Is Government Going To Control What News You See & Hear? The Obama Administration is attacking our First Amendment - Special Report --> Wake The Hell Up America… And as a reminder, the Second Amendment is there to protect First Amendment
Cables and routers at a Comcast distribution center where the Comcast regional video, high speed data and voice are piped out to customers on Feb. 13, 2014 in Miramar, Fla. Getty Images
WSJ: WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission said Wednesday it would again issue rules to prevent Internet service providers from blocking or slowing down access to content providers that don't pay a toll to reach consumers.
However, analysts said the rules could open the door for broadband providers to cut deals with content companies like Netflix Inc. NFLX -1.97% or Google Inc. GOOG -0.71% to give their products some kind of advantage, either though speed or prominent placement.
The FCC's announcement means it doesn't plan to reclassify broadband as a public utility at present, as Democrats and public-interest groups had urged. Doing so would give the FCC much greater authority to set rules for broadband providers.
Supporters say treating all Internet traffic equally, a concept known as net neutrality, is crucial to keeping the Internet open and allowing smaller companies to compete with the biggest content providers. But the courts have ruled against the FCC's previous attempts to enforce net neutrality on companies like Comcast Corp. CMCSA -3.66% and Verizon Communications Inc. VZ +1.20% that provide Internet connections to households and businesses.
Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out FCC rules barring providers from blocking or slowing down websites, but it acknowledged the FCC has some authority to regulate broadband-company practices under a section of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that gives it broad authority to encourage U.S. broadband service.
The FCC said Wednesday it won't appeal the D.C. Circuit's ruling. Instead, it plans to take advantage of Section 706, of the law to propose new rules in the late spring or early summer, after soliciting public comment.
"The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the Internet remains open and fair," FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said in a statement. "The Internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth and opportunity the world has ever known."
The court said in January that the FCC could impose a "no blocking" rule if it found a different legal justification. Mr. Wheeler's statement indicates the FCC will do just that, by establishing a minimum standard for how broadband companies treat content. The rules would likely outline expectations and unacceptable practices for broadband providers, and provide for case-by-case enforcement when websites complain of unfair discrimination.
Analysts said the new rules could pave the way for deals between Internet providers and content companies to carry their content to consumers at higher speeds. Paul Gallant, a telecom policy analyst at Guggenheim Securities, said his reading of the commission's principles is that the agency is more likely to focus on policing anti-competitive conduct than on discouraging the content deals.
"I think the FCC will be inclined to permit voluntary paid prioritization deals," he said.
Even with that caveat, Republicans are opposed to the new proposed rules. "I am deeply concerned by the announcement that the FCC will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet," FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said. "The Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the Web," House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) and Rep. Greg Walden (R., Ore.) said in a statement.
Any rules would have to be approved by a vote of the five-member commission, which includes three Democrats and two Republicans.
Net neutrality supporters, however, were disappointed with the FCC's decision not to reclassify broadband Internet as a public utility, which they had argued was the only way to make the rules stand up in court.
Andy Schwartzman, a telecom lawyer and adviser to the anti-media consolidation group Free Press, said not reclassifying broadband "would be repeating the biggest mistake" made during prior efforts by former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.
Broadband providers have argued that reclassification would be disastrous for the industry because it would subject them to regulations designed for the landline phone system. "We think reclassification would probably be the ultimate death of the broadband market," Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen said in an interview last week. "We think it would dry up private investment and destroy all the gains made in the broadband market in the U.S."
Cohen's comments were made in the context of his company's bid to acquireTime Warner Cable Inc. TWC -2.75%Comcast has already agreed to abide by the FCC's net neutrality rules, even though they were struck down in court, as part of its acquisition of NBC-Universal in 2011. Comcast has also agreed to extend the agreement to Time Warner Cable Inc. subscribers if that acquisition is approved.
Mr. Wheeler has left the reclassification option open for now, which could serve as a deterrent for broadband providers seeking to challenge the rules in court again.
A Verizon spokesman said the company said it wouldn't appeal last month's court ruling, and that it is too early to determine whether it would challenge the FCC's latest rules.
As part of the process, the FCC will also examine ways to encourage competition in the broadband market. That could include removing legal restrictions that prevent cities and towns from building their own broadband or Wi-Fi networks.
FCC Plan For Newsroom Monitors Sparks Constitutional Concern - Wake Up America - America's Newsroom
Sekulow explains this very well - FCC gives license to broadcasters, but the FCC is also doing this for newspapers which do not come under the authority of the FCC.
RUSH/EIB: It’s clear the Regime thought they could get away with doing this this time. Hugo Chavez used to do things like this all the time. Now, here’s the question. Let’s just go hypothetically here. Let’s say that Adweek did not discover the study has been suspended. Let’s say it’s gonna go forward. At some point, they’re gonna try it. Will major American media organizations stand up and righteously, indignantly oppose this?
I can make the case that I don’t think they would. Most people think instinctively, reflexively, the media not gonna put up with it something like that. “No way! You’re gonna have a government monitor in my newsroom? You’re gonna be quote/unquote ‘monitoring’ the stories I choose to cover and the stories I don’t want to cover, and you are gonna be cataloging what you think is my bias? No way, pal!” But I can see where, given the current circumstances that exist today, they wouldn’t oppose it.
In fact, I could make the case to you that they would welcome it. I explained this to Snerdley today. He could not believe me. He did not believe that I was being serious. “You’re joking,” he said. No. I can make the case where journalism schools would not oppose it but instead will support it — and I’ll bet I could make the case to you, given current circumstances. I think the media might look at it as an opportunity to get even closer to Obama. I think some might look at it as a way of impressing Obama. Read more HERE
Judge Andrew Napolitano’s head is exploding -!!! Chilling! The Judge explains where it came from: the White House instructions to FCC. Freedom of the press is guaranteed in first amendment. This is a radical new era of tyranny in the White House says the judge. Currently it is voluntary but Judge Nap says that would eventually change. Allowing this another camel’s nose under the tent situation. You and every journalist should be outraged!!
“[Democrats] just spent all year trying to effectively destroy the gun lobby, so why in heaven's name [should] we give them this Christmas present?" -- GOA’s Michael Hammond on the plastic gun ban (ABC News, Dec. 3, 2013)
FreeRepublic: The U.S. House of Representatives did a very dangerous thing Tuesday -- and, apparently, it did so with the consent of one gun organization.
By voice vote, the House slammed through a ten-year re-authorization of the poorly drafted 1988 plastic gun ban.
Lest anyone be confused about how the anti-gun Left views this, USA Today crowed, on the front page of Wednesday's newspaper that the “HOUSE SAYS YES TO ONE GUN BILL -- Plastic gun ban only firearm legislation to pass since November.”
Taken alone, this gives the Obama administration, if it chooses, another three years to use the 1988 law to ban large numbers of guns.
But there is an even bigger danger: Chuck Schumer held a press conference the same day to indicate that he will use the House-passed bill as a vehicle to pass even more gun control. We don't expect to know Schumer's bill number or language before he actually offers it, but it will purport to deal with guns from 3-D printers, while actually being much broader.
So here's what we are doing: We are asking our friends in the Senate to put a “hold” on any effort by Schumer to amend the House bill.
The Senate will only be in session four or five days next week before the House goes out for the year, and Schumer may not be able to get time on the Senate floor without “unanimous consent” from all senators.
So, by doing this, we would force Schumer to give up on his vehicle for banning printer-guns if he wanted any reauthorization of the 1988 bill. If Schumer remains adamant, there will be no re-authorization at all. Even if he capitulates, we'll see what happens.
It's not a perfect outcome. But we think it's an outcome we can probably achieve.
ACTION:Click here to Contact your Senators. Ask them to oppose any effort by Senator Chuck Schumer to add gun control to the H.R. 3626, the plastic gun ban reauthorization which passed in the House.
Turning America "blue" could lead to California-style gun control
"Immigration reform, including a form of Amnesty, could be a bonanza for Democrats [and] cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily." - Politico, April 22, 2013
In 1984, California was sufficiently conservative so that it cast its electoral votes for President Ronald Reagan. It was not fiercely pro-gun, but, then again, it wasn't New York.
But, in 1986, Reagan signed an immigration amnesty bill, called Simpson-Mazzoli. The bill was small compared to the current amnesty bill. Three million illegals benefited.
But that was enough to change California from a sometimes "swing state" to a state almost wholly controlled by Leftists. Within 20 years - and continuing to this day - California couldn't pass enough gun bans, gun registration, ammunition limits, and ammunition registration.
So it is with some concern that Chuck Schumer's amnesty bill (S. 744) which is currently on the table would cover 11,000,000 to 20,000,000 illegal aliens - four to seven times the size of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill.
We predict that, if the bill is passed, by 2035, the American electorate will have changed so fundamentally that California-style gun control could become a very real possibility in this country!
We know you're tired. We have just fought a hard-fought battle over explicit gun control in the Senate - a battle which we won.
But it does strike us as interesting that the same gun control crazies who pushed gun control want to slam immigration amnesty through the Senate quickly so they can redirect their fire against us again.
Who are the chief architects of forging a more anti-gun electorate? Well, the chief sponsor of S. 744 is Chuck Schumer, and he is joined by other Second Amendment haters such as Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and compromiser John McCain (R-AZ).
Over the next week or so, we'll let you in on some of the anti-gun specifics of Schumer's "amnesty bill," as it's correctly dubbed. But for starters, the bill would push us towards a biometric ID card, which is something that GOA has opposed for years - given that a de facto National ID poses a huge threat to gun owners' privacy.
But then there's the fact that Schumer's "amnesty bill" requires the government to give its okay - in a Brady Gun Check-type procedure - before you could get a private job in America (section 3(c)(2)(A)(iii)). Does anyone not see why this might be a problem?
We've just gone through excruciating pain to stop the expansion of Brady Checks for guns. Now we turn around and the same parties who were pushing that are now pushing Brady Checks for private jobs.
It's ironic that those pushing for background checks are adamantly against ID's for voting because that would disenfranchise the elderly, the poor, and minorities. Hmm, so they do understand that background checks - as a prior restraint - are a fundamentally flawed concept?
But this is where the real fun starts. You feed the potential employee's info into a government database and, according to Senator Durbin, "up pops a picture." And, says Durbin, "if that picture doesn't match [the one on your ID], you may not be employed."
The Brady Check deals with a list of names which is in the millions. It deals only with things like names and social security numbers, not pictures. Yet it gives "false negatives" 8% of the time. And if you're one of those 8% who are illegally denied a gun, the FBI's response, more often than not, is "So sue us." If this weren't bad enough, the system breaks down for days at a time - normally the times when the most people need it.
Do we really want to expand this flawed concept to other areas of our lives?
If this weren't bad enough, we know that, once the government has to give its approval before you can do something, it's an almost iron-clad guarantee that it will exercise that power in a political manner. Under the Brady Check system, 165,000 law-abiding honorable veterans have lost their gun rights, not because they have done anything wrong, but because they sought counseling from the VA on the basis of a traumatic experience in the military.
Watching Schumer explain on the Senate floor why those veterans should lose their constitutional rights without any court order - while he vigilantly defends due process for foreign terrorists - is like watching a dung beetle drag its "prey" back to its lair.
So we know 165,000 non-politically correct veterans lost their gun rights under Brady Checks. Who will become politically incorrect unemployable non-persons under Brady Checks for Jobs?
Now, one would think that the fact that one million people in Boston were put under house arrest last week because our current immigration system allowed two asylum-seekers from terrorist-filled Chechnya to become legal residents and, in one case, a citizen of our country, will put the skids on the "inevitability" of Schumer's amnesty bill. After all, gun control was "inevitable" too.
But the bottom line is this: Just as we saw the gun ramifications of ObamaCare, we will also see the problems with a bill that alters the electorate in such a way that the Second Amendment will cease to exist. In doing so, we will need to make sure that we don't have most of our guns registered or confiscated in 2035 because short-sighted politicians listened to MSNBC and turned our country blue.
But we will also make sure that we do not take bad gun law and turn it into bad employment law.
As we wrote yesterday… the math just didn’t add up and today the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate today shot down President Obama’s effort to control guns in a series of votes.
The Democrat dominated Senate killed the new gun control bill championed by Majority Leader Harry Reid even after Team Obama pulled out all the stops to manipulate the public and the members of Congress.
The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and others. It expands background checks to gun shows and Internet sales. It also authorizes $400 million to upgrade the national background check database. It failed 54-46 under a requirement of 60 votes for adoption.
A proposal by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to swap the background check provisions of the existing bill. It would target those who lie on background check applications and raise access to information about those who have been found mentally impaired by a court. It failed 52-48.
The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and others. It would enable those who purchase guns for others to avoid a background check. It failed 58-42.
Concealed-carry reciprocity from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and others. It would treat state-sponsored concealed carry permits like driver’s licenses, making them valid across state lines. It failed 57-43
The Assault Weapons Ban from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and others. It targets hundreds of types of weapons for a complete ban. It failed, 40 to 60.
A plan from Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., to require a court order finding a person a danger to himself or herself or others before that person is banned from buying a gun. Failed 56-44.
The Large-Capacity Magazine Feeding Devices Amendment from Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.. It bans devices holding more than 10 rounds but creates a special class of citizen – the off-duty police officer – for exemption. Failed 46-54.
A plan from Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wy., to penalize a state financially if officials publicly release gun ownership information.
And Sen. Tom Harkin’s plan to encourage suicide prevention and mental health awareness.
The bill ended up getting only 54 votes, six short of the 60 needed to avoid a filibuster. President Barack Obama brought threw parents of the Newtown tragedy to DC at taxpayer expense to twist the arms of the Senate, and the president, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, (D-Ariz), and with her husband, Astronaut Mark ('I'll take an AR-15 please') Kelly, had personally lobbied senators, but it the end it failed.
The bans on 'assault weapons', which the Left defines as 'scary looking guns' since there's no other real criteria for them and what are termed high capacity magazines were downright silly and should have ensured the bill's defeat all by themselves. But this bill was also an extremely anti-Second Amendment piece of legislation no matter what its proponents said, and while it didn't specifically mandate a federal gun registry, it opened the door with all the means to create one, and the American people are smarter than the Progressive Left counted on.
And finally, while the people pushing the bill said that certain exemptions for personal sales would be allowed, they weren't in the bill itself. The new regulations for background checks and the banning of certain firearms and magazines definitely were.
This was an open attempt to subvert the Constitution by legislating away part of the Rill of Rights.
Plus, among other things, the gun grab doesn't poll well. Only 4% of Americans consider more restrictive gun legislation an important issue, according to Gallup, making it unpopular with politicians on both sides of the aisle who have to run for election in 2014.
Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) voted against it. Reid voted against it to preserve his ability to bring the measure up again.
GOP Senators. John McCain (Ariz.), Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.) all voted "yes."
Through this process, Republican Senator Toomey, in particular did himself some serious damage, as did West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, both of whom were instrumental in engineering this bill as one of those bi-partisan compromises that really wasn’t.
Our Founders provided us with a legal and constitutional way of repealing amendments or inserting new ones. You pass the legislation in both Houses of Congress, with a 2/3 majority and then it goes to the states, where 3/4 of them must ratify it. Anything else, including chipping away at our rights, is unethical.
Thankfully, enough senators cared enough about the Constitution (or at least about getting elected again) to do the right thing this time.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told the assembled body that Congress should be focused on “stopping violent criminals” but not “targeting law-abiding citizens.” “The approach that is effective is targeting violent criminals while safeguarding the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens,” he said. Cruz blamed the Obama Justice Department for failing to prosecute gun criminals, noting that of 48,000 felons or fugitives who tried to obtain weapons, only 44 were prosecuted.
This is a temporary victory. It will be a battle that patriotic Americans must fight over and over again until we find our way back to sanity; our way back to the Constitution, common sense, morality, decency and the values that made America great and special.
As the ruling elite and international banksters move us ever closer to a global economic collapse and push harder and harder to tighten gun laws and take away both American’s guns and rights,Retired United States Army Captain Terry M. HestilowWarns Americans that they may have to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against the Obama Administration’s “coup” against the People…
We are there… at the presuppose looking the choice between freedom and tyranny for ourselves and the world in the face. We either wake up enough Americans and prepare for the worst or be swept over the cliff into a new hi-tech ‘dark age’; 1984 just delayed 40-years by patriots, whistleblowers, grassroots movements like the tea party movement, a handful of patriotic politicians like Ronald Reagan, Ron & Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Ted Cruz and brave talking heads and authors including Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Alex Jones, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Glenn Beck, Trevor Loudon, Daniel Hannen and Mark Steyn.
(Info Wars) – On Saturday, Retired United States Army Captain Terry M. Hestilow publicly voiced grave concerns over the Department of Homeland Security’s absurd acquisitions, posting a letter he sent to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on Facebook labeling the Obama administration’s recent appropriation of weapons a “bold threat of war” against citizens of the United States of America.
“It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America,” the decorated retired Army Captain’s letter begins.
Referring to the DHS’ solicitations for nearly two billion rounds of ammunition and recent purchase of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush protected armored personnel carriers as “a tyrannical threat against the Constitution” and a deliberate attempt to defund the Department of Defense, the retired Army Captain asked Sen. Cornyn to honor his oath to the American people and the U.S. Constitution and “to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD).”
“Significant is the fact,” Captain Hestilow writes, “that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming,
‘We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]‘–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.”
“Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible,” the retired Captain’s letter continues.
Calling the DHS purchases a “glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens,” Hestilow says the actions “can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America.”
“If left unresolved,” Hestilow states, “the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution ‘against all enemies, both foreign and domestic’ are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s ‘coup’ against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.”
The former Army Captain cites Adolf Hitler’s rise to power as evidence of the outcome of allowing such an agency free rein, stating,
“One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation. The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!”
The post is garnering unprecedented support, according to the retired Captain. Within a day, he says it has received over 3,000 shares, in addition to lassoing in 994 new friend requests. He is also encouraging others to copy and properly amend the letter to send to their own senators and members of the U.S. House.
The retired Army Captain’s message follows another letter penned by 15 Congressmen earlier in the week to the DHS asking if the ammo purchases were part of an effort to strategically deny American people access to ammunition.
“The extraordinary level of ammunition purchases made by Homeland Security seems to have, in states such as my own, created an extreme shortage of ammunition to the point where many gun owners are unable to purchase any,” California Congressman Doug LaMalfa wrote in the letter.
Concerns that the DHS is engaged in a domestic arms buildup against the People have also been echoed by notable political figures and such mainstream publications as Forbes Magazine, who earlier this month called for a “national conversation” on the topic.
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was recently portrayed by media as a “conspiracy theorist” after she posted a remark on Facebook warning that imminent financial collapse could be the reason “why the Feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”
Similar concerns were also recently made public by Fox Business host Lou Dobbs when he asked NRA president Wayne LaPierre, during his March 4 broadcast, about the bizarre solicitations.
As an overwhelming number of Americans grow distressed over the curious purchases, mainstream media agencies, such as the Associated Press, Politico, Media Matters, and the Atlantic Wire, have frantically tried to tamp down speculation of a threat to civil liberties, refusing to conduct actual research into the subject and instead regurgitating superficial explanations issued by government officials.
A recent report that the DHS holds a $2 million contract with a firing range target manufacturer that produces shooting targets of armed pregnant women, children and elderly gun owners depicted in residential settings, has also not helped suppress speculation.
Despite numerous pleas to address the matter, the DHS has yet to issue a plausible explanation as to why they have apparently been building up a veritable ammunition and firearm stockpile domestically – purchasing profane amounts of riot gear, armored military vehicles, bulletproof checkpoints, and some 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles – and still refuses to answer questions from citizen journalists and multiple elected representatives.
Below is retired United States Army Captain Terry M. Hestilow’s letter to Sen. Cornyn in its entirety:
The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas United States Senate 517 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America.
Dear Senator Cornyn,
It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America. To date, DHS has been unwilling to provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the United States of America.
Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming,
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.
the Obama administration is deliberately defunding, overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense; the only legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a war mission.
This act of the Obama administration stands as a glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens! This act of the Obama administration can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America! If left unresolved, the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.
The only proper response to this threat against the American people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S. House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD). Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible. One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation. The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!
Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies, supported by Constitutional courts. We stand today at a cross-road. Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we honor our obligations to defend the Constitution against a “domestic” enemy? Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a Marxist leadership at home. You, sir, are our constitutionally elected agent to defend our Constitution at home. We are counting upon you. We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose ourselves as an easy prey to the authors of the destruction of our nation.
I know that this letter demands much of you. We elected you because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and office. We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS.
We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!
Resolved,
Captain Terry M. Hestilow United States Army, Retired Fort Worth, Texas March 23, 2013
In light of the growing information that is coming to light: House Bill Wants to Repeal Obama’s Authorization to Use Military Force
Occupy Corporatism: In the House of Representatives HR 198 entitled, “Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force” was recently introduced for consideration. The bill is championed by House Representative Barbara Lee and supported by 9 of her peers, including House Representative Walter Jones.
According to the text of the proposal: ‘Congress finds that the Authorization for Use of Military Force ( Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), signed into law on September 18, 2001, has been used to justify a broad and open-ended authorization for the use of military force and such an interpretation is inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and make all laws for executing powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.’
Currently President Obama could authorize “lethal force” be used on Americans in the US, he meant that Obama was empowered by the “2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” (AUMF) to assign military to patrol American streets as a matter of routine.
AUMF was a collaboration of the Congress and the US Armed Forces to battle against the attacks on 9/11. According to the text, the AUMF empowers the president when “acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad”, threatens national security and foreign policy with “grave acts of violence” then “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts” with the use of military force.
While the House prepares to address dictatorial powers afforded to Obama, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have ordered more .40 caliber S&W jacketed hollow point (JHP) rounds for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
The solicitation reads: “LI 001: Ammunition, Commercial leaded training ammo (CLTA) Pistol .40 caliber 165 grain, jacketed hollow point (JHP) p/n P40HSTS3G or equal – Brass casing. Quantity of 360,000 rounds -newly loaded unit price per 1000 rounds with FOB Destination., 360, CA.”
DHS claims that they “regularly” fill orders for “goods and services requirements” all at once because it saves money. Peter Boogaard, spokesman for DHS clarified the recent solicitations for ammunition placed by DHS as going to the agency; as well as law enforcement.
Boogaard said: “With more than 100,000 armed law enforcement personnel in DHS, significant quantities of ammunition are used to support law enforcement operations, quarterly qualifications, and training, to include advanced firearms training exercises.”
House Representative Doug LaMalfa and 14 other supporters collaborated on a letter to DHS asking why the agency has purchased over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.
LaMalfa asked DHS:
• Why they have purchased 1.6 billion rounds of jacketed hollow point bullets? • How many rounds do they currently possess? • Why has DHS redacted certain information in solicitations? • Is this an attempt to stall public access to ammunition by manipulating manufacturers? • How much as DHS spent currently on ammunition; including plans for future purchases.
Senator Leonard Lance has also asserted that Janet Napolitano, Secretary for the DHS, explain the recent ammunition purchases and explain whether or not the agency is stockpiling deadly hollow point bullets.
Paeegy Dixon, spokesperson for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia stated that these rounds were purchased for shooting ranges and training exercises.
Using the war on crime and drugs as an excuse, the Pentagon has been arming local police departments (LPDs) since the 1990s with the assistance and approval of local elected officials.
DHS grant funding to LPDs have totaled $34 billion as defense contracts continue to come without fail. Riot gear, military-grade weapons and training are becoming common place in cities and townships across the nation.
Timothy Lynch, director of the criminal justice project at the Cato Institute, states: “What is most worrisome to us is that the line that has traditionally separated the military from civilian policing is fading away. We see it as one of the most disturbing trends in the criminal justice area — the militarization of police tactics.”
All LPDs across the nation are encouraged by DoD to apply for federal grants and participate in the program.
In early 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report entitled “Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission” which outlined in part on how to redirect efforts of the federal government from international terrorism toward home-grown terrorists and build a DHS-controlled police force agency that would control all cities and towns through the use of local police departments.
DHS maintains that “the threat grows more localized” which necessitates the militarization of local police in major cities in the US and the training of staff from local agencies to make sure that oversight is restricted to the federal government.
In his YouTube video, General Amos warns about a “different landscape” and encourages people to think smarter. The General also encourages Marines to, “Save every round, every gallon of gas.”
When people like General Amos, Retired Army Captain Terry M. Hestilow, Retired Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, FBI Insiders, CIA Operatives and Forensic Profilers start publicly warning us of the threats that lie before us it is almost too late. Now is the moment to educate yourself and others and to get prepared before America, the greatest experiment in liberty and opportunity for individual freedom, is swept into the dust bin of (re-written) history, without even a fight as Americans go over the edge like lemmings…
Victory: Eric Holder Sent Letter To Rand Paul On Obama’s Authority To Target U.S. Citizens With Drones: ‘The Answer Is No’
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced during Thursday’s briefing that Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) this morning regarding the administration’s policy on drone strikes targeting Americans on U.S. soil. Holder’s letter stated definitively that the U.S. would not use “weaponized” drones to targets American citizens on domestic soil. Read Full Article HERE
Making the Sunday show rounds, Senator Tom Colburn (R-OK), one of the most respected Senators in Washington, told Fox News’ Chris Wallace that Senate Negotiators Are Not Close to a Deal on GunBackgroundChecks ... As one of four Senators working on legislation to expand background checks for firearm purchased, he made it very clear that there would be no record keeping (lists or a national registry created) on law-abiding gun owners in this country.
Coburn has been working with Illinois Republican Mark S. Kirk, New York Democrat Charles E. Schumer (a definite Progressive anti-gun guy) and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin III on developing narrower ‘background check’ legislation which aims to ensure that criminals and those with mental health issues are not able to access/purchase firearms.
Being in full agreement, my first reaction is how do you stop the government from creating and keeping a list and can you believe them? Just look at all the falsehoods and indiscretions that have been leaked about the TSA and other government entities, including the White House. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre spoke out and continues to speak out on universal gun registration, realizing that it will ultimately lead to the disarming of Americans. The Founding Fathers painstakingly chose every word that is in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution for a purpose and giving the American people the right to keep and bear arms is the lynch pin to guarantee that we can keep the rest.
NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre speaks on universal gun registration. (Photo: NRA)
The Blaze: National Rifle Association executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre continued speaking out against President Obama’s recent gun control proposals Saturday night, zeroing in on “the real consequences of background checks,” according to the NRA.
Most recently, the NRA has been publicizing a memo it obtained from the Justice Department that says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration,” and says gun buybacks would not be effective “unless massive and coupled with a ban.”
LaPierre began his speech with a reminder on why he believes it’s so important to counter strict gun control measures:
“The Second Amendment — it’s not just words on parchment. It’s not a frivolous suggestion from our Founding Fathers to be interpreted on a whim. It lies on the very heart of what our country was founded upon. Our Founding Fathers knew that without the Second Amendment, all of our other freedoms could be in jeopardy. [And] our freedoms are the very essence of America. They are what make America unique!
Now, he said, we’re witnessing the single-most devastating attack on that right that “our country has ever seen.”
He discussed NRA proposals to make schools safer, noting that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) admitted that she had gun control legislation in her desk for a year and was waiting for the “right time” to introduce it. In his opinion, many gun control opponents more about politics than they are proven solutions.
“Waiting for an unspeakable act to occur so the American people could be persuaded to buy her political agenda?” LaPierre commented with disgust. “It’s not about making our kids or our streets safer, it’s all about their decades-old agenda.”
He soon got to the heart of his speech: universal background checks, and what he claims they’re really all about:
“Don’t you be fooled. There is nothing “universal,” nor “reasonable” about it. They ought to stop pretending and stop calling it what it will never be. Criminals will never be a part of it, and I have come to believe that the adjudicated mentally incompetent [won't either]…This so-called universal background check that you’re hearing about is aimed at one thing: it’s aimed at registering your guns and, when another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns.”
“Imagine right now, your name on a massive government list,” he asked the audience, noting that it would be pretty “handy” for a drug dealer, thug, or criminal. “How safe do you think that government list will be?” he continued, noting the flood of personal information released this year by various media outlets on gun owners.
The crowd stands and cheers after the NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre urges them to stand for their rights. (Photo: NRA)
LaPierre proceeded to highlight other gun control proposals state by state, concluding with a word on how the Mexican government has asked the U.S. Senate for a registry of all gun owners in the United States.
“What is the point of that?” he asked.
“They have all the security they want,” LaPierre said, referring to politicians. “Our only means of security is the Second Amendment when the glass breaks in the middle of the night, and we have a right to defend ourselves…They don’t have the right to take that right away.”
“Was this what our Founding Fathers intended?” he asked. What Washington needs to do is recognize that Americans really have shared goals: they want their communities to be safer, and they will do anything to protect their kids.
Start focusing on that, he said, and “stop trying to convince the American people that all law-abiding gun owners are criminals in waiting.”
He concluded with an inspiring statement on how many gun control proposals have failed, and NRA members and Americans need to continue standing up and making their voices heard. He told the crowd to call their congressmen and senators this week, then sit down and write a hand-written letter, and follow up with an email.
“We will not be duped. We will not be demonized. And we will not be divided,” he said.
“As lawful gun-owners, we deserve nothing less than absolute respect as people that believe in our individual rights, believe in individual responsibility, believe in protecting our families, and believe in defending our country.”
DOJ memo states: “Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban.”
The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation. The nine page “cursory summary” on current gun control initiatives was not officially released by the Obama administration.
The DOJ memo (downloadable here as a PDF) states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.” Obama has yet to publicly support national registration or firearms confiscation, although the memo reveals his administration is moving in that direction.
The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration’s public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that laws proposed by Obama would not “take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.”
The NRA declined to explain how it obtained the document. The memo was written by the acting director of the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice, Greg Ridgeway. It is dated January 4, two weeks before Obama mounted his attack on the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre. Ridgeway came to the Justice Department from the RAND corporation.
The memo says universal background checks on firearms purchases may help the government push to control and eventually outlaw firearms, but it would lead to an increase in illegally purchased guns.
It pointed out that banning high capacity ammunition clips would be ineffective due to the fact there is a large number of them already in circulation.
A Justice Department official said the memo is an unfinished review of gun violence research and does not represent administration policy.
The DOJ memo arrived a few weeks prior to a letter sent out by the Department of Veterans Affairs. “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the sent to military veterans states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”
“US veterans are receiving letters from the government informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both,” the Gateway Pundit remarked.
Please don’t be manipulated. Big brother is counting on you being uninformed! The reason for the second Amendment, per Founding Father and President Thomas Jefferson, has nothing to do with hunting, or even defending oneself from intruders, although both good reasons to own a gun. The reason for the second amendment is if and when all goes wrong, for the people to be able to defend themselves against the government and exactly why someone could need and should be allowed to own an AR-15 or any of the other guns and ammo on the so-called assault weapons list. One only has to watch a movie like The Bourne Legacy [Blu-ray/Digital Combo] to figure that one out!
![Rand Paul - Filibuster_thumb[1]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAb_Cl5XiePJ3a_Pii7wRmOFP4IgtnzS1tSlij2nmaSqMRwaj4V1hTx0n3c5yaHRKQKisuVFPlNr16-v6GslPEeyq3CSb3e_PcMEHF1pWwwfjUxmsatbnV1NBQn-ygn6ljsm-flnFF-X_2/s1600-h/Rand%252520Paul%252520-%252520Filibuster_thumb%25255B1%25255D%25255B6%25255D.jpg "Rand Paul - Filibuster_thumb[1]")
