Why Are Republicans Calling To Disarm The American People?

Why Are Republicans Calling To Disarm The American People?

The above linked article does a good job to demonstrate why “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”.  We have spoken out repeatedly against the NEOCONs because they truly do not represent the Constitution as they claim.

One of the people listed in the linked story is Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, a neocon magazine.  John McManus of the John Birch Society has done a great job in a presentation explaining the NEOCONSERVATIVE AGENDA.  Bill Kristol’s father, Irving Kristol, wrote a book about the Neoconservative Agenda and was a former Trotskyite.  Followers of Leon Trotsky, called Trotskyites, were followers of a form of Marxist theory.  Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and a Bolshevik-Leninist.  Watch the video, and see for yourself.  We can conclude from Kristol’s comments that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Also contained in the above link is the PINHEAD Bill O’Reilly, proving once again he is no friend of liberty.  We have the video below for you to view.  O’Reilly’s analysis is full of factual inaccuracies and will not even allow the congressman time to explain anything.  O’reilly is deliberately misleading his viewers calling for regulation of “heavy weapons” and “machine guns”.  They are ALREADY regulated by the BATF, requiring a background check, 6 month wait, and tax-stamp.  AK-47’s and AR-15’s sold at gun shows are NOT machine guns.  A machine gun is defined as a rifle that has the ability to fire fully automatic, meaning one trigger pull results in the gun firing multiple rounds.  The guns sold are semi-automatic rifles meaning one round is fired with each trigger pull.  These guns have the same size bullets that are used in hunting rifles.  They are NOT “heavy weaponry” as O’reilly would have you believe.

Guns are not the problem, but rather the lack of guns.  No amount of government oversight can prevent a tragedy that is perpetrated by someone who is on a “homicidal mission”.  The theater in Aurora Colorado was posted as a “No Carry” location.  This just proves that gun control and gun-free zones are successful…if you are a nut, bent on going on a massive killing spree.

Maybe the Aurora Colorado shooter could have been stopped by an armed citizen.  Maybe not.  The fact remains that we will never know.  What does remain, however, is that by taking away a person’s ability to defend themselves, you are emboldening the potential assailant.  What might have been the deciding factor in deterring a “would-be shooter” for fear of armed resistance, is longer a threat to them when entering a “gun free zone” or a “no carry” location.  It should give any “would-be shooter” pause, knowing there is the potential that someone may be shooting back.  Yes…There are those “shooters” who have no fear of armed resistance.    For those who are determined to carry out their homicidal intentions, it is why we advocate armed citizens to obtain quality firearms training and carry whenever possible.

In closing, here are a few quotes from our founding fathers about the importance of armed citizens:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. (Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.)

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.  (George Washington)

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

Advertisements

Chuck Baldwin – Update On NDAA And Drones Flying Over The US

In a stunning upset for the Obama administration and big-government zealots in general, a federal judge in New York has issued an injunction against the citizen detention portion of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Bob Unruh at World Net Daily has the story.

“A district-court judge has suspended enforcement of a law that could strip U.S. citizens of their civil rights and allow indefinite detention of individuals President Obama believes to be in support of terror.

“The Obama administration has refused to ensure that the First Amendment rights of authors and writers who express contrary positions or report on terror group activities are protected under his new National Defense Authorization Act.

“Targeted in the stunning ruling from U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of New York was Paragraph 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law last Dec. 31. The vague provision appears to allow for the suspension of civil rights for, and indefinite detention of, those individuals targeted by the president as being in support of terror.

“Virginia already has passed a law that states it will not cooperate with such detentions, and several local jurisdictions have done the same. Arizona, Rhode Island, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington also have reviewed such plans.

“The case was before Forrest on a request for a temporary restraining order. The case was brought on behalf of Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.

“Constitutional expert Herb Titus filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the sponsor of the Virginia law, Delegate Bob Marshall, and others.

“Titus, an attorney with William J. Olson, P.C., told WND that the judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of paragraph 1021 ‘affirms the constitutional position taken by Delegate Marshall is correct.’

“The impact is that ‘the statute does not have sufficient constitutional guidelines to govern the discretion of the president in making a decision whether to hold someone in indefinite military detention,’ Titus said.

“The judge noted that the law doesn’t have a requirement that there be any knowledge that an act is prohibited before a detention, he said. The judge also said the law is vague, and she appeared to be disturbed that the administration lawyers refused to answer her questions.

“The opinion underscores ‘the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to,’ Titus said.”

Unruh went on to say, “The brief was on behalf of Marshall and other individuals and organizations including the United States Justice Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Western Center for Journalism, the Tenth Amendment Center and Pastor Chuck Baldwin [yours truly].”

As an aside, was I the only pastor in America to be included as an amici in this brief? Let me challenge readers, the next time you go to church, ask your pastor what he is doing or what he would do to prevent military personnel from taking you off to a military prison without an arrest warrant, without issuing Miranda, without telling you why you are being seized, without allowing you access to an attorney, without recognizing that you have any constitutional rights, without any requirement to release you, or even without any requirement to keep you in the United States of America for a trial or judicial proceeding. I challenge you: ask him! And if his answer is something like, “The Lord will take care of you,” or “That could never happen in the United States,” what in the name of liberty are you doing attending that church?

See Unruh’s report at:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/obama-citizen-detention-plan-in-trouble/

Now, I wonder how many of these pseudo-conservative talking heads at FOX News, as well as the myriads of local reporters and journalists throughout the country, will at least be honest enough to admit that there was substantial reason to be concerned about the citizen detention provision of the NDAA? Ever since NDAA was signed into law, these phony guardians of liberty have been pooh-poohing the warnings that many of us columnists and independent journalists have been issuing. Now, a federal judge has also recognized the threat posed to our constitutional liberties by this provision of the NDAA, and has issued an injunction against it.

That’s the good news. The bad news is the US House of Representatives defeated an amendment that would have repealed the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA. The Tenth Amendment Center covers the story.

“In a shameful display of disregard for the Constitution and for liberty, on Friday, the House of Representatives voted to perpetuate the president’s power to indefinitely detain American citizens.

“By a vote of 238-182, members of Congress rejected the amendment offered by Representatives Adam Smith (D-Washington) and Justin Amash (R-Michigan) that would have repealed the indefinite detention provision passed overwhelmingly last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.

“The Fiscal Year 2013 NDAA retains the indefinite detention provisions, as well as the section permitting prisoners to be transferred from civilian jurisdiction to the custody of the military.

“‘The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not give them a charge or trial,’ Representative Amash said during House debate.”

The report goes on to say, “Each of these freedom-phobes [the congressmen who voted to keep the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA] invoked the specter of terror (in one way or another: ‘terrorist,’ ‘al-Qaeda,’ ‘enemies’) to justify the abolition of constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.

“Seemingly, those promoting these provisions would offer Americans as sacrifices on the altar of safety, the fires of which are fed by the kindling of the Constitution.”

Hear! Hear!

The report astutely includes this warning from “The Father of The US Constitution,” James Madison: “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”

Oh! Take a guess as to who was the only candidate for President who supported the Smith-Amash amendment to repeal the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA? You got it: Congressman Ron Paul.

See the Tenth Amendment Center report at:

http://tinyurl.com/7eklrp4

This goes to prove that sometimes our enemies are not the courts; sometimes our enemies are the legislatures of this country. This was the case in the aforementioned actions. So, now we have a federal court and the US Congress (allied by the White House) in conflict. It’s going to get very interesting!

And speaking of how the legislatures are often the ones inflicting more and more tyranny upon the US citizenry, try this report on for size:

“The federal government is moving quickly to open the skies over America to drones–both for commercial and government purposes–and respected Washington Post and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer is forecasting ‘rifles aimed at the sky all across America.’

“The comments from Krauthammer, who won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1987 after serving as a speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondale and then beginning his journalism career at The New Republic, were on ‘Special Report’ with Bret Baier.

“‘I would predict, I am not encouraging, but I predict the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that’s been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country,’ Krauthammer said.

“The conversation arose as the federal government announced it is beginning to allow public safety agencies to fly unmanned aircraft–drones–with fewer and fewer restrictions.

“According to yesterday’s report from Bloomberg, police, fire and other government agencies now are being allowed to fly drones weighing as much as 25 pounds without special approvals previously needed.

“The Federal Aviation Administration said on its website that the move was an interim step until the agency finishes rules that will open the door for commercial operation of drones, as well as those uses for government purposes.

“Congress has adopted the position of encouraging more drone flights, with the ‘goal of adapting technology used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan.’”

See the report at:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/feds-clearing-way-for-drones-over-your-house/

There you have it, folks. Your federal government–along with numerous local and State police agencies–is preparing to use instruments of war against the citizens of the United States. And numerous local and State police agencies are standing in line to participate. I ask you, do the US Congress, the FAA, and our local and State authorities plan to arm these drones with more than surveillance cameras (as if that’s not bad enough)? Should we expect that the drones that will be flying over our neighborhoods would be armed with machine guns and missiles? That’s the “technology used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan,” after all.

What is wrong with the American people? What is wrong with our representatives? What is wrong with our State legislators? What is wrong with our local and State police agencies? What is wrong with our pastors and churches? What is wrong with our reporters and journalists? Are they THAT blind? Do they want a paycheck THAT badly? Are they THAT willing to allow this free republic to be thrown into the trash bin of history, only to be replaced with a giant Police State? Are we THAT ignorant of history? Is THAT really where we are?

Ladies and gentlemen, the emerging police state is the foremost issue confronting the people of the United States today! And on this issue, the labels Democrat and Republican mean absolutely nothing! Nothing! If the voters of this country do not awaken quickly to what is going on in front of their very eyes, it won’t matter to a tinker’s dam which party or which candidate is put into office. If we do not have the right to live in privacy and peace, all of the other rights we talk about mean absolutely nothing!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

And please visit my web site for past columns and much more at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

© Chuck Baldwin

An Expose on The NeoConservative Agenda


 

From Pat Buchanan’s Blog: Marco Rubio vs. Rand Paul

Here is some very interesting analysis about entangling alliances by Pat Buchanan…and contains information about two of the neocons running for president.

Marco Rubio vs. Rand Paul

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In August 2008, as the world’s leaders gathered in Beijing for the Olympic games, Georgian President , hot-headed and erratic, made his gamble for greatness.

It began with a stunning artillery barrage on Tskhinvali, capital of tiny South Ossetia, a province that had broken free of Tbilisi when Tbilisi broke free of . As Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers fell under the Georgian guns, terrified Ossetians fled into .

Saakashvili’s blitzkrieg appeared to have triumphed.

Until, that is, Russian armor, on ’s orders, came thundering down the Roki Tunnel into Ossetia, sending Saakashvili’s army reeling. The Georgians were driven out of Ossetia and expelled from a second province that had broken free of Tbilisi: Abkhazia.

The Russians then proceeded to bomb Tbilisi, capture Gori, birthplace of Joseph Stalin, and bomb Georgian airfields rumored to be the forward bases for the Israelis in any pre-emptive strike on .

The humiliation of Saakashvili was total, and brought an enraged and frustrated running to the microphones.

“Today, we’re all Georgians,” bawled McCain.

Well, not exactly.

President Bush called Putin’s response “disproportionate” and “brutal,” but did nothing. Small nations that sucker-punch big powers do not get to dictate when the fisticuffs stop.

What made this of interest to Americans, however, was that Bush had long sought to bring Georgia into . Only the resistance of Old Europe had prevented it.

And had Georgia been a member of when Saakashvili began his , U.S. Marines and Special Forces might have been on the way to the Caucasus to confront Russian troops in a part of the world where there is no vital U.S. interest and never has been any U.S. strategic interest whatsoever.

A U.S with — over Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia — would have been an act of national criminal insanity.

Days later, there came another startling discovery.

McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann had been paid $290,000 by the Saakashvili regime, from January 2007 to March 2008, to get Georgia into , and thus acquire a priceless U.S. guarantee to fight on Georgia’s side in any clash with .

What makes this history relevant today?

Last week, Sen. Marco Rubio, rising star of the Republican right, on everyone’s short list for VP, called for a unanimous vote, without debate, on a resolution directing President Obama to accept Georgia’s plan for membership in at the upcoming summit in Chicago.

Rubio was pushing to have the U.S. Senate pressure Obama into fast-tracking Georgia into , making Tbilisi an ally the United States would be obligated by treaty to go to to defend.

Now it is impossible to believe a senator, not a year in office, dreamed this up himself. Some foreign agent of Scheunemann’s ilk had to have had a role in drafting it.

And for whose benefit is Rubio pushing to have his own countrymen committed to fight for a Georgia that, three years ago, started an unprovoked war with ? Who cooked up this scheme to involve Americans in future wars in the Caucasus that are none of our business?

The answer is unknown. What is known is the name of the senator who blocked it — , son of Ron Paul, who alone stepped in and objected, defeating Rubio’s effort to get a unanimous vote.

The resolution was pulled. But these people will be back. They are indefatigable when it comes to finding ways to commit the blood of U.S. soldiers to their client regimes and ideological bedfellows.

Back in 2008, however, as Bush was confining himself to protesting the excesses of ’s response, his ex-U.N. ambassador was full of righteous rage and ready for military action.

In the London Telegraph, Aug. 15, 2008, John Bolton declared that Russia had conducted an “invasion,” that Georgia had been a “victim of aggression,” that America had “fiddled while Georgia burned,” that we had played the “paper tiger”when faced by the snarling Russian Bear.

As for the European Union, in bringing about a ceasefire, it had achieved results “approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich.”

But did not Georgia launch the attack that started the war?

“This confrontation is not about who violated the Marquis of Queensbury’s rule in South Ossetia,” scoffed Bolton. Russia planned this “rape” because brave little Georgia refused to be “Finlandized.”

Restoring America’s credibility, said Bolton, now requires “drawing a clear line for Russia” in the Caucasus and elsewhere.

And who is John Bolton?

told two groups Wednesday he intends to name Bolton secretary of state.

With Newt appointing as America’s first diplomat an uber-hawk who makes Dick Cheney look like Gandhi, and Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team crawling with neocons primed for war with , a vote for the GOP in 2012 looks more and more like a vote for war.

Like the Bourbons of old, the Republican Party seems to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

 

Why Ron Paul Scares Rick Perry

From The Hill:

Why Ron Paul scares Rick Perry

By Brent Budowsky – 09/12/11 10:20 AM ET

One of the cardinal rules of politics is “never attack down,” meaning a front-runner should never attack or respond to an opponent who is far behind. Yet that is what Rick Perry is doing. He is intimidated by Ron Paul, and responding to Ron Paul. Why? The answer is that Ron Paul is a true libertarian and a true conservative, while the latest version of Rick Perry, the man who once championed Al Gore, is a phony conservative and can’t even pretend to be a phony libertarian.

As I have written repeatedly, Rick Perry is the ultimate pay-for-play government man, the exact opposite of a true conservative and a true libertarian. Ron Paul, whether one agrees with him or not, is the true libertarian and a genuine conservative in ways that Rick Perry can never be. That is why Rick Perry fears Ron Paul.

I completely disagree with the mainstream media and insider pundit consensus that Republicans now have a two-person race. I again predict that Rick Perry will self-destruct.

Mitt Romney has inherent problems that are very deep and explain why he cannot rise above a certain level of support and level of trust from Republicans or Democrats.

I believe a new Republican candidate will emerge well before the Republican convention and will write who I believe it is, and why, in the not-too-distant future.For now it is fascinating to watch Ron Paul get under Rick Perry’s skin, and into Rick Perry’s head.

Rick Perry is afraid of Ron Paul.

Rick Perry should be afraid of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul’s very presence reveals what a polyester impersonation of a conservative Rick Perry actually is.

The beneficiary of this will not be Mitt Romney, whatever other insiders instruct you to believe.

We Don’t Want Tommy Thompson To Be Our Senator

Are you in the crowd who thinks former WI Governor Tommy Thompson should run for U.S. Senate?  Here are a couple videos that might change your mind.  He supports Obamacare or something like it, and he wants you to get “chipped”.  There are many other reasons not to support Tommy, but this is a good start.

To spare you from getting sick, watch at about two minutes into the first video.

Here Tommy is talking about getting a Verichip from several years ago.  For students of bible prophecy, you may recognize this as a precursor to “the mark of the beast” from Revelation 13:16-17.

REASON MAGAZINE: Ron Paul is the Future! (So You’ve Got to Ignore Him)

It is interesting how Ron Paul was ignored in the last presidential cycle and excluded in the debates.  I fell into the trap of ignoring him too because of how he was portrayed by Fox News.  However, that was a BIG MISTAKE.  After reading his books and listening to his philosophy, I can see why the NEOCONS in the Republican Party want him to be ignored.  It is because Ron Paul has been right all along on virtually every issue!  Big government would truly be in danger if he were elected.

It seems that the plan may be to ignore Ron Paul again.  Here is the link from Reason Magazine: Ron Paul is the Future! (So You’ve Got to Ignore Him)