the imposition of rules that essentially criminalized actions that before the Progressive Era were legal. Certainly the "crown jewel" of the Progressive Movement of the early 20th Century was alcohol prohibition, but despite the utter failure of Prohibition, American politicians – with full support from the voters who supposedly are the "essence" of democracy – have expanded the doctrines of Prohibition not only to include drugs, but firearms, speech, and some forms of pornography.
Criminal law in the USA, both state and federal, has seen explosive growth in recent decades and almost all of it is based upon doctrines of Malum Prohibitum. Government authorities determine what is "bad," and then they outlaw it with the idea that a submissive populace eagerly will obey the next set of rules politicians and bureaucrats send down the pike. As the Progressive mainstream media fuels the next "crisis," government agents swoop in and "solve" the problem by imposing a new set of rules that the media and their academic allies then declare to be Holy Writ.
Let me give an example that I believe will explain my position. Many of the same people who are outraged that Ortiz and Heymann could drive a brilliant young man to his death by converting what essentially was a small violation based upon Malum Prohibitum into a series of "crimes" punishable by up to half a century in prison no doubt fully support that Gov. Andrew Cuomo was able to do in the State of New York this past week.
To the lavish praise of the ultra-Progressive New York Times, Cuomo got the state legislature to pass sweeping gun laws that turned legal possessions into illegal contraband. In the future – with the full support of Progressives everywhere – SWAT teams will violently invade the homes of many gun owners to confiscate weapons that pose no danger to anyone and whose law-abiding owners either will be killed or arrested and become treated as though they were dangerous murderers. We know these things will happen, and I would even surmise that Greenwald and nearly every mourner at Aaron Swartz’s funeral would agree that New York authorities would be legally and morally correct.
When a man who has owned a gun – say a World War II vintage M-1 Garand – for many years but fails to register it with the authorities in New York, even if that gun is locked in a safe and is unloaded and has not been fired in a generation, the police can and will swoop into his house armed to the teeth. If the man or any member of his family is gunned down in the SWAT melee, at very best Progressives will see it as unfortunate "collateral damage" in the enforcement of a "good law." Yet, that man and his family will have posed no greater threat to society than did Aaron Swartz and an army of his "hacker" friends, but the response of the Progressive "community" will be poles apart.
I say this not to condemn Greenwald – certainly one of the greatest living champions of human rights – or anyone associated with Aaron Swartz, nor do I accuse them of being hypocrites. What we have to understand is that the very essence of Progressivism is the belief that the State and its agents must decide what is right and what is wrong, and that Malum Prohibitum carry the same moral and legal weight as the ancient legal doctrine of Malum in Se. All Progressives – Right or Left – believe these things and cannot imagine a world without such doctrines.
The idea of Malum in Se is that some things are unlawful in and of themselves, and that everyone recognizes the wrongness in the acts. Murders, theft, assault, robbery, rape, lying in a legal proceeding, and other such actions have been illegal throughout history in almost every culture. That people have managed to avoid capture and punishment or that people given State privilege are able to do these things and not be sanctioned does not make them "legal" in the minds of most people, but serves as a cause of outrage.
Unfortunately, Malum Prohibitum has replaced Malum in Se as the guiding legal force in American criminal law. The vast majority of the two-million-plus people in American prisons, both state and federal, and the many millions more in the criminal justice system, are there because they allegedly violated "laws" based upon Malum Prohibitum, and we have to understand that the laws and punishments that flow from that doctrine are severe and arbitrary and have turned this country’s "justice" system into a maw of injustice.
Even though at least one "mainstream" U.S. law professor has said that the draconian punishments that Ortiz and Heymann were seeking involved a "fair reading of the law," people naturally are outraged that an original act that in itself was more symbolic that really did not impose harm on others could be legally interpreted as the legal (and moral) equivalent of terrorism with some of the harshest punishments this side of execution being dangled before Swartz. I will go even further: This entire legal episode was based totally upon Malum Prohibitum and that Swartz did not engage in real harm, but simply broke a set of rules that arbitrarily were imposed.
The legal essence of the True American Revolution of Progressivism was the imposition of rules that essentially criminalized actions that before the Progressive Era were legal. Certainly the "crown jewel" of the Progressive Movement of the early 20th Century was alcohol prohibition, but despite the utter failure of Prohibition, American politicians – with full support from the voters who supposedly are the "essence" of democracy – have expanded the doctrines of Prohibition not only to include drugs, but firearms, speech, and some forms of pornography.
Criminal law in the USA, both state and federal, has seen explosive growth in recent decades and almost all of it is based upon doctrines of Malum Prohibitum. Government authorities determine what is "bad," and then they outlaw it with the idea that a submissive populace eagerly will obey the next set of rules politicians and bureaucrats send down the pike. As the Progressive mainstream media fuels the next "crisis," government agents swoop in and "solve" the problem by imposing a new set of rules that the media and their academic allies then declare to be Holy Writ.
Malum Prohibitum: The Evil Legal Language of Progressivism by William L. Anderson
Malum Prohibitum: The Evil Legal Language of Progressivism by William L. Anderson
The outrage over the prosecutor-inducted suicide of Aaron Swartz continues, and well it should. Glenn Greenwald’s recent column barely contains the rage of a principled civil libertarian who despite his deep Progressive-Left outlook still can understand government-induced evil when its ugly face is revealed.
Indeed, Progressives from Massachusetts to California are outraged at what they correctly see as a relatively minor legal transgression by an honorable activist turned into a "crime" for which punishment would be imposed that would be greater than that experienced by convicted murderers and rapists. Yet – and I despair of my own inability to make this point so that Progressives can comprehend – what these people seem incapable of understanding is that their own legal/political theology is the problem.
Yes, a lot of outrage properly is directed at U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, Carmen Ortiz, a Barack Obama-appointed political animal who apparently had her eyes set upon the governorship of that state. Both she and her assistant, Stephen Heymann, who also has a reputation for being politically-ambitious, are now targeted in petitions to the White House to fire both of them, and because the petitions have more than 25,000 signatures apiece, the Obama administration now is legally-obligated to respond to them. (It will be interesting to see if Obama and his equally-culpable U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, whose own hands are washed in blood of innocent people, will throw Ortiz and Heymann overboard or if they will try to ride out what could be a difficult political storm.)
The outrage over the prosecutor-inducted suicide of Aaron Swartz continues, and well it should. Glenn Greenwald’s recent column barely contains the rage of a principled civil libertarian who despite his deep Progressive-Left outlook still can understand government-induced evil when its ugly face is revealed.
Indeed, Progressives from Massachusetts to California are outraged at what they correctly see as a relatively minor legal transgression by an honorable activist turned into a "crime" for which punishment would be imposed that would be greater than that experienced by convicted murderers and rapists. Yet – and I despair of my own inability to make this point so that Progressives can comprehend – what these people seem incapable of understanding is that their own legal/political theology is the problem.
Yes, a lot of outrage properly is directed at U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, Carmen Ortiz, a Barack Obama-appointed political animal who apparently had her eyes set upon the governorship of that state. Both she and her assistant, Stephen Heymann, who also has a reputation for being politically-ambitious, are now targeted in petitions to the White House to fire both of them, and because the petitions have more than 25,000 signatures apiece, the Obama administration now is legally-obligated to respond to them. (It will be interesting to see if Obama and his equally-culpable U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, whose own hands are washed in blood of innocent people, will throw Ortiz and Heymann overboard or if they will try to ride out what could be a difficult political storm.)
Red Alert: Nationwide Plan for Gun Confiscation Exposed by Alex Thomas
Red Alert: Nationwide Plan for Gun Confiscation Exposed by Alex Thomas
Red Alert: Nationwide Plan for Gun Confiscation Exposed
by Alex Thomas
The Daily Sheeple
In the last month we have seen what can only be described as the largest attack on 2nd Amendment in the history of the United States.
Within hours of the horrific mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, elements of the corporate controlled media, in conjunction with a majority of politicians in a position of power, launched an all out propaganda blitz to convince the American people to accept not only a severely limited 2nd Amendment, but possibly a total gun ban.
Whether it be by Senator Dianne Feinstein, billionaire eugenicist Michael Bloomberg orPresident Obama himself, calls for and plans to limit private firearm ownership in America have been outlined and, in some cases, already put into law.
During the propaganda blitz that has accompanied President Obama’s task force and subsequent executive orders, each and every proponent of stricter gun control has claimed that they support the 2nd Amendment and do not want any sort of all out ban or confiscation.
Sadly, this couldn’t be further from the truth.
Despite public claims from Obama and the corporate media that anyone who says the government is coming for their guns is nothing more than a right wing conspiracy theorist, the reality of the situation is that many different politicians and proponents of gun control have openly revealed their actual intentions for gun confiscation.
Multiple different statements that have either been made recently or surfaced and gone viral in the past month paint a clear picture as to what the powers that be actually want and are possibly planning to do.
On top of that, a bill introduced into the House of Representatives also pushes citizens to voluntarily turn in their guns in yet another move towards confiscation. Remember, the government doesn’t have to go door to door confiscating firearms, they can easily use a series of laws that when combined would essentially equal confiscation for millions of Americans. (Although many will never turn them in.
New York – Epicenter of Confiscation
A little over a week after the Sandy Hook Shooting, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo told an Albany radio show that gun confiscation is an option being considered.
“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
Although this open call for illegal gun confiscation was downplayed after it was reportedthat the state might not even be able to pay for it, the fact remains that this admission by Cuomo shows that all out gun confiscation IS his eventual goal.
More recently, New York actually did pass what can be considered the most draconian gun law in the country.
Yesterday, the New York State Senate passed a law prohibiting assault rifles and limiting magazines to 7 rounds. The law will go in front of the State Assembly today, where it is expected to pass easily.
Notably, the bill contains no grandfather clause for people who already own these weapons.
Now, in the wake of the passing of the above noted bill, a video of New York State Assemblyman Republican Steven F. McLaughlin revealing the startling fact that a version of the bill favored by Democrats did indeed contain a provision for outright gun confiscation has surfaced.
The short clip below is almost unbelievable. McLaughlin is basically told to shut his mouth, he then states that alright, he will not go there and then proceeds to smile while saying that yes gun confiscation would indeed damper a compromise.
As if the evidence above wasn’t enough, in a stunning and open admission, former New York City Mayor Ed Koch recently revealed his belief that ALL guns should be banned throughout the country.
“I belief for example that when Washington DC passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was strict down by the United States Supreme Court that we should overrule the United States Supreme Court with a Constitutional Amendment.
I don’t belief in our society we should have guns.”
This short interview with the former Mayor of New York City of perfectly illustrates the mindset of the gun grabbers as they push to take away the ability for individual Americans to protect themselves in favor of a group think collectivist mentality of depending on authorities for your every need.
Dianne Feinstein – Career Gun Grabber
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the woman behind the incoming semi automatic gun ban, has been a gun grabber from the onset who has herself publicly stated that her actual goal is the confiscation of all guns throughout the country, a literal full-scale ban.
“I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life,” Feinstein said after the Sandy Hook Shooting.
“I will do another assault weapons ban.”
“The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-registerfirearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if they’re sex offenders.
Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.”
Despite her repeated claims (and what can now be confirmed as lies) that she supports the 2nd Amendment and only wants to protect children, the reality is that one of her goals during her entire career is the disarming of the American people.
In a clip taken from a 1995 episode of 60 Minutes, Feinstein is seen and heard making the startling declaration that the only reason she didn’t pass a full-scale gun ban is because the votes in Congress simply weren’t there.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for anoutright ban, picking up every one of them…. Mr. and Mrs. American turn em all in. I would have done it.”
A report by Aaron Dykes that detailed Feinstein’s statements ended with an important quote from then President Bill Clinton that once again brings the mindset of the gun grabbers to center stage.
“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly….
[However, now] there’s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there’s too much freedom.
When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it.”
House Resolution 226 – “Surrender Your Weapons”
In yet another end around gun confiscation type move since the Sandy Hook Shootings, Rep. Rosa DeLauro introduced H.R. 226 to the House of Representatives on January 13.
The bill, full of startlingly direct wording, would give Americans a tax credit if they “surrender” their weapons.
H. R. 226
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.
(a) Allowance of Credit.–
“(1) In general.–In the case of an individual who surrenders a specified assault weapon to the United States or a State or local government (or political subdivision thereof) as part of a Federal, State, or local public safety program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons, on the election of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000.
The timing of the bill perfectly coincides with the corporate medias all out push to convince the American people that the only way to do their part in honoring the dead children is to support gun control and really do just about anything the authorities tell them is necessary to protect the children.
Establishment Mockingbird Media
From the onset of the news that there had been a shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut, the corporate establishment media initiated a coordinated, all out propaganda blitz on private gun ownership in America.
Actual cable news anchors, countless “experts,” and celebrity guests called for everything from semi auto bans to an across the board ban.
Perhaps the most prominent and disgusting pro confiscation establishment media hack, Piers Morgan has gone on a personal quest to broadcast propaganda piece after propaganda piece, doing everything he possibly can to paint him on the side of the children and pro 2nd Amendment activists on the side of death.
Just minutes after the news broke that a shooter in his 20?s had opened fire at an elementary school in Connecticut, Morgan, a CNN primetime host, began tweeting calls for stricter gun control.
As most of the country set glued to their TV or computer screen watching the horror unfold on TV, Morgan began posting a series of tweets that, among other things, implied the need for an across the board handgun ban.
This is America’s Dunblane. We banned handguns in Britain after that appalling tragedy. What will the U.S. do? Inaction not an option.— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) December 14, 2012
Not wanting to stop after calling for what would amount to the end of the Second Amendment, Morgan, showing his complete disdain for everything American, then published a series of tweets that challenged Obama and others to EXPLOIT this tragedy to implement gun control.
Piers Morgan ?@piersmorgan – White House spokesman Jay Carney’s right – today’s not the day to debate gun control. YESTERDAY was the day to debate it.
Piers Morgan ?@piersmorgan – Don’t just mourn these poor dead children America – get angry and do something to stop these senseless shootings happening.
Piers Morgan ?@piersmorgan -Last 2yrs: movie theatres, shopping malls, temples, a congresswoman, now an elementary school – when will America deal with its gun madness?
Piers Morgan ?@piersmorgan - Another day, another horrific shooting – this time at an elementary school in Connecticut. America’s gun culture has to change.
Piers Morgan ?@piersmorgan -This is now President Obama’s biggest test – will he have the courage to stand up to the American gun lobby?
Piers Morgan ?@piersmorgan -No more weasly words of ‘comfort’ Mr President. This is the latest, and worst, gun outrage on your watch. Time to act. #GunControl
After the above initial tweets, Morgan has and continues to broadcast nightly attacks on the 2nd Amendment. On one particular night, he actually had on Alex Jones and was utterly destroyed.
Morgan is far from the only establishment media hack to attack the 2nd Amendment in the month since the shooting. From numerous celebrities in a video funded by globalist gun grabber and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to Michael Moore and various CNN and MSNBC news anchors, the so called elitist dinosaur media has been anything but unbiased.
Shortly after the Sandy Hook mass shooting, MSNBC host Ed Schultz tweeted his belief that all semi automatic weapons should be forcefully confiscated.
Just days later, Newsbuster documented CNN anchor Don Lemon calling for a similar form of outright confiscation.
“We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets.They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children,” an emotional Lemon appealed.
The tweets and on air rants cited here are only a small section of the literal hundreds, if not thousands, of calls for various forms of gun control, including confiscation, that have echoed throughout the corporate media.
Gun Control Against Your Political Enemies
In a now infamous 2007 speech, former White House Chief of Staffer and then member of the House of Representatives Rahm Emmanuel called for restricting the gun rights of American citizens who are on the suspected terrorist no fly list.
The problem? The suspected terrorist list is known to have at least 400,000 names on it and is growing at an alarming rate.
The fact of the matter is the government can easily put their critics on the list which would in turn disarm them completely outside of law.
The American people and our right to private firearm ownership is literally on the brink of destruction.
As the corporate media continues to tell you that there is nothing to worry about, those in power continue to make statements and actions that show the exact opposite.
The time to live in reality is now. We must stand up as a free thinking country and DENY any infringement on our 2nd Amendment, no matter how many times the media tells you that the majority of Americans support it. (which in itself is a complete lie)
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Red Alert: Nationwide Plan for Gun Confiscation Exposed
by Alex Thomas
The Daily Sheeple
In the last month we have seen what can only be described as the largest attack on 2nd Amendment in the history of the United States.
Within hours of the horrific mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, elements of the corporate controlled media, in conjunction with a majority of politicians in a position of power, launched an all out propaganda blitz to convince the American people to accept not only a severely limited 2nd Amendment, but possibly a total gun ban.
Whether it be by Senator Dianne Feinstein, billionaire eugenicist Michael Bloomberg orPresident Obama himself, calls for and plans to limit private firearm ownership in America have been outlined and, in some cases, already put into law.
During the propaganda blitz that has accompanied President Obama’s task force and subsequent executive orders, each and every proponent of stricter gun control has claimed that they support the 2nd Amendment and do not want any sort of all out ban or confiscation.
Sadly, this couldn’t be further from the truth.
Despite public claims from Obama and the corporate media that anyone who says the government is coming for their guns is nothing more than a right wing conspiracy theorist, the reality of the situation is that many different politicians and proponents of gun control have openly revealed their actual intentions for gun confiscation.
Multiple different statements that have either been made recently or surfaced and gone viral in the past month paint a clear picture as to what the powers that be actually want and are possibly planning to do.
On top of that, a bill introduced into the House of Representatives also pushes citizens to voluntarily turn in their guns in yet another move towards confiscation. Remember, the government doesn’t have to go door to door confiscating firearms, they can easily use a series of laws that when combined would essentially equal confiscation for millions of Americans. (Although many will never turn them in.
New York – Epicenter of Confiscation
A little over a week after the Sandy Hook Shooting, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo told an Albany radio show that gun confiscation is an option being considered.
“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
Although this open call for illegal gun confiscation was downplayed after it was reportedthat the state might not even be able to pay for it, the fact remains that this admission by Cuomo shows that all out gun confiscation IS his eventual goal.
More recently, New York actually did pass what can be considered the most draconian gun law in the country.
Yesterday, the New York State Senate passed a law prohibiting assault rifles and limiting magazines to 7 rounds. The law will go in front of the State Assembly today, where it is expected to pass easily.
Notably, the bill contains no grandfather clause for people who already own these weapons.
Now, in the wake of the passing of the above noted bill, a video of New York State Assemblyman Republican Steven F. McLaughlin revealing the startling fact that a version of the bill favored by Democrats did indeed contain a provision for outright gun confiscation has surfaced.
The short clip below is almost unbelievable. McLaughlin is basically told to shut his mouth, he then states that alright, he will not go there and then proceeds to smile while saying that yes gun confiscation would indeed damper a compromise.
As if the evidence above wasn’t enough, in a stunning and open admission, former New York City Mayor Ed Koch recently revealed his belief that ALL guns should be banned throughout the country.
“I belief for example that when Washington DC passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was strict down by the United States Supreme Court that we should overrule the United States Supreme Court with a Constitutional Amendment.
I don’t belief in our society we should have guns.”
This short interview with the former Mayor of New York City of perfectly illustrates the mindset of the gun grabbers as they push to take away the ability for individual Americans to protect themselves in favor of a group think collectivist mentality of depending on authorities for your every need.
Dianne Feinstein – Career Gun Grabber
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the woman behind the incoming semi automatic gun ban, has been a gun grabber from the onset who has herself publicly stated that her actual goal is the confiscation of all guns throughout the country, a literal full-scale ban.
“I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life,” Feinstein said after the Sandy Hook Shooting.
“I will do another assault weapons ban.”
“The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-registerfirearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if they’re sex offenders.
Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.”
Despite her repeated claims (and what can now be confirmed as lies) that she supports the 2nd Amendment and only wants to protect children, the reality is that one of her goals during her entire career is the disarming of the American people.
In a clip taken from a 1995 episode of 60 Minutes, Feinstein is seen and heard making the startling declaration that the only reason she didn’t pass a full-scale gun ban is because the votes in Congress simply weren’t there.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for anoutright ban, picking up every one of them…. Mr. and Mrs. American turn em all in. I would have done it.”
A report by Aaron Dykes that detailed Feinstein’s statements ended with an important quote from then President Bill Clinton that once again brings the mindset of the gun grabbers to center stage.
“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly….
[However, now] there’s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there’s too much freedom.
When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it.”
House Resolution 226 – “Surrender Your Weapons”
In yet another end around gun confiscation type move since the Sandy Hook Shootings, Rep. Rosa DeLauro introduced H.R. 226 to the House of Representatives on January 13.
The bill, full of startlingly direct wording, would give Americans a tax credit if they “surrender” their weapons.
H. R. 226
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.
(a) Allowance of Credit.–
“(1) In general.–In the case of an individual who surrenders a specified assault weapon to the United States or a State or local government (or political subdivision thereof) as part of a Federal, State, or local public safety program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons, on the election of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000.
The timing of the bill perfectly coincides with the corporate medias all out push to convince the American people that the only way to do their part in honoring the dead children is to support gun control and really do just about anything the authorities tell them is necessary to protect the children.
Establishment Mockingbird Media
From the onset of the news that there had been a shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut, the corporate establishment media initiated a coordinated, all out propaganda blitz on private gun ownership in America.
Actual cable news anchors, countless “experts,” and celebrity guests called for everything from semi auto bans to an across the board ban.
Perhaps the most prominent and disgusting pro confiscation establishment media hack, Piers Morgan has gone on a personal quest to broadcast propaganda piece after propaganda piece, doing everything he possibly can to paint him on the side of the children and pro 2nd Amendment activists on the side of death.
Just minutes after the news broke that a shooter in his 20?s had opened fire at an elementary school in Connecticut, Morgan, a CNN primetime host, began tweeting calls for stricter gun control.
As most of the country set glued to their TV or computer screen watching the horror unfold on TV, Morgan began posting a series of tweets that, among other things, implied the need for an across the board handgun ban.
This is America’s Dunblane. We banned handguns in Britain after that appalling tragedy. What will the U.S. do? Inaction not an option.— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) December 14, 2012
Not wanting to stop after calling for what would amount to the end of the Second Amendment, Morgan, showing his complete disdain for everything American, then published a series of tweets that challenged Obama and others to EXPLOIT this tragedy to implement gun control.
Piers Morgan ?@piersmorgan – White House spokesman Jay Carney’s right – today’s not the day to debate gun control. YESTERDAY was the day to debate it.
Piers Morgan ?@piersmorgan – Don’t just mourn these poor dead children America – get angry and do something to stop these senseless shootings happening.
Piers Morgan ?@piersmorgan -Last 2yrs: movie theatres, shopping malls, temples, a congresswoman, now an elementary school – when will America deal with its gun madness?
Piers Morgan ?@piersmorgan - Another day, another horrific shooting – this time at an elementary school in Connecticut. America’s gun culture has to change.
Piers Morgan ?@piersmorgan -This is now President Obama’s biggest test – will he have the courage to stand up to the American gun lobby?
Piers Morgan ?@piersmorgan -No more weasly words of ‘comfort’ Mr President. This is the latest, and worst, gun outrage on your watch. Time to act. #GunControl
After the above initial tweets, Morgan has and continues to broadcast nightly attacks on the 2nd Amendment. On one particular night, he actually had on Alex Jones and was utterly destroyed.
Morgan is far from the only establishment media hack to attack the 2nd Amendment in the month since the shooting. From numerous celebrities in a video funded by globalist gun grabber and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to Michael Moore and various CNN and MSNBC news anchors, the so called elitist dinosaur media has been anything but unbiased.
Shortly after the Sandy Hook mass shooting, MSNBC host Ed Schultz tweeted his belief that all semi automatic weapons should be forcefully confiscated.
Just days later, Newsbuster documented CNN anchor Don Lemon calling for a similar form of outright confiscation.
“We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets.They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children,” an emotional Lemon appealed.
The tweets and on air rants cited here are only a small section of the literal hundreds, if not thousands, of calls for various forms of gun control, including confiscation, that have echoed throughout the corporate media.
Gun Control Against Your Political Enemies
In a now infamous 2007 speech, former White House Chief of Staffer and then member of the House of Representatives Rahm Emmanuel called for restricting the gun rights of American citizens who are on the suspected terrorist no fly list.
The problem? The suspected terrorist list is known to have at least 400,000 names on it and is growing at an alarming rate.
The fact of the matter is the government can easily put their critics on the list which would in turn disarm them completely outside of law.
The American people and our right to private firearm ownership is literally on the brink of destruction.
As the corporate media continues to tell you that there is nothing to worry about, those in power continue to make statements and actions that show the exact opposite.
The time to live in reality is now. We must stand up as a free thinking country and DENY any infringement on our 2nd Amendment, no matter how many times the media tells you that the majority of Americans support it. (which in itself is a complete lie)
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Disarming Peasants by Chris Sullivan
Disarming Peasants by Chris Sullivan
Every time there is a shooting at a school, shopping center, city council meeting or other location where innocent people are shot or killed by a private citizen and not a government employee, the Left immediately calls for civilian disarmament, maybe not all at once, but certainly by degrees.
What is odd about this is that not a day goes by that MoveOn.Org doesn't send out some kind of alert about banksters or corporate bogeymen who are up to no good. They probably are, but these people never see any danger from omnipotent government, only private cabals that operate for gain, but have no arrest or taxing power and no history of setting up gulags and murdering people en masse.
It's as though they have upended Jefferson's admonition, " in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution." Instead of mistrust of government officials they have mistrust of the citizen and instead of binding down the government they want to free the government and bind the citizen. They don't trust John Q. Public, but they do trust Obama, Bloomberg, Stalin, Hitler, Castro or Robespierre. Even if we had virtuous men currently in office, which we don't, it would be pure folly to expect that always to be the case. Carroll Quigley, who has the distinction of being mentioned approvingly by Bill Clinton, says in his magnum opus Tragedy & Hope that when the citizen can have the same weapons or nearly the same as the government, it favors popular government, but when the government has superior weaponry it favors authoritarian government.
All the arguments I have seen on both sides of the question are utilitarian arguments. I have not seen anybody take up an intransigent position of principle and contend that even if it could be shown that private ownership of weapons causes higher rates of violence it would not be justification for controlling weapons for the simple reason that owning weapons is an inalienable right and isn't susceptible to statistical arguments.
We don't have free speech because it can be shown that it's a good thing, but because it is a right, not a privilege. It doesn't make any difference that many people tell lies or make inflammatory comments; when a right is abused it does not negate it for others. For years the NRA has prattled on about "firearms freedoms" as though a freedom is the same thing as a right – it isn't. Your neighbor may have the freedom to come into your house at will, but not the right to. The latest bit of claptrap is that we're having a "conversation" about gun violence or protecting children or some other focus group-think. Formerly the correct term was "dialogue," but that has fallen into desuetude.
It seems that most of the "conversation" is directed at people's feelings, not thoughts. This is very much on display with the Charlatan-in-Chief surrounding himself with children and acting as though he cares what they think. As long as he has their attention, maybe he should ask their opinion of drone strikes against innocent people or saddling future generations with oppressive debt. They're probably too young to form an opinion about such things.
Under our system of government – theoretically – the citizen is the sovereign and the government is the agent or instrument. How can the agent have rights that the sovereign doesn't have? No one can give what he does not have. If the sovereign has no right to possess arms, certainly his agent cannot have such a right.
It isn't violence that the government objects to so much as it is private ownership of guns. When Julio Gonzalez burned 87 people to death at the Happy Land disco in New York, nobody called for stopping the sale of gasoline in cans. That would have been absurd and would not have furthered the cause of civilian disarmament.
Back in the '70s, the angle of attack on gun ownership was the "Saturday Night Special," a term that no gun enthusiast used, but was thought to be useful by the forces of control. For the past 15 years or so, it's been "assault weapons," another made up term with no definition. It sounds really menacing so it's likely to be around for quite a while. It seems to be derived from the term "assault rifle" which was supposedly coined by Hitler (it probably wasn't) to describe a selective fire (i.e. capable of both semi-automatic and automatic or "fully automatic" fire) rifle that fired a low-powered rifle cartridge.
These rifles had more power than the submachine guns, which fired pistol cartridges, but less than a regular infantry arm of the day, such as an M1, Lee Enfield, Mauser, Springfield, etc.
Some advocates of disarmament have resurrected the claim that the Second Amendment refers to ownership of muskets. The founders were aware that technology is not static and had they thought nobody should ever have anything more advanced than a musket they could have said so, but had they done so the Constitution would probably not have been ratified. A musket was comparable to anything the army of the day had, so by that reasoning the citizen should now have sophisticated military equipment.
The founders wanted to guard against "combinations of ambitious men," but the disarmament lobby puts unlimited faith in such men and views the common man warily. It's as though the Bolsheviks can be trusted, but the peasants can't be.
Reprinted with permission from Different Bugle.
Every time there is a shooting at a school, shopping center, city council meeting or other location where innocent people are shot or killed by a private citizen and not a government employee, the Left immediately calls for civilian disarmament, maybe not all at once, but certainly by degrees.
What is odd about this is that not a day goes by that MoveOn.Org doesn't send out some kind of alert about banksters or corporate bogeymen who are up to no good. They probably are, but these people never see any danger from omnipotent government, only private cabals that operate for gain, but have no arrest or taxing power and no history of setting up gulags and murdering people en masse.
It's as though they have upended Jefferson's admonition, " in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution." Instead of mistrust of government officials they have mistrust of the citizen and instead of binding down the government they want to free the government and bind the citizen. They don't trust John Q. Public, but they do trust Obama, Bloomberg, Stalin, Hitler, Castro or Robespierre. Even if we had virtuous men currently in office, which we don't, it would be pure folly to expect that always to be the case. Carroll Quigley, who has the distinction of being mentioned approvingly by Bill Clinton, says in his magnum opus Tragedy & Hope that when the citizen can have the same weapons or nearly the same as the government, it favors popular government, but when the government has superior weaponry it favors authoritarian government.
All the arguments I have seen on both sides of the question are utilitarian arguments. I have not seen anybody take up an intransigent position of principle and contend that even if it could be shown that private ownership of weapons causes higher rates of violence it would not be justification for controlling weapons for the simple reason that owning weapons is an inalienable right and isn't susceptible to statistical arguments.
We don't have free speech because it can be shown that it's a good thing, but because it is a right, not a privilege. It doesn't make any difference that many people tell lies or make inflammatory comments; when a right is abused it does not negate it for others. For years the NRA has prattled on about "firearms freedoms" as though a freedom is the same thing as a right – it isn't. Your neighbor may have the freedom to come into your house at will, but not the right to. The latest bit of claptrap is that we're having a "conversation" about gun violence or protecting children or some other focus group-think. Formerly the correct term was "dialogue," but that has fallen into desuetude.
It seems that most of the "conversation" is directed at people's feelings, not thoughts. This is very much on display with the Charlatan-in-Chief surrounding himself with children and acting as though he cares what they think. As long as he has their attention, maybe he should ask their opinion of drone strikes against innocent people or saddling future generations with oppressive debt. They're probably too young to form an opinion about such things.
Under our system of government – theoretically – the citizen is the sovereign and the government is the agent or instrument. How can the agent have rights that the sovereign doesn't have? No one can give what he does not have. If the sovereign has no right to possess arms, certainly his agent cannot have such a right.
It isn't violence that the government objects to so much as it is private ownership of guns. When Julio Gonzalez burned 87 people to death at the Happy Land disco in New York, nobody called for stopping the sale of gasoline in cans. That would have been absurd and would not have furthered the cause of civilian disarmament.
Back in the '70s, the angle of attack on gun ownership was the "Saturday Night Special," a term that no gun enthusiast used, but was thought to be useful by the forces of control. For the past 15 years or so, it's been "assault weapons," another made up term with no definition. It sounds really menacing so it's likely to be around for quite a while. It seems to be derived from the term "assault rifle" which was supposedly coined by Hitler (it probably wasn't) to describe a selective fire (i.e. capable of both semi-automatic and automatic or "fully automatic" fire) rifle that fired a low-powered rifle cartridge.
These rifles had more power than the submachine guns, which fired pistol cartridges, but less than a regular infantry arm of the day, such as an M1, Lee Enfield, Mauser, Springfield, etc.
Some advocates of disarmament have resurrected the claim that the Second Amendment refers to ownership of muskets. The founders were aware that technology is not static and had they thought nobody should ever have anything more advanced than a musket they could have said so, but had they done so the Constitution would probably not have been ratified. A musket was comparable to anything the army of the day had, so by that reasoning the citizen should now have sophisticated military equipment.
The founders wanted to guard against "combinations of ambitious men," but the disarmament lobby puts unlimited faith in such men and views the common man warily. It's as though the Bolsheviks can be trusted, but the peasants can't be.
Reprinted with permission from Different Bugle.
Gunning for No Change: Thousands of Armed Protesters Gather at State Capitols in Pro-Assault Rifle Rallies Across the Country
Gunning for No Change: Thousands of Armed Protesters Gather at State Capitols in Pro-Assault Rifle Rallies Across the Country
Thousands of gun advocates gathered peacefully Saturday at state capitals around the U.S. to rally against stricter limits on firearms, with demonstrators carrying rifles and pistols in some places while those elsewhere settled for waving hand-scrawled signs or screaming themselves hoarse.
The size of crowds at each location varied - from dozens of people in South Dakota to 2,000 in New York. Large crowds also turned out in Connecticut, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington state.
Some demonstrators in Olympia, Wash., Phoenix, Salem, Ore., and Salt Lake City came with holstered handguns or rifles on their backs. At the Kentucky Capitol in Frankfort, attendees gave a special round of applause for 'the ladies that are packin'.
Activists promoted the 'Guns Across America' rallies primarily through social media. They were being held just days after President Barack Obama unveiled a sweeping package of federal gun-control proposals.
The crowd swelled to more than 800 amid balmy temperatures on the steps of the pink-hued Capitol in Austin, where speakers took the microphone under a giant Texas flag with 'Independent' stamped across it. Homemade placards read 'An Armed Society is a Polite Society,' 'The Second Amendment Comes from God' and 'Hey King O., I'm keeping my guns and my religion.'
'The thing that so angers me, and I think so angers you, is that this president is using children as a human shield to advance a very liberal agenda that will do nothing to protect them,' said state Rep. Steve Toth, referencing last month's elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn.
Toth, a first-term Republican lawmaker from The Woodlands outside Houston, has introduced legislation banning within Texas any future federal limits on assault weapons or high-capacity magazines, though such a measure would violate the U.S. Constitution.
Rallies at statehouses nationwide were organized by Eric Reed, an airline captain from the Houston area who in November started a group called 'More Gun Control (equals) More Crime.' Its Facebook page has been 'liked' by more than 17,000 people.
Texas law allows concealed handgun license-holders to carry firearms anywhere, but Reed said rally-goers shouldn't expose their weapons: 'I don't want anyone to get arrested.'
A man who identified himself only as 'Texas Mob Father' carried a camouflaged assault rifle strapped to his back during the Austin rally, but he was believed to be the only one to display a gun. Radio personality Alan LaFrance told the crowd he brought a Glock 19, but he kept it out of sight.
At the New York state Capitol in Albany, about 2,000 people turned out for a chilly rally, where they chanted 'We the People,' 'USA,' and 'Freedom.' Many carried American flags and 'Don't Tread On Me' banners.
Thousands of gun advocates gathered peacefully Saturday at state capitals around the U.S. to rally against stricter limits on firearms, with demonstrators carrying rifles and pistols in some places while those elsewhere settled for waving hand-scrawled signs or screaming themselves hoarse.
The size of crowds at each location varied - from dozens of people in South Dakota to 2,000 in New York. Large crowds also turned out in Connecticut, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington state.
Some demonstrators in Olympia, Wash., Phoenix, Salem, Ore., and Salt Lake City came with holstered handguns or rifles on their backs. At the Kentucky Capitol in Frankfort, attendees gave a special round of applause for 'the ladies that are packin'.
Activists promoted the 'Guns Across America' rallies primarily through social media. They were being held just days after President Barack Obama unveiled a sweeping package of federal gun-control proposals.
The crowd swelled to more than 800 amid balmy temperatures on the steps of the pink-hued Capitol in Austin, where speakers took the microphone under a giant Texas flag with 'Independent' stamped across it. Homemade placards read 'An Armed Society is a Polite Society,' 'The Second Amendment Comes from God' and 'Hey King O., I'm keeping my guns and my religion.'
'The thing that so angers me, and I think so angers you, is that this president is using children as a human shield to advance a very liberal agenda that will do nothing to protect them,' said state Rep. Steve Toth, referencing last month's elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn.
Toth, a first-term Republican lawmaker from The Woodlands outside Houston, has introduced legislation banning within Texas any future federal limits on assault weapons or high-capacity magazines, though such a measure would violate the U.S. Constitution.
Rallies at statehouses nationwide were organized by Eric Reed, an airline captain from the Houston area who in November started a group called 'More Gun Control (equals) More Crime.' Its Facebook page has been 'liked' by more than 17,000 people.
Texas law allows concealed handgun license-holders to carry firearms anywhere, but Reed said rally-goers shouldn't expose their weapons: 'I don't want anyone to get arrested.'
A man who identified himself only as 'Texas Mob Father' carried a camouflaged assault rifle strapped to his back during the Austin rally, but he was believed to be the only one to display a gun. Radio personality Alan LaFrance told the crowd he brought a Glock 19, but he kept it out of sight.
At the New York state Capitol in Albany, about 2,000 people turned out for a chilly rally, where they chanted 'We the People,' 'USA,' and 'Freedom.' Many carried American flags and 'Don't Tread On Me' banners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
