Monday, January 28, 2013

War On The Streets Of America

Social Decay + Illegal Immigration + Poverty = Open War On The Streets Of America

Open War On The Streets Of America - Photo by Javier RamirezWhat did you think was going to happen?  Moral standards have been falling for decades, we have allowed massive hordes of criminals, gang members and drug dealers to enter this country illegally, and thanks to our declining economy our inner cities are being absolutely ravaged by poverty.  Was such a combination really going to produce peace and prosperity?  Should we be so shocked that we now have open war on the streets of America?  In the United States today, there are millions upon millions of young people that can't find jobs, that are living in poverty, that have no hope for a better future, and that have been raised without any moral standards.  These young people are becoming increasingly desperate, and desperate people do desperate things.  As I wrote about the other day, for those under the age of 18 living in the city of Detroit the poverty rate is 60 percent.  Should we be surprised that Detroit police are now telling people to "enter Detroit at your own risk".  At this point, the FBI says that there are approximately 1.4 million gang members living in our cities.  That number has risen by an astounding 40 percent just since 2009.  Did we somehow delude ourselves into thinking that there would not be severe consequences for allowing that to happen?  Today,  Mexican drug cartels are active in more than 1,000 U.S. cities.  Are they selling drugs and committing crimes in the area where you live?  Well, don't be so shocked.  The federal government has left our border with Mexico wide open for decades even though the most violent drug war on the planet has been raging just across that border.  Stupid decisions produce stupid results.  Sadly, this is just the beginning.  When our economy fully crashes the open warfare on the streets of America is going to get much, much worse.
Let's take a closer look at what is currently happening in a few of our largest cities...
Los Angeles
Did you know that Latino gangs are systematically pushing black families out of some areas of Los Angeles?
For example, once upon a time Compton was a predominantly African-American area.  But now it is 65 percent Latino, and there is a relentless campaign of intimidation against many of the African-American families that remain.
One of these incidents was recently profiled in the Los Angeles Times.  A black family moved into Compton near the end of December, and since that time they have been the victims of endless harassment by Latino gangs.  When a 19-year-old African-American friend came to visit the family one day, four thugs told him that blacks were barred from the neighborhood and they started beating him with metal pipes.  A story in the Los Angeles Times described what happened next...
The 19-year-old family friend managed to break free that first day and run into the house, where the children were the only ones at home.
The attackers left, but a half-hour later a crowd of as many as 20 people stood on the lawn yelling threats and epithets. A beer bottle crashed through the living room window as the youngsters watched in horror.
"They were scared if they called the sheriff they'd be killed," Westin said. "So they called their mom, who called the Sheriff's Department."
The gang members were gone by the time deputies arrived, but they kept coming back, almost daily, driving by slowly until they got someone's attention, then yelling racial insults and telling them to leave. The mother sent the children to live with relatives and is now packing up to leave herself.
As horrifying as that sounds, the truth is that it is not an isolated incident.
According to the Los Angeles Times, similar attacks "have taken place in Harbor Gateway, Highland Park, Pacoima, San Bernardino, Canoga Park and Wilmington, among other places."
Oakland
Up the coast in Oakland, a horribly violent gang war has gotten so out of hand that city officials are holding press conferences about it.
Violent crime in the city of Oakland increased by 23 percent in 2012, and police say that gang members were responsible for most of the approximately 2,000 robberies and 65 homicides that took place in the second half of the year.
As the San Francisco Chronicle recently explained, the violence continues to escalate and city officials don't know how to solve it...
Nearly all the violent crimes in Oakland in the last few months, including two killings over the weekend, have been committed as part of a "war" between rival groups that was sparked by the slaying of a girl last summer, Police Chief Howard Jordan said Monday.
Jordan said "about 90 percent" of the killings, robberies, shootings and other "senseless acts of violence" in the city since mid-2012 can be directly tied to the killing of a girlfriend of one of the combatants.
Over time, the warring factions have become increasingly violent and have grown in number, sometimes by merging with other groups, Jordan said at a news conference called in response to an outbreak of gunfire over the weekend.
Chicago
Savage murders happen so regularly in Chicago at this point that very few people are even shocked by the headlines any longer.  The murder rate in the city increased by about 17 percent in 2012, and 2013 has already started with quite a bang.
Just check out what happened on Saturday.  7 people were murdered and six others were left wounded.  The following is how the Chicago Tribune described one of the crime scenes...
On West Van Buren Street, a body could be seen lying in the roadway, near the curb and a bus stop.
A man who only identified himself as the teen victim's uncle said the boy, whose family lived nearby, had simply gone to run an errand.
"He was just going to the store," the man said. "They just killed him just like that."
Later, the man paced back and forth on the sidewalk, shaking his head in disbelief.
So why has Chicago become such a violent city?
It is because of the gangs.
Today, approximately 80 percent of all murders that happen in the city of Chicago are gang-related.  And as I have written about previously, there are only about 200 police officers assigned to Chicago's Gang Enforcement Unit to handle the estimated 100,000 gang members living in the city.
Perhaps Chicago could do more to handle all the crime if they had more money, but at this point they are flat broke and so is the entire state of Illinois.  In fact, the state of Illinois just had its credit rating downgraded once again.
I picked out three examples to discuss above, but similar things could really be said about hundreds of U.S. cities from coast to coast.
Once upon a time, gang activity was fairly limited to certain pockets of the country.  But now, it is more widespread than ever.
According to the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center,  Mexican drug cartels were actively operating in 50 different U.S. cities in 2006.
By 2010, that number had skyrocketed to 1,286.
Are you starting to get the picture?
So why doesn't the federal government secure the border and make sure that everyone that is coming into this country is doing so legally?
That is a very good question.  For some reason, every single president that we have had in recent decades has chosen to leave the U.S. border with Mexico virtually wide open.
And so millions of criminals, gang members, drug dealers and welfare parasites continue to pour into the country.  The following is what one local police chief down in Texas is saying about what he is seeing along the border...
The problem is not going away.
"Most of them have people here or they're just trying to make it over here so they can start making a better living for themselves," La Joya Police Chief Julian Gutierrez told Action 4 News.
No matter how many miles of border fence is erected—it seems nothing will stop the thousands of immigrants, crossing our border illegally, from continuing their journey.
"A lot of times we talk to them and ask them why they're coming here,” Gutierrez explained. “They say they're coming for the 'American Dream.' I always tell them that they're here illegally---how do they expect to find work? They always say it's a lot better than their country.”
So what is the Obama administration doing about this?
They don't consider it to be a problem.
In fact, one of our stations along the border with Mexico will no longer be manned with real people at all.  The following is from a recent ABC News report...
Get ready for the very first "unmanned" border station on the U.S.-Mexico border. Slated to open at the end of this month, the Big Bend National Park in Texas will be staffed by, you guessed it, computers.
But what the Obama administration does seem to be concerned about is giving immigrants lots of "benefits" once they get here.
For example, did you know that the federal government actually has a website that teaches immigrants how to sign up for welfare programs once they arrive in the United States?
Meanwhile, we can't even come close to taking care of our own citizens.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are more than 146 million Americans that are considered to be either "poor" or "low income" at this point.
Poverty is absolutely exploding in this country, and the middle class gets smaller with each passing day.  When the next major economic downturn strikes, the unemployment numbers are going to start spiking again and millions of families are going to lose all hope that things will ever turn around for them.
Meanwhile, the very foundations of our society continue to rot and decay right in front of our eyes.  At this point, approximately one out of every three children in the U.S. lives in a home without a father.  The U.S. has the highest divorce rate in the world, the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the world, and there are 19 million new STD infections in the United States every single year.
Our nation is a complete and total mess, and many of our major cities are being transformed into gang-infested war zones that are on the verge of total meltdown.
Is it any wonder that millions of American families have chosen to become preppers?
Nothing is going to stop the societal meltdown that is coming.  That is especially true with Barack Obama running things.
Sadly, most Americans still have their heads in the sand and are pretending that everything will be okay somehow.
Sadly, most Americans still have a tremendous amount of faith in the system.
But anyone with a brain should be able to see the storm clouds that are coming.
So get prepared while you still can.
Time is running out.

Media Matters for America gave bodyguard illegal weapons to guard founder David Brock

A staffer at left-wing Media Matters for America committed numerous felonies in the District of Columbia and around the country by carrying a firearm to defend the organization’s founder, David Brock, The Daily Caller has learned.
According to a knowledgeable source, multiple firearms used to protect the Media Matters founder were purchased with Brock’s blessing — and apparently with the group’s money.
TheDC has previously reported that Brock’s one-time aide, Haydn Price-Morris, carried a concealed Glock handgun as he traveled with the liberal leader to public events in Washington, D.C. (RELATED: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, Media Matters’ close coordination with White House and news organizations)
But the extent of Brock’s armed activities have been largely unknown until now, even among those closest to him. An array of current and former Media Matters sources, all with intimate knowledge about the inner workings of the organization, granted extensive interviews to TheDC.
Brock, whose struggles with mental health have seen him hospitalized in the past, became increasingly concerned by late 2010 that he was being targeted by right-wing assassins.
TheDC has learned that by that time, Brock had armed his assistant — who had no permit to carry a concealed firearm — with a Glock handgun.
According to an internal email exchange obtained by TheDC, the gun was purchased with cash in Maryland, likely to diminish the chances such a purchase would appear on the tax-exempt group’s books.

Pakistani fertilizer firm to expand in U.S., but balks on controlling bomb materials

The Pakistani corporation that has refused the Pentagon’s urgent appeals to control the flow of explosive materials to bomb-makers who kill U.S. troops is expanding its fertilizer manufacturing into the United States.
And it is being done with the help of U.S. taxpayers through the municipal bond market.
The Indiana Finance Authority has approved $1.27 billion in tax-exempt bonds for Midwest Fertilizer Corp. to build a nitrogenous fertilizer manufacturing plant in Posey County. Midwest is a new startup company of the Fatima Group, a conglomerate headquartered in Lahore, Pakistan.
Fatima’s fertilizer components are used by terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan to build homemade bombs — the No. 1 killer of American service members in Afghanistan.
Fatima’s corporate leaders know this is happening, based on communications with Obama administration officials and military leaders, but they have refused pleas to control the flow, according to an Army general.
Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, who heads the Pentagon's Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), bluntly criticized Fatima in testimony last month before a Senate panel.
He called Fatima “less than cooperative” in even instituting minimal controls on calcium ammonium nitrate, or CAN, a fertilizing compound that has been used in 70 percent of the homemade explosives deployed against U.S. troops.
Fatima is the only Pakistani producer of CAN, which is illegal to import into in Afghanistan.
Gen. Barbero said that nearly 1,900 Americans in Afghanistan had been killed or wounded by homemade bombs in 2012 at the time of his Dec. 13 testimony. He said the only sources for CAN are two Fatima Group plants in Pakistan.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

The Truth About Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws


weapons2bban2b20357644_bg1The latest round of rubbish flooding our in boxes is an ignorant rant claiming that the Dick Act of 1902 (which respects our Right to be armed) can’t be repealed because to do so would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws”.
Who dreams up this stuff? Does anyone check it out before they spread it around?
Of course we have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc., etc. Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) recognizes that our Rights come from God and are unalienable.
The 2nd Amendment to our federal Constitution recognizes that this God-given right to keep and bear arms is to be free from any interference WHATSOEVER from the federal government.
Our Framers were all for an armed American People – they understood that arms are our ultimate defense in the event the federal government oversteps its bounds. See, e.g., what James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, writes in the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46! The reason the Citizens – the Militia – are armed is to defend ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods, communities, and States from an overreaching, tyrannical federal government.
Accordingly, the federal government is nowhere in the Constitution granted authority to abridge, restrict, or infringe, in any fashion whatsoever, guns, ammunition, etc. Thus, ALL such restrictive laws made by Congress, and ALL regulations made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (ATF), are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress and to the Executive Branch by our Constitution. Restriction of arms and ammunition is NOT one of the “enumerated powers” delegated to Congress or the Executive Branch.
Furthermore, all pretended regulations made by the ATF are also unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution, which vests ALL legislative powers granted by the Constitution in CONGRESS. Executive agencies have no lawful authority whatsoever to make rules or regulations of general application to The People!
In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly. Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty. See, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/
But the assertion that one Congress may not repeal acts of a previous Congress is idiotic.
And the assertion that Congress can’t repeal the Dick Act because a repeal would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws” shows that whoever wrote that doesn’t know what he is talking about. He obviously has no idea what a “bill of attainder” is, and no idea what an “ex post facto law” is.
This accurately explains what a “bill of attainder” is: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Bill-of-Attainder.htm
An “ex post facto” law RETROACTIVELY criminalizes conduct which was not criminal when it was done.
Say you barbequed outside last Sunday. That was lawful when you did it. Next month, Congress makes a pretended law which purports to retroactively criminalize barbequing outdoors. So, now, what you did is a crime (for which you are subject to criminal prosecution); even thou when you did it, it wasn’t a crime. That is an ex post facto law.
Now, say Congress passes a pretended law making possession of firearms a crime and ordering everyone to turn in their guns. Only if you do not turn in your guns will you have committed a “crime”. That is not an ex post facto law because if you turn in your guns, you won’t be criminally prosecuted. The “crime” is the failure to turn in your guns – not the prior possession of guns.
Such a law would be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because gun control is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Thus, the law would be outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress.
It would also be unconstitutional as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
But it would not be an ex post facto law.
People shouldn’t sling around terms, the meanings of which, they do not understand. It is immoral.
If TRUTH spread as rapidly as lies, our problems would have been resolved long ago. But if People can come to love TRUTH more than they love the ignorant rubbish they circulate, perhaps it is not too late to restore our Constitutional Republic. PH
Endnote:
In Federalist Paper No. 84 (4th para), Alexander Hamilton says re ex post facto laws (and of the importance of the writ of habeas corpus):
“…The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny…” PH

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/the-truth-about-gun-control-the-dick-act-of-1902-bills-of-attainder-ex-post-facto-laws/#ixzz2JEEG37Nu

Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Mamet: Hands Off My Gun

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. By David Mamet. Get the full issue of Newsweek today on your iPad and other editions.


Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.
‘In announcing his gun control proposals, President Obama said that he was not restricting Second Amendment rights, but allowing other constitutional rights to flourish.’or the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.
Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.
As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.
President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”
But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?
It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”
The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.
The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”
Gun rights advocates rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Jan. 2013.
Who threatens American society most: law-abiding citizens or criminals? (Matt Rourke/AP)
This is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.
The Founders recognized that Government is quite literally a necessary evil, that there must be opposition, between its various branches, and between political parties, for these are the only ways to temper the individual’s greed for power and the electorates’ desires for peace by submission to coercion or blandishment.
Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.
Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.
The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.
Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.
Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Communists Cheer Obama’s Gun Grab

Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab

Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab Written by 
It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.
In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”
The article, entitled, “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy,” written by People’s World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that “the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.”
“It is for that reason,” declares Nagin, “as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.”
The Communist Party’s “journalist” continued:
As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly "gin up fear" that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights. 
However, gun rights advocates don’t need to “gin up fear” that President Obama’s “common sense” proposals will lead to even more onerous infringements than the current calls to ban or restrict so-called “assault weapons”; the gun control zealots have been quite emphatic about intending to severely restrict (and many have called for a total ban on) all privately owned firearms. A December 21 article for the Daily Kos is one of the candid admissions against interest by the Left that the real end goal is a total monopoly of gun ownership by the government. Entitled, “How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process,” the regular Daily Kos writer “Sporks” says:
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
The writer then outlines the piecemeal plan by which the federal government can begin with registration and end up with confiscation. The Daily Kos article also cites the need to delegitimize hunting as well. “We should also segway [sic] into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK,” it says. “By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.”
Nagin surely must know that it is not merely groundless paranoia exploited by “extremists” inspiring fear that President Obama’s multi-part gun control plan is but the opening wedge in a new drive for ever-expanding federal restrictions and infringements of the Second Amendment. And Nagin surely is aware that his comrades ruling China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and other communist countries have never stopped at partial restrictions on private ownership of weapons.
As The New American reported recently, Communist China's ruling mandarins, sounding very much like our own media commentators, have blasted the United States for our “rampant gun ownership.” A Chinese government report last year detailing alleged human rights violations in the United States declares:
The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens' lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership. 
More recently, on December 14, 2012, the Beijing regime’s Xinhua news agency editorialized:
Twenty-eight innocent people, including 20 primary students, have been slaughtered in a mass shooting at an elementary school in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control. 
“Action speaks louder than words,” concluded the Xinhua editorial. “If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.”
Communist China, of course, is no paragon of virtue when it comes to liberty, safety, and human rights. Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) guaranteed that the Communist Party would have unchallenged power. And, as Professor R. J. Rummel has pointed out in his several published studies on democide (mass murder by governments): Power kills and absolute power kills absolutely. In the case of Communist China, the mass murder by the communist government under Mao was somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 million souls!
And China remains a rigidly controlled police state to this day, notwithstanding the limited market reforms that the Party has allowed for pragmatic purposes to obtain the capital and technology it needs to modernize. Only Party officials and the police and military (who must be members of, and be vetted by, the Communist Party) are allowed to possess weapons.
Mao’s comrades in Russia, Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, likewise disarmed the civilian population before initiating mass murder. As did Adolf Hitler and every other “successful” mass-murdering tyrant throughout history. Vladimir Gladkov, a radio propagandist on Vladimir Putin’s "Voice of Russia" program, expressed disappointment on December 20 that the Sandy Hook mass shooting probably would not generate the support President Obama needs to implement his desired gun controls. “Unfortunately, there are grounds for very serious doubt that even after this terrible massacre, a ban on selling weapons will be introduced in the US,” said Gladkov.
Again, considering that rigid, absolute, centralized power is the essence of all totalitarian regimes, those regimes must, therefore, automatically strike down all checks and balances that would limit their central authority. It is not surprising that spokesmen for these totalitarian governments would endorse policies that give the government a monopoly on deadly force.
The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, recognized that the armed private citizen is the ultimate check and balance against the centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly. Nagin and People’s World, not surprisingly, side with communist tyrants and deride American commitment to our natural rights enshrined in our Constitution.
“The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans,” says Nagin. Nagin, according to the profile provided on Keywiki by Trevor Loudon, has been a member of the CPUSA for several decades and a writer for the People’s World and other communist publications since 1970. He is a member of the Newspaper Guild and the Communications Workers of America as well as a political coordinator for the AFL-CIO in Ohio. In 2012 he was the Democratic Leader in Cleveland Ward 14 and served on the County Democratic Party Executive Committee.
We recognize the totalitarian ideology and objectives of Nagin and other communist propagandists when they advocate disarming of civilians and a total monopoly of force in government. Many of the other people advocating the same gun control policies may not have those totalitarian objectives in mind — but by their support of these policies they would lead us down the same deadly path nonetheless.

The Purge of Generals in Washington continues

Report: Washington Didn’t Even Tell Marine Gen. He Was Being Replaced

Gen. James N. Mattis Was Informed by a Note From an Aide That the White House had Decided to Sack Him
Gen. James N. Mattis (Getty Images)
United States Marine Corps Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis was notified that he was being replaced as commander of U.S. Central Command not by a phone call from Washington, but by a note passed to him by an aide, according to Foreign Policy’s Thomas E. Ricks.
From Ricks’ report:
General Mattis was travelling and in a meeting when an aide passed him a note telling him that the Pentagon had announced his replacement as head of Central Command. It was news to him — he hadn’t received a phone call or a heads-up from anyone at the Pentagon or the White House.
Ricks says he inquired further into this report. This is what he was told:
…the commander-in-chief can make a change whenever he wants and give no reason. That is right and proper under our system of government.
But there’s also the matter of common courtesy to an uncommon man. Here is what one person wrote to me: “What message does it send to the Services when the one leader known for his war-fighting rather than diplomatic or bureaucratic political skills is retired early via one sentence in the Pentagon’s daily press handout? Even in battle, Mattis was inclusive of all under his command. He took the time to pull together his driver and guards after every day’s rotation on the battlefield, telling them what he thought he had learned and asking them for input. Surely senior administration officials could have found the time to be gracious. But they didn’t.”
President Obama appointed Gen. Mattis as commander of U.S. Central Command in the summer of 2010. He was quickly confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
“During his time as commander, none of the symptoms of unhealthy civil-military relations such as those that characterized the tenure of Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, have manifested themselves,” Mackubin Thomas Owens writes in the Weekly Standard.
“There have been no leaks to the press over policy disagreements and no reports of ‘slow rolling’ or ‘foot dragging’ in Gen. Mattis’s implementation of the president’s policy,” Owens adds.
Gen. James N. Mattis Was Informed by a Note From an Aide That the White House had Decided to Sack Him
U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, commander, U.S. Central Command speaks with Chief of Defense of the Qatar Armed Forces Lt.Gen. Hamad Bin Ali Al-Attiah and Staff Lt. General Hamad Mohammed Thani Al Rumaithi, Chief of Staff of the UAE Armed Forces Kuwaiti National Day military parade on Feb. 26, 2011. (DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley/Released)
In short, Gen. Mattis was efficient and professional. So when it was announced last year that Gen. Mattis would be exiting his post sometime in March 2013, many of us were surprised. For a general who had carried himself and performed his duties so well, his tenure as commander of U.S. Central Command was unusually short-lived.
What happened?
Again, we turn to Ricks at Foreign Policy:
Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way — not because he went all “mad dog,” which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable.
Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, “And then what?”
Inquiry along these lines apparently was not welcomed — at least in the CENTCOM view. The White House view, apparently, is that Mattis was too hawkish …
Gen. Mattis, as Ricks notes, also disagreed with the White House on the U.S.’ ongoing operation in Afghanistan, Pakistani stability, and (perhaps most importantly) the U.S.’ response to the so-called “Arab Spring.”
And it’s because of these disagreements that certain commentators believe the White House decided to dump Gen. Mattis.
Gen. James N. Mattis Was Informed by a Note From an Aide That the White House had Decided to Sack Him
AL ASAD, Iraq – Lt. Gen. James Mattis, the commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command, speaks to Marines with Marine Wing Support Group 27, May 6. Mattis explained how things in Iraq have gotten better since the first time Marines came to Iraq. (Photo by Cpl. Zachary Dyer)
“Of course, a president has every right to choose the generals he wants, but it is also the case that he usually gets the generals he deserves,” Owens notes.
“By pushing Mattis overboard, the administration is sending a message that it doesn’t want smart, independently minded generals who speak candidly to their civilian leaders. The message that generals and admirals may receive that they should go along to get along, which is a bad message for the health of U.S. civil-military relations,” Owens concludes.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Obama to Shut Down Southern US Air Defense Systems

Obama to Shut Down Southern Air Defense Systems: “It Will Be Open Season for Terrorists Flying In With Nukes, Low Altitude Missiles, Or Even Full Scale Invasion of America”

Mac Slavo
January 23rd, 2013
SHTFplan.com
Read by 12,702 people





As the U.S. government continues to expand surveillance and monitoring systems to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars within the borders of the United States, a recent announcement regarding the country’s southern air defense systems is raising eyebrows.
Our southern border is, in part, protected by the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS), which utilizes moored balloons hovering at about 15,000 feet to identify low flying aircraft and missiles that may penetrate the border and cross into U.S. airspace.
The system is utilized by the U.S. Air Force, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD),  and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for a number of missions including detection of drug smuggling and preservation of the air sovereignty of the continental United States.
According to Exelis Systems Corporation, the company that built and jointly maintains TARS with the U.S. Air Force, the government has ordered a complete shutdown of Aerostat flight operations:
The government also indicated its intent that aerostat flight operations will cease on March 15, 2013, and that the remainder of the fiscal year will be used to deflate aerostats, disposition equipment, and prepare sites for permanent closure. We are currently reviewing all the details of the RfP and evaluating the possible impacts on the program and our workforce. We continue to communicate with the government on this matter, and we will have more information in the coming days and weeks.
An Exelis employee close to the TARS project had this to say about the closure of the sites:
“Not only will this closure mean hundreds of people will be out of jobs, but it also means our borders will not be safe, especially along the remote U.S. Mexico Border like in Texas.
These defense radars detect low flying aircraft infiltrating our borders.
Without these defense radars, low flying aircraft will go undetected.
It will be open season for any drug/gun/slave smugglers, terrorists flying in with nukes, low altitude missiles, or even a full scale low elevation invasion/attack against America.”
With China actively and openly deploying Russian-made low altitude strategic bombers, designing EMP weapons capable of disabling the country’s power grid infrastructure, and establishing economic zones within the United States, it’s difficult to imagine the motivation behind the move to further weaken U.S. air defenses on the southern border.
If September 11, 2001 was any indication of our air defense capabilities, and considering that any ground invasion of the United States would originate on our southern border, then wouldn’t we want as many early warning systems as possible to be actively protecting our country in these specific areas?
The U.S. government has chosen to shutdown this outward facing surveillance system, and has instead turned the surveillance inward, on the American people.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

MLK ... A Gun Carrying Republican?

MLK Was A Gun Carrying Republican
Monday, January 21, 2013 16:27

by Monica Davis
Some folk find it astonishing that the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a Republican and a gun carrier.
Back in the day, before the Republicans joined at the hip to right wing extremists, the Republican Party, AKA, the "Party of Lincoln" was the preferred party for African Americans. Loyalty to the deified, slave-freeing Lincoln kept blacks glued to the Republican party. At the time,you'd find Democrat Klan terrorists in local sherrif and police departments--and on the judcial bench, as well.
According to the National Rifle Association:
On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a “Negro hunt,” killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find. (Via Grand Old Partisan)
Which brings us to today…
Asshat Jason Whitlock, the Kansas City columnist whose article on Jovan Belcher‘smurder-suicide inspired an anti-gun rant by NBC’s Bob Costas, now says that the pro-Second Amendment National Rifle Association is “the new KKK,” Newsbusters’ Tim Graham reported Monday.
Obviously, Whitlock is as ignorant as he is offensive.
The NRA actually helped blacks defend themselves from violent KKK Democrats in the south, not the other way around. morehere
Republicans criticized the late Senator Byrd because of his KKK connections:
Most folks are semi-aware of the late Sen. Byrds’ connections to the Ku Klux Klan,  but it seems those roots run deep among the Democrats. It was the Democrats, after all, who  created the Klan in the post-Civil War period termed Reconstruction.
Today there is an article in the Charlotte Observer about the Democrat party disowning two of their own for their active racial activities.
But it’s the video where he casually talks about “shooting” and starving black South Africans – and kidnapping the country’s president – that caught the attention of people who track white supremacists.
Hollar, who is running for the N.C. Senate from Catawba County, is one of two Democratic candidates whom state party officials have taken the unusual step of denouncing.
The other is Carrol Crawford, a former Ku Klux Klan leader once convicted of burning a cross in Charlotte. He’s running for Rowan County commissioner. READMOREHERE
Given the racially hostile land that he was working in, is it no wonder that the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., both carried a gun and died by a gun. MLK had a house full of guns. And, was turned down for a gun permit because local white authorities hated the idea of an armed black man who was able to defend himself. 
“MLK had a houseful of guns. Ironically, he was turned down for a carry permit, because, being African American, he was deemed by local law enforcement to be “not suitable.” READMOREHERE
Long after MLK was dead and buried, white politicians are jumping on the gun rights band wagon "in honor of Dr. King." They forget the fact that blacks were vulnerable to white mobs because they were not legally allowed to arm themselves---and when they armed and defended themselves, they were lynched and imprisoned.
Gov. Cuomo stood with the Rev. Al Sharpton in Harlem on Saturday to tout the state’s tough new firearms laws — and how they can help neighborhoods plagued by gun violence.
Cuomo, in an address to the National Action Network to mark Martin Luther King Jr. Day, suggested the gun control legislation was another step on the road to the slain civil rights leader’s vision of social justice.
“We passed new gun laws, and we passed new gun laws on Martin Luther King Day,” Cuomo said. “Why? Because, it’s simple enough — innocent people have died.” Read more
Gun control is a doubled edged sword for blacks: on the one hand, thousands of illegal guns in the hands of gangsters and thugs are creating a river of blood in black communities; on the other hand, unarmed blacks are at the mercy of armed thugs.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Obama Names Candidate For ATF Director was Involved In Design Of “Fast And Furious”

Obama Names Candidate For ATF Director Who Was Involved In Design Of “Fast And Furious”

b-todd-jones-ap
As part of President Barack Obama’s 23-point gun control plan, he nominated Minnesota U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones-who currently doubles right now as the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives-to be the ATF Director.
Jones was personally a part of the high-ranking Department of Justice unit that first met on October 26, 2009, to create the new DOJ policy that was used to justify “gunwalking” in Operation Fast and Furious. In Fast and Furious, the ATF “walked” roughly 2,000 firearms into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. That means through straw purchasers the agency 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.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Would this be a Hate crime?

Horror at Bed, Bath & Beyond as shopper is stabbed in chest a DOZEN times by stranger as she pushed her baby son through store in stroller

  • Kerri Dalton walking through store when rushed with no warning by man with a knife
  • Both lungs are punctured but she remains in critical but stable condition
  • Infant unharmed in incident
  • Alleged attacker is Tyrik Haynes, 19, who already faces charges for setting a cat on fire on Christmas Eve
By Joshua Gardner and Daily Mail Reporter
|

A woman was brutally stabbed in the chest more than a dozen times while shopping with her infant child at a Bed, Bath & Beyond store on Thursday evening.
Tyrik Haynes, 19, was charged with attempted murder in the attack in Middletown, New Jersey on Friday and held on $1 million bail. He had previously been charged with torturing a cat.
Haynes allegedly rushed upon Kerri Dalton, 29, with no warning as she pushed her son's stroller through the store.
Attacked: Kerri Dalton was brutally stabbed over a dozen times while shopping with her infant son in a New Jersey Bed, Bath & Beyond
Attacked: Kerri Dalton was brutally stabbed over a dozen times while shopping with her infant son in a New Jersey Bed, Bath & Beyond

Tyrik Haynes was charged with attempted murder, child endangerment, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and unlawful possession of a weapon in his first court appearance on Friday
Tyrik Haynes was charged with attempted murder, child endangerment, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and unlawful possession of a weapon in his first court appearance on Friday
The teenager then allegedly stabbed Dalton repeatedly in the chest, puncturing both her lungs. Incredibly, she still managed to dial 911 for help.

Dalton experienced significant blood loss and was airlifted from the Middletown store to Jersey Shore Medical Center where she was stabilized.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Obama is Begging for Impeachment

There is a growing chorus of resistance to Obama’s “imperial presidency"

By Alan Caruba

According to Wikipedia: “United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law,[1] since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution.”

“However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings.”

I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I am aware of the consequences of past executive orders. The nation now has a rogue government agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, by virtue of an executive order by President Nixon. Later, President Carter reorganized the executive branch and created a separate Department of Education. Currently, executive orders permit the President to seize control of the entire nation in the event of an attack or the declaration of a national emergency.

Now we are told that President Obama is planning to issue up to nineteen executive orders to do an end run around Congress and the Second amendment on the issue of gun control. Whereas Social Security was often referred to as “the third rail” if presidents or Congress attempted to reform it, it would appear that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the new third raid and touching it is likely to enflame both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

Former Attorney General, Edwin Meese, recently went on record to say that the proposed executive orders would be an “impeachable offense.” There is a growing chorus of resistance to Obama’s “imperial presidency”, but whether it is the executive orders or a judgment rendered by a forthcoming Supreme Court conference, it would appear that Obama has over-reached.

The Supreme Court has scheduled a conference—not a hearing—regarding a case that challenges President Obama’s eligibility to be President. Court observers believe this will lead nowhere. If the justices were to favor elevating the case to a hearing that found Obama guilty, he could face impeachment hearings or possibly be summarily removed from office by Congress.

The Constitution says (Article II, Section 4) “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The scheduling of a Supreme Court conference to discuss a lower court case has gone virtually unreported. The case is led by an attorney, Orly Taitz, and is called Noonan,Judd, MacLaren, Taitz v Bowen. Having made it to the highest court in the land, the Taitz asserts it will provide evidence to prove that “Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged a Selective Service application, forged a long form and short form birth certificate, and a Connecticut Social Security number, 042-68-4425, which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS.”

The conference is scheduled for February 15, 2013. Obama will be sworn into office on January 21 and will deliver a State of the Union speech on February 12.

The conference arises out of a Fifth Circuit court of Appeals decision to agree to hear a petition for a Writ of mandamus to expedite a default judgment and post judgment discovery against the Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Michael J. Astrue, resulting from a previously filed case. Commissioner Astrue did not reply to Taitz’s inquiry.

If the Court finds that the evidence of forged Social Security numbers Obama is alleged to have used over the years is valid and irrefutable, it would be scheduled for a hearing, but conferences are often meetings in which cases are returned to a lower court. It has taken four years just to be discussed in conference. Despite the weight of the evidence, it may go no where.

A hearing could generate a Constitutional crisis that could lead to Obama’s impeachment and removal. It would mean that Obama was ineligible to run for office for both terms and would render his previous executive orders and the laws that he signed null and void.

Former President Nixon saw impeachment proceedings initiated in the wake of the Watergate scandal and resigned to avoid that fate. He was later pardoned by Gerald Ford.  President Clinton faced an impeachment in the wake of the Lewinski affair, but Congress gave him a pass on it.

This year could initiate a political tsunami that would engulf the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the presidency.

For many the Supreme Court is seen as a politicized entity. The failure to take up the case regarding Obama’s eligibility would damage the integrity of the Court in the same way the ruling that Obamacare was a “tax” evoked a loss of faith in its judgment—or  it might go unreported and the public remain unaware of it.

A constitutional crisis is looming. Only the Congress has the power to pass laws. If the President ignores Congress and issues executive orders that impose new restrictions on the Second Amendment, the people of the United States will have lost the power of the Constitution to protect them. There are already legislators prepared to initiate impeachment proceedings if he does.

© Alan Caruba, 2013