TEMUJIN SAYS LETS GET THIS BAD GUY HAS THE GUNs IN TO A REAL COURT OF LAW !!!

Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice have asked a federal court to indefinitely delay a lawsuit brought by watchdog group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit seeks the enforcement of open records requests relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law. Judicial Watch had filed, on June 22, 2012, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious and “specifically [a]ll records subject to the claim of executive privilege invoked by President Barack Obama on or about June 20, 2012.” The administration has refused to comply with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, and in mid-September the group filed a lawsuit challenging Holder’s denial. That lawsuit remains ongoing but within the past week President Barack Obama’s administration filed what’s called a “motion to stay” the suit. Such a motion is something that if granted would delay the lawsuit indefinitely. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that Holder’s and Obama’s desire to continually hide these Fast and Furious documents is “ironic” now that they’re so gung-ho on gun control. “It is beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun violence push as it seeking to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast and Furious gun walking scandal,” Fitton said in a statement. “Getting beyond the Obama administration’s smokescreen, this lawsuit is about a very simple principle: the public’s right to know the full truth about an egregious political scandal that led to the death of at least one American and countless others in Mexico. The American people are sick and tired of the Obama administration trying to rewrite FOIA law to protect this president and his appointees. Americans want answers about Fast and Furious killings and lies.” The only justification Holder uses to ask the court to indefinitely delay Judicial Watch’s suit is that there’s another lawsuit ongoing for the same documents – one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives. Judicial Watch has filed a brief opposing the DOJ’s motion to stay. As the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was voting Holder into contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with congressional investigators by failing to turn over tens of thousands of pages of Fast and Furious documents, Obama asserted the executive privilege over them. The full House of Representatives soon after voted on a bipartisan basis to hold Holder in contempt. There were two parts of the contempt resolution. Holder was, and still is, in both civil and criminal contempt of Congress. The criminal resolution was forwarded to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald Machen–who works for Holder–for prosecution. Despite being technically required by law to bring forth criminal charges against Holder, under orders from Holder’s Department of Justice Machen chose to ignore the resolution. The second part of the contempt resolution–civil contempt of Congress–allowed House Republicans to hire legal staff to challenge President Obama’s assertion of the executive privilege. That lawsuit remains ongoing despite Holder’s and the DOJ’s attempt to dismiss it and settle it. It’s unclear what’s in the documents Obama asserted privilege over, but the president’s use of the extraordinary power appears weak. There are two types of presidential executive privilege: the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege. Use of the presidential communications privilege would require that the president himself or his senior-most advisers were involved in the discussions. Since the president and his cabinet-level officials continually claim they had no knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious until early 2011 when the information became public–and Holder claims he didn’t read the briefing documents he was sent that outlined the scandal and how guns were walking while the operation was ongoing–Obama says he’s using the less powerful deliberative process privilege. The reason why Obama’s assertion of that deliberative process privilege over these documents is weak at best is because the Supreme Court has held that such a privilege assertion is invalidated by even the suspicion of government wrongdoing. Obama, Holder, the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and virtually everyone else involved in this scandal have admitted that government wrongdoing actually took place in Operation Fast and Furious. In Fast and Furious, the ATF “walked” about 2,000 firearms into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. That means through straw purchasers they allowed sales to happen and didn’t stop the guns from being trafficked even though they had the legal authority to do so and were fully capable of doing so. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens–estimates put it around at least 300–were killed with these firearms. Note: As I remember that brief period when this subject was actually mentioned in MSM, there was more yelling and propaganda about “American guns flooding Mexico and in the hands of drug cartels” I remember hilarious klintler talking it up and it was obvious that it was to be the next crisis to be “handled” with attacks on the bill of rights and the second in particular. http://goldtent.org/ http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/17/Holder-begs-court-to-indefinitely-delay-group-s-lawsuit-fighting-for-release-of-Obama-s-executive-privilege-Fast-and-Furious-documents

MILLER: Obama is coming for your guns - Washington Times

MILLER: Obama is coming for your guns - Washington Times

YES HE IS !!!!

Guns Protect Honest People – Catherine Austin Fitts by Greg Hunter

Guns Protect Honest People – Catherine Austin Fitts by Greg Hunter

Why doesn't Cuomo call for life without parole for murdering ANYONE, not just first responders ???? If the shooter in Webster had been sentenced to life without parole for murdering his grandmother, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to kill anyone else would he ??? Or better yet, REINSTATE THE DEATH PENALTY AND DO AWAY WITH THE YEARS AND YEARS OF APPEALS AND THIN THE MURDERING HERD !!!! Some real COMMON SENSE ANDY YOU CREEP !!!

Financial expert, Catherine Austin Fitts, says the sudden turn to gun control in the face of mounting financial problems is no accident. Fitts contends, “Guns protect honest people. It’s a little scary, the timing of this, and I think a little bit obvious. Gun control is a way to take away the financial assets of the honest hard working people.” She goes on to say, “I think there is a real risk here that they’re going to awake the sleeping giant.” Fitts says we are not necessarily going to get a “new” currency, but it is definitely going digital. Fitts warns, “Once we are in a spot where the currency can be entirely digital, then we’re in a new state of very invasive control. . . . One of the reasons I love gold and silver is that it allows me not to be digital” Fitts says the real fight over the fiscal cliff is how we are going to pay for the mess. Fitts thinks, “Politicians have already committed to inflation.” Fitts predicts, “The chances of another financial collapse are very small because every time we come up to a moment where a financial collapse starts to be a real risk, what happens? We get war.” Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari.com.

Gun Groups Are Asking You to Support ‘Gun Appreciation Day’ on Jan. 19 by S.H. Blannelberry

Gun Groups Are Asking You to Support ‘Gun Appreciation Day’ on Jan. 19 by S.H. Blannelberry

PreviousNext Piers Morgan Fact CHECKED (VIDEO) Jerry Miculek answers fan questions (14 VIDEOS) Police Departments Unable to Stock Ammunition (VIDEO) Exploding snowmen! (VIDEO) The right to keep and arm bears Boberg XR9-L spotted in the wild (Photos + VIDEO) EDITORIAL: Gawker Publishes Names of CCW Permit Holders in NYC…


Gun Groups Are Asking You to Support ‘Gun Appreciation Day’ on Jan. 19

1/08/13
by S.H. Blannelberry

51 878

As pro-gun control forces in and around Washington begin to mobilize their base to support various bills that will severely restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners, a broad coalition of organizations including the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are fighting back.



With the launch of the first national ‘Gun Appreciation Day’ on Jan. 19, a grass roots effort designed to protest the draconian gun laws being discussed in Washington (‘assault weapons ban,’ national handgun registry, ban on online ammo sales and high-capacity magazines, among others), organizers are hoping to show the White House that the American people will not sit by idly as the government attempts to radically alter the Second Amendment.





Piers Morgan Gun Meme

“We need to ban politicians who assault our rights,” said Alan Gottlieb, the SAF’s executive vice president, in a press release, “not firearms that are used thousands of times a day to protect lives and property from criminal attack.”



“The Obama administration has shown that it is more than willing to trample the Constitution to impose its dictates upon the American people,” added Gun Appreciation Day chairman Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc. “If the American people don’t fight back now, Obama will do the Second Amendment what he has already done to the First with Obamacare – gut it without a moment’s thought to our basic constitutional rights.”



Gun Appreciation Day is on Jan. 19, exactly two days before President Obama is sworn in for his second term on Jan. 21. Organizers said this was intentional, the close proximity to Obama’s inauguration provides for maximum visibility.



“We want the president and his allies on Capitol Hill to understand their new push will result in a shove back from the people,” Gottlieb exclaimed. “Millions of law-abiding firearms owners are not about to be penalized for the unconscionable act of a madman. We will not all be judged by the conduct of a single crazy person.”



“Our intent is to telegraph a message to Congress and state legislatures around the country that trampling our rights is not an acceptable solution to violent crimes committed by people who don’t care about laws, much less the lives of the people they harm,” he added.



So, what can you do to be a part of Gun Appreciation Day?





Dictators Gun Meme

Well, organizers say you should turn out in droves at gun stores, gun counters, gun shows, and gun ranges on Jan 19. In lieu of participating in person, via social media, you can share (Facebook ‘like’ or Tweet, etc.) different pro-gun memes with your friends.



Also, you can sign the ‘Petition to Defend Gun Rights,’ which includes many important facts and axioms, among them, “George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights, summed it up best when he said, ‘To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.’”



You can read more about Gun Appreciation Day and what it entails by visiting the website: http://gunappreciationday.com/.



As the battle over gun rights heats up, we’re going to need more initiatives like Gun Appreciation Day to ensure our message reaches lawmakers in Washington and the non-gun owning public that doesn’t have a dog in the fight (i.e. the unbiased public). We must continue to win hearts and minds via social action. Gun Appreciation Day seems like a great way to get the ball rolling – your thoughts?

Jerrold Nadler: Gun-Grabbing Leninist by William Norman Grigg

Jerrold Nadler: Gun-Grabbing Leninist by William Norman Grigg

During a recent Capitol Hill press conference, Rep. Nadler urged his colleagues to support confiscation of high-capacity ammo clips legally obtained by American citizens. When a reporter asked if the military should be allowed to keep its high capacity magazines, Nadler decanted a reply that was pure, unfiltered Leninism:




"One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence…. If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that’s insane."





The unexamined premise of Nadler’s reply is that it is perfectly sane and rational for the segment of society most deeply implicated in the violent deaths of innocent people to have a monopoly on "legitimate" violence. Embedded within that premise is the assumption that the same government that monopolizes violence will have the exclusive privilege of defining "legitimacy," as well. For him, as for totalitarians of all varieties, that which the government does is innately legitimate, and those whom the government decides to kill have an inescapable duty to die.



Nadler’s reply was a more verbose rendition of Lenin’s definition of government: "Power without limit, resting directly on force." The distinction he drew between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" violence brings to mind comments made by Dear Leader Emeritus Bill Clinton in an interview published by Foreign Policy magazine, in which he defined terrorism as "killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority and go beyond national borders."

The Second Amendment is actually a much worthier document than the Constitution itself. That Amendment served two indispensable purposes. One was to forbid (in concept, if not in execution) the federal government from disarming the state militias, which would (and did) lead to a deadly concentration of power. The second, and more important, purpose of that amendment was to recognize, unambiguously, the individual right to armed self-defense. That right exists independent of government, and cannot be infringed by it. Most importantly, it establishes a critical threshold at which the government relinquishes any claim to legitimacy (at least among those who are willing to grant it such). Any government that seeks to disarm the people is one that can and must be resisted through force of arms. Tax-devouring, ambulatory obscenities like Jerrold Nadler serve a useful function by making vivid and tangible the otherwise abstract evil connoted by the word "government." The reason we have guns is to prevent the likes of Nadler from working their will upon us unopposed.

Why the 2nd Amendment by Walter E. Williams

Why the 2nd Amendment by Walter E. Williams

why the framers of the Constitution gave us the Second Amendment. How about a few quotes from the period and you decide whether our Founding Fathers harbored a fear of foreign tyrants.




Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." By the way, Hamilton is referring to what institution when he says "the representatives of the people"?





James Madison: "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."



Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."



George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which inspired our Constitution's Bill of Rights, said, "To disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Progressives and the Phony Gun Debate by William L. Anderson

Progressives and the Phony Gun Debate by William L. Anderson

Whenever one sees the word "debate" in the New York Times or any other Progressive Mainstream Media source, one should substitute the word "monologue," which is a much more accurate assessment of what actually is happening. Progressives and the MSM allies do not want a "debate" over gun control; what they want are laws banning private ownership of firearms, period, and anything else is only a way-station to the final destination: total private gun bans.


In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, the sister of one of the murdered children wrote a well-publicized letter to President Barack Obama, imploring him to ban all weapons except those held by the police and government agencies. Now, one can excuse a grief-stricken 10-year-old child for demanding that the USA adopt what essentially was the gun standard for the former Soviet Union and other communist countries, although I doubt seriously that the child herself actually came up with the idea for the letter at all, or at least its contents.

Nonetheless, the child pretty much has stated what is the ultimate agenda for American Progressives, and until that ban is complete, we will not hear the end of terms such as "sensible gun control." To Progressives, "sensible gun control" is not simple registration or even a ban on so-called assault weapons and handguns. No, it is total and absolute prohibition for private citizens, while at the same time, government authorities are going to be armed to the teeth.

(Lest someone doubt my point that Progressives want to ban private firearm ownership, this article posted on the Progressive Daily Kos website lays out a plan for banning private weapons. The police, of course, would remain heavily armed. Not surprisingly, this website, which is one of the most influential Democratic Party sites, claims that most gun crime is committed by "NRA members." So, when Progressives don’t have the data to back up claims, they just make up things as they go.)

In trying to "dialog" with Progressives on this issue, Libertarians have cited facts, appealed to the U.S. Constitution, and pretty much have acted as though Progressives can be convinced with an argument based upon reason and logic. Unfortunately, they forget that Progressives create their logical propositions based upon very different assumptions than do Libertarians. A Libertarian syllogism might go something like this:

Individuals have rights, and one of those rights is the right to self-defense;

Firearms provide a very effective way for individuals to defend themselves against those who would seek to invade their property and harm them and their families;

Therefore, individuals should not be impeded by the State from owning firearms.

The Progressive syllogism, however, is much differently-constructed:

All individual "rights" really are created and given by the State;

No private individual has a "right" to self-defense unless granted so by the State:

Therefore, private individuals have no right to firearm ownership.

A parallel Progressive syllogism would be constructed as such:

An all-powerful and unlimited State is necessary for the functioning of a good society;

All individuals employed in occupations that defend the State have the right to self-defense;

Therefore, those individuals should be equipped with firearms to ensure "officer safety" and the safety of other government officials.

This is not a caricature of Progressive thinking (although I wish it were). To typical Progressives, government is the very essence of life, and anyone who is not directly employed by government or who has been given police powers by the State stands in the way of the State providing life and happiness.

Lest anyone believe that denial of individual self-defense is a top agenda for Progressives, think again. Both Canada and Great Britain essentially have outlawed individual self-defense, and should any individual use any kind of "offensive weapon" in self-defense, then that person faces extremely harsh punishments. Joyce Lee Malcolm writes:

A homeowner (in Great Britain) who discovered two robbers in his home held them with a toy gun while he telephoned the police. When the police arrived they arrested the two men, and also the homeowner, who was charged with putting someone in fear with a toy gun. An elderly woman who scared off a gang of youths by firing a cap pistol was charged with the same offense.

She continues:

The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout "Call the Police" rather than "Help." Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault. (Emphasis mine)

This is quite instructive if one wishes to understand the mentality of Progressives. To the typical Progressives, the elderly lady and the homeowner mentioned above were a threat to the monopoly power and the primacy of the State and deserved harsh punishment – even imprisonment – for exercising "privileges" not granted to them by the State. Keep in mind that Progressives have permitted the police to use deadly force against unarmed people, and that police officers regularly beat people brutally, and even the worst of these actions generally are excused or legally "justified" altogether, or the offending officer receives a wrist slap for punishment.

We must understand that this is not a situation in which we see the "Law of Unintended Consequences" in action; the authorities have fully intended for these consequences to occur, and each time an innocent person is beaten to death by thugs, or each time a person intending to defend himself or herself from an unwarranted assault is charged with a crime, the State and Progressives have won.

Several years ago, while riding a bus in Vancouver, Canada, I conversed with a local and asked him about the prohibition on self-defense. (Canada’s laws on this subject are similar to those in Great Britain.) When I asked him his thoughts on the law, he replied, "We Canadians are quite proud of these laws." Incredulous, I asked him why he believed it was wrong for an individual to defend himself against an unwarranted assault. He replied, "It reduces violence, since one has to act violently in self-defense."

I suspect that he echoes a lot (though hardly all) Canadians and probably most citizens of Great Britain. Once State authorities strip rights from individuals, they make it very dangerous for people to try to reclaim them, and ultimately, people just want to be protected from the predations of the State as much as from attacks and assaults on their own property. And since they cannot defend themselves effectively from State agents fully intending to wreak violence upon others, they realize that the best defense is just to be as invisible as possible.

Thus, when they are burglarized or attacked by criminals, they call the police, and then bear the costs. If a loved one is assaulted or murdered, they bear those costs as well. They say nothing that would anger the authorities and invite State-sponsored revenge upon themselves.

But what about the Progressive canard, "The only protection you need is the police"? Nicholas Kristof, in his recent anti-gun ownership screed from the New York Times, writes:

Published research makes it clear that having a gun in the home simply makes it more likely that you will be shot – by your partner or by yourself. Americans are safer if they rely on 911 for protection rather than on a gun.

Other Progressives have written that it is "grotesque" even to contemplate having armed guards at school, yet they will not explain why it is not "grotesque" that police officers carry automatic weapons, and why government officials and other public figures are surrounded by armed entourages that will gun down anyone on sight.

Unfortunately, Progressives do have an answer, even to this question, and it is: "We want children to feel safe, and they won’t feel safe if someone with a gun is nearby. As for government officials, they are necessary for our very well-being and if someone is permitted to freely assault an official, then the attackers have assaulted all of us.

There is another lesson for everyone here, and that is the lesson of how socialism really works. In the U.S.S.R., people who were politically-connected received the best medical care, were able to be first in line to receive decent housing, and were permitted to shop in "Yellow-Curtain" shops that had goods unavailable in typical Soviet stores. Everyone else was left more of left to fend for himself, receive substandard medical care, and have to wait in long lines for food and other essentials, and lived in ramshackle quarters.

Likewise, Progressives believe that only state agents should be on the receiving end of proper care and protection. As Glenn Reynolds recently pointed out in a USA Today column, it took 20 minutes for police to respond to the initial 911 call when Adam Lanza began his shooting spree. Yet, according to Kristof and the editors of the NYT, 20 minutes is perfectly acceptable. (No doubt, they would call for "more training" for police officers to ensure better responses, but in the real world, police are under no legal obligation to respond to any calls at all, and since "officer safety" is the mantra of every police department, it always is easier for officers to draw chalk lines around the bodies than it is for a cop to be asked to defend little children from a crazed shooter.)

Furthermore, Progressives don’t even believe that draconian gun laws actually reduce spree shootings or other such crimes. Instead, they promote such laws because it forces even more dependence upon State authorities. Malcolm writes about a spree shooting in Great Britain by a man carrying a banned semi-automatic rifle:

In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed – as were the police – Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue. (Emphasis mine)

British law did not protect anyone. Instead, it made law-abiding citizens even more vulnerable to the whims of others who did not respect the law. Yet, I should add that Progressives believe wholeheartedly that this is a perfectly-acceptable set of circumstances. If some eggs are broken while a Utopian omelet is being created, so be it.

One cannot "debate" people who construct their own sets of logical premises and who see State-sponsored violence as the answer to "all of our problems." Progressives do not want individuals disarmed because they believe the result will be less violence and less danger; no, they push disarmament because they believe that a "good society" can come about only when individuals live in constant fear of the State and when the State is so powerful that it can do anything it wants to anyone.

Unfortunately, Progressives view those of us who believe that individual rights come from Natural Law and hold that State violence against the innocent is unacceptable as "whack jobs" and "gun nuts." There is no in-between, and there certainly is no dialogue, for no Progressive will be satisfied until whole classes of people are left totally vulnerable to the whims of State agents. In the end, that is their "good society."

LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.