Gun case presents quandary for Supreme Court justices

Robert Barnes
Washington Post
March 1, 2010

As a member of the Junior ROTC, teenager Antonin Scalia toted his rifle on the subway ride back and forth to Queens. As a hunter, he speaks lyrically of stalking wild turkeys. And as a justice, he may have reached the pinnacle of his more than two decades on the Supreme Court when he wrote the majority opinion that said the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm.

But when the justices on Tuesday confront the question of whether the amendment applies to state and local governments — not just the federal government and its enclaves, such as the District of Columbia — the court’s most prominent gun enthusiast faces something of a constitutional quandary.

The most likely path to recognizing gun ownership as a fundamental right is one that has been heavily criticized by Scalia and other conservative scholars, and it seems inconsistent with his belief that the Constitution should be interpreted in terms of its framers’ “original meaning.”

Read entire article

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/gun-case-presents-quandary-for-supreme-court-justices/

Think Government Is Corrupt? You May Face 10 Years In Jail

South Carolina forces “subversives” to register with the authorities or do hard time

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, February 8, 2010

Subversives who think government is corrupt and should be controlled by the people face 10 years in prison and a $25,000 dollar fine if they fail to register with authorities in South Carolina, in another chilling example of how free speech and dissent is being criminalized in America.

The state’s “Subversive Activities Registration Act” is now officially on the books and mandates that “Every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States … shall register with the Secretary of State.”

Of course, the right to overthrow a government that has become corrupt, abusive and completely unrepresentative of its electorate is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence – that’s how America came to be a Republic in the first place – advocating or teaching that the people should “control” the government via their elected representatives is a basic function of a democratic society, but this law effectively makes it a terrorist offense.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness,” states the Declaration of Independence.

Under the sweeping terms of the law, members of tax protest organizations, the Tea Party movement and the States’ Rights movement based in South Carolina are all domestic terrorists if they fail to register their dissent with the authorities.

It is important to stress that the notion this law somehow only applies to “Islamic terrorists” is completely at odds with the fact that federal and state authorities now consider the main terror threat to be from informed American citizens exercising their constitutional rights in opposition to the big government agenda they are being subjected to.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

Think Government Is Corrupt? You May Face 10 Years In Jail 190110banner4

As we saw with the MIAC report and a plethora of similar training manuals which were leaked over the last decade, police are being trained that libertarians, gun owners, Ron Paul supporters and anyone who is mildly political is a domestic extremist and a potential terrorist – these people are the real target of the subversives list in South Carolina.

The infamous Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation manual (page one, page two) produced in association with the Joint Terrorism Task Force listed “defenders of the U.S. constitution” and “lone individuals” as terrorists. Will anyone in South Carolina who defends the Constitution, the very bedrock of what America stands for, have to register with the authorities unless they want to be locked up for a decade?

Of course, since nobody is going to register as a “subversive” with South Carolina authorities, their failure to “comply” with the regulation will later be used against them as a means of eliciting criminal charges, in what represents a clear end run around the First Amendment.

The government isn’t going to just come out all guns blazing and ban free speech, they are simply going to make anyone who refuses to register for permission a criminal for failing to adhere to a separate mandate.

Just like people in places such as New York and Chicago were told that they had to get a license to purchase a gun – at first the process was a mere inconvenience but now the licensing process means they have to jump through 200 flaming hoops and the second amendment has effectively been outlawed in these cities.

They won’t hesitate to pull the same tricks with the First Amendment, and it’s already happening with calls to license Internet users and force them to get government permission to run a website.

Prison Planet.tv Members Can Watch Fall Of The Republic Right Now Online – Don’t Miss Out! Get Your Subscription Today!

Survive

CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are “they” suppressing the cure? Will YOU be the next victim? Learn the Secret Truth! – READ FULL STORY

Americans Who Know Their Rights Are The Real Target Of Napolitano’s “Domestic Terror” Warning

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, February 22, 2010

Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano cited examples of Muslim extremists in her warning Sunday that domestic terrorists were now as much a focus as international terrorism, but actual training manuals being used by state and federal authorities across America reveal that the primary target of the anti-terror apparatus hits a lot closer to home.

“Americans who turn to terrorism and plot against the U.S. are now as big a concern as international terrorists, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Sunday,” reports the Associated Press.

“In the last year, Napolitano said, she’s witnessed a movement from international extremism to domestic extremism – cases in which Americans radicalized and decided to plot attacks against the country.”

However, Napolitano’s comments were clearly crafted to appeal to some on the right who claim that the Obama administration, despite its clear intensification of Bush’s “war on terror” with more raids into Pakistan and new targets in Yemen, has been “soft” on terror, with the DHS Secretary listing examples of Muslim Americans who have allegedly planned terror attacks (but not without aggressive prompting by FBI informants in almost every case).

In reality, as leaked state and federal documents illustrate, the primary focus of the war on terror is aimed at American citizens who exercise or merely show an interest in their own constitutional rights.

As President Obama’s would-be TSA head and former FBi agent Erroll Southers stated last month, white Christian “anti-government” types are now the primary target of suspicion for authorities.

In a video interview posted to You Tube, Southers outlined how the government and the TSA has to “pay attention” not to Muslim terrorists but to “anti-government, anti-abortion, survivalist types” who are “christian identity oriented.”

As we have exhaustively documented for years, even if there were cells of Muslim terrorists planning to bomb airliners, the federal government is far more concerned with what politically active conservative and libertarian Americans are up to.

This was illustrated again earlier this month with a story concerning South Carolina’s “Subversive Activities Registration Act,” a law which mandates that “Every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States … shall register with the Secretary of State.”

Under the sweeping terms of the law, members of tax protest organizations, the Tea Party movement and the States’ Rights movement based in South Carolina are all domestic terrorists if they fail to register their dissent with the authorities. If such groups don’t obtain what amounts to a license from the government to engage in free speech, their members face a $25,000 fine and 10 years in prison.

Leaked state and federal documents produced since the early nineties have routinely labeled politically active Americans, or merely those cognizant of their constitutional rights, as the main domestic extremist threat.

An infamous leaked report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center last year listed Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag and equated them with radical race hate groups and terrorists.

The 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment, produced by the Virginia Fusion Center, smeared anyone who is “anti-government,” “anti-abortion,” as potential terrorists, equated people who enjoy rifle shooting practice and hunting with terrorists, and demonized the use of the Internet and websites like You Tube, Fark and Slashdot as terrorist tools. The use of “e-protests” is also talked about in the context of terrorism.

The document also discusses “special interest groups” who “incorporate a political message” in its section about domestic terrorists, which could be defined as any mildly political organization whatsoever.

These are just two of a plethora of similar police and federal government reports stretching back well over a decade that identify politically active Americans as domestic terrorists and a target of domestic authorities.

The American people are clearly being prepared for more “home grown” false flag terror attacks on soft targets in order to smooth the rollout of stifling airport-style security measures onto the streets. With passengers at bus terminals already being subjected to random pat downs, baggage and sniffer dog searches, shopping malls and other public buildings are next.

The ultimate goal is to have naked body scanners attached to lamp posts that scan your naked body as you innocently walk down the street. The only way to sell this to the public will be for them to witness repeated soft target attacks similar to those seen in Israel over the past decade.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/americans-who-know-their-rights-are-the-real-target-of-napolitanos-domestic-terror-warning/

Your Right to Photograph

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
December 2, 2009

Infowars has posted numerous stories and videos documenting police and security guards harassing photographers and videographers in public spaces. In the United States, it is entirely legal for you to photograph people, buildings, infrastructure, and even criminal activity in public, so long as you do not interfere with the police. You don’t need permission and the cops cannot legally stop you or confiscate your camera, film, or video tape.

Earlier this year, Aaron Dykes was threatened with arrest in downtown Kansas City, Missouri after filming the local branch of the private Federal Reserve building. Security guards working for the Fed approached Infowars reporters at a city park that houses the National WWI memorial and demanded that they provide their names and disclose why they were filming the building.

Dykes and the Infowars crew were legally photographing the Federal Reserve building but this did not stop over-zealous rent-a-thugs from threatening them.

Infowars posted a video of the confrontation, but YouTube removed it claiming it violates their terms of use. Apparently Google (who owns YouTube) does not want people to know Americans are denied their right to photograph in public, especially when they are photographing buildings where criminal activity is planned and carried out.

In February, an independent videographer attempted to photograph the Federal Reserve building in Washington from a public sidewalk and was told he was violating the law by a Fed cop. See the video:

Video Link Here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a15_1234390062

In 2007, WeAreChange founder and activist Luke Rudkowski was threatened with arrest by New York police for refusing to stop filming on a public sidewalk outside the offices of Larry Silverstein. Cops dressed in street clothes accused Rudkowski of having a gun and a bomb in his backpack. “It is a serious federal and state crime to publicly state that someone has a bomb and is a terrorist when not true — like extreme example of yelling fire in a theater — and needs to be prosecuted,” Alex Jones and Aaron Dykes wrote for the Jones Report on April 27, 2007.

In Britain, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, citizens taking photographs can be stopped, have their film or digital media confiscated or deleted, and can even be arrested and charged as terrorists.

The police state is not as advanced in the United States. For now, a photographer has the right to photograph in public, but that may change.

Below is a link to an information sheet that details your rights as a photographer. It is based on the Bust Card and the Know Your Rights pamphlet that used to be available on the ACLU website. According to Bert P. Krages II, who distributed the sheet, you may distribute the guide to others, provided that such distribution is not done for commercial gain and credit is given to the author.

“The right to take photographs in the United States is being challenged more than ever,” writes Krages. “People are being stopped, harassed, and even intimidated into handing over their personal property simply because they were taking photographs of subjects that made other people uncomfortable. Recent examples have included photographing industrial plants, bridges, buildings, trains, and bus stations. For the most part, attempts to restrict photography are based on misguided fears about the supposed dangers that unrestricted photography presents to society.”

Ironically, unrestricted photography by private citizens has played an integral role in protecting the freedom, security, and well-being of all Americans. Photography in the United States has an established history of contributing to improvements in civil rights, curbing abusive child labor practices, and providing important information to crime investigators. Photography has not contributed to a decline in public safety or economic vitality in the United States. When people think back on the acts of domestic terrorism that have occurred over the last twenty years, none have depended on or even involved photography. Restrictions on photography would not have prevented any of these acts. Furthermore, the increase in people carrying small digital and cell phone cameras has resulted in the prevention of crimes and the apprehension of criminals.

As the flyer states, there are not very many legal restrictions on what can be photographed when in public view. Most attempts at restricting photography are done by lower-level security and law enforcement officials acting way beyond their authority. Note that neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have any provisions that restrict photography. Similarly, some businesses have a history of abusing the rights of photographers under the guise of protecting their trade secrets. These claims are almost always meritless because entities are required to keep trade secrets from public view if they want to protect them.

photographers right

The Photographer’s Right. Click image to download as PDF.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/your-right-to-photograph/

Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve Will Defeat the New World Order!

Dprogram
August 31, 2009

THE LAW IS QUITE CLEAR, THE FEDS ARE IN BREACH OF THEIR AGENCY CONTRACT

[Article 9 of the Bill of Rights]

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

[Article 10 of the Bill of Rights]

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I don’t believe that it gets much more concise than that.

For years now the point that I’ve attempted to drive home on this as well as other forums, is that we need to get a ground-swell of people POUNDING the Constitutional facts INTO Congress. An overwhelming call, from the people with special emphasis on the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights, which trumps all extra-constitutional Federal power… They are in breach of their Article 4 Section 4 “MANDATE” in the Constitution, that the federal government control the border, during times of INVASION! This popular ground-swell would force the feds to stop the “bankrupting of the states.” The cost of this war on terror, and the influx of illegal aliens, and the threat of a North American Union… are all De-Facto UNCONSTITUTIONAL “UNFUNDED” FEDERAL MANDATES!!!
[Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution]

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

We all know the logistics of border enforcement and even deportation is well within our means. The problem is getting the politicians off of their dead posteriors! The real enemy are not those poor Latinos and Mexicans… at least not completely… though a few well timed altercations could turn this into a horrible mess which is exactly what the big boys are hoping will happen! Then they could dispense with the Constitution all together and we would really be in the soup! NO, the REAL enemy is in Washington, Ottawa, Mexico City, and the Globalist UNITED NATIONS in New York… fueled by the lust for power of their masters in London and the Banking capitols of Europe…

We must stay COOL and use the tools that the Founders Fathers gave us with resolve… we must remain vigilant… Remember, The WAR on TERROR, the Illegal Alien Problem, the SPP/NAU, and so on, are ALL DE-FACTO UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES THAT ARE BEING FOISTED UPON THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES! Y’all got that, right?

We… have resolutions in 1/3 of the states through the adoption of a 10th Amendment re-affirming Resolution that demands the accountability of the feds by Constitutional chapter and verse for any federal mandate! In the cases spelled out above, the feds cannot show anything but that they are in unconstitutional BREACH of CONTRACT!

The power against this rests in the states, and with We the People… a majority of states put the feds on notice between 1994-1996 with…
“The 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution!” It stated, if mandates didn’t pass Constitutional Muster, chapter and verse, which included adequate funding… there would be FIRINGS in Washington… The resolution states, with all certainty, that WE THE PEOPLE of THE UNITED STATES understand what the Constitution and specifically 10th Amendment means, and exactly what it says!

Read entire article

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/our-10th-amendment-sovereignty-resolve-will-defeat-the-new-world-order/

Corporate Media Demonizes Defenders of the Constitution

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
August 18, 2009

The corporate media is freaking out over Americans exercising their right under the Second Amendment and open carry laws in Arizona and New Hampshire. It just drives them nuts citizens would show up at Obama events with legal weapons.

As Chris Matthews insinuated in his confrontational interview with William Kostric after the New Hampshire patriot showed up with a sidearm at an Obama event, these people want to assassinate the president. “Why did you bring a god damn gun at a Presidential event. I think those things make people wonder what you’re about,” asked an irate Matthews.

The corporate media went into overdrive in an attempt to portray Kostric as a right-wing extremist and a potential threat to the president. Joan Walsh, writing for Salon, attempted to connect Kostric to the birther movement and noted his connection to the “far-right group” We the People, while The New York times portrayed Kostric as “your average hard-core Ron Paul voter — male, smug and obsessed with the money supply.”

It drives the corporate media limo libs crazy when they see rustics with guns. Five alarm fire bells go off when they see the words of Thomas Jefferson on placards held by armed citizens.

Last night MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow had a former Secret Service agent on her show. People exercising their rights under the Constitution and state laws are “creating an atmosphere that could be dangerous to the president,” said Joseph Petro. “I would argue that the vitriolic political rhetoric we’re hearing from seemingly responsible people is stimulating a lot of these foolish stunts,” he said.

On August 17, the Associated Press added to the supposed outrage. “About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday.”

Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, told the AP the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend. “When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance,” Solop said. “It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication.”

It becomes “quite scary for many people” because a majority of Americans no longer understand the Constitution or its core principles. The Second Amendment was not designed to create “a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication,” but rather ensure it from a tyrannical government.

Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Obama’s propaganda events should be Constitution free zones. “To me, this is craziness,” he declared. “When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you’re just making the situation dangerous for everyone.”

In other words, Americans exercising their constitutional rights are a danger to the president and society as a whole.

The corporate media, at the behest of our rulers, is desperate to characterize law-abiding Americans — Arizona, after all, has an open carry law allowing citizens to legally carry their weapons in public — as rightwing extremist lunatics who are a threat to the New World Order’s latest front man.

“Welcome to the disturbing new face of the radical right in America,” Paul Harris wrote for the Guardian last week. “Across the country, extremism is surging, inflamed by conservative talkshow hosts, encouraged by Republican leaders and propagating a series of wild conspiracy theories. Many fear it might end in tragedy…. Many experts believe that spark is no longer missing. Critics say that Republican politicians have let loose a wave of anger tied to the healthcare debate.”

The “experts” are from the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that is “now become a threat to the freedoms and security of American citizens due to their repeated attacks on all First Amendment rights and their utter debasement of the political process,” writes William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration. “While in the past the SPLC has targeted “hate groups” or groups deemed racist and potentially violent, such as the KKK and Neo Nazi groups, the SPLC has recently used their reputation for righting these groups to go after moderate and mainstream Americans, journalists, and show hosts and anchors in an attempt to suppress free speech.”

The American people are waking up to the coercive and tyrannical power of government, Republican politicians notwithstanding. In order to portray millions of Americans as rightwing nut cases, the corporate media — taking its cues from the Department of Homeland Security and the SPLC — has kicked into overdrive to demonize patriotic Americans.

In the days ahead, we can expect more of this anti-Constitution extremist rhetoric from the lapdog corporate media.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/corporate-media-demonizes-defenders-of-the-constitution/

Shreveport Citizens Disarmed By Police For 2nd Amendment Bumper Stickers

Argue With Everyone
July 7, 2009

Welcome to Shreveport: Your rights are now suspended.According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops “have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have”: His cops can take away your rights.

featured stories   Shreveport Citizens Disarmed By Police For 2nd Amendment Bumper Stickers
Glover featured stories   Shreveport Citizens Disarmed By Police For 2nd Amendment Bumper Stickers
Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, claims to have the authority to suspend the Constitution.

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck — and had his gun confiscated.

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of the NRA. No requests for a driver’s licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration — and no discussion of a turn signal.

Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.

However, not only does Louisiana law allow resident to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license!

What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling — going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on “Americans of a rightwing persuasion” as a how-to guidebook, no less?

Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.

In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck.

Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this “suspension of rights” only to find that his city’s morbidly obese “commander in chief” was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got “served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten.”

Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. I’ve reproduced a chunk of the call below:

Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.

Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer — it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public.

[. . .]

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods

Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon…then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions.

Baillio: So what you’re saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I’m stopped by the police: Is that correct?

Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! – DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio’s weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. — DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.

——————————————————————————————-

Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:

According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian’s duty is to surrender his gun — willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question.

From Glover’s perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state’s uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.

NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he’s in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.

So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.

“I felt sick,” Baillio told NAGR. “My uncles didn’t die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation — including dying — and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop.”

What to do?

1. Read Luke’s commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment.
2. Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked.
3. Call Mayor Glover’s office to complain: (318) 673-5050.

I’ll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I’m often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop.

While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic “No”: Colorado law doesn’t require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.

In liberty,
signature
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
——————————————————————————————–

I concur, do not offer any information that is not pertenent to the traffic stop. What say you? What does your local/state laws say?

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/shreveport-citizens-disarmed-by-police-for-2nd-amendment-bumper-stickers/

Bill Gives Attorney General Power To Designate Gun Owners, Tax Protesters As Terrorists

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, July 6, 2009

Bill Gives Attorney General Power To Designate Gun Owners, Tax Protesters As Terrorists 060709top3

Amendments to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which has already been passed by the House, would empower the Attorney General Eric Holder to define gun owners, anti-abortion activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists in light of recent federal reports that classify millions of Americans as “extremists”.

Former impeached Florida judge and now Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings has introduced amendments to H.R. 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which would give Holder dictator powers to demonize legitimate protest groups as being affiliated with violent race hate organizations.

The bill is ostensibly aimed at preventing race “extremists” and gang members from joining the Army, but since the Army already hires felons, criminals, racists and gang members, the real purpose behind the legislation is to codify the move to label gun owners, “anti-government” activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists, a process that has been ongoing since at least the start of the decade.

The bill’s definition of “people associated or affiliated with hate groups” include, “Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government,” or “Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.”

The evidence required to show that such an organization is affiliated with a violent hate group includes people possessing tattoos identifying them with the group, individuals who attend conferences or rallies sponsored by a “hate group,” people who engage in online discussion forums of an “extremist” nature, people who possess documents, books or photographs or simply “related materials as defined by the Attorney General” that represent “hate propaganda.”

The amendments introduced by Hastings were passed by the House and the bill now moves on to the Senate for approval before it is signed by the President.

Since the definition of an “extremist” has already been established by numerous federal documents over the last few years that list law-abiding citizens as domestic terrorists, Hastings’ amendments are simply an attempt to centralize the power to demonize such groups into the hands of the Obama administration.

“This is arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation to come down the pike in a long, long time. In essence Attorney General Eric Holder — a Bill Clinton retread — will have the discretion to label Americans terrorists. Hastings is a dangerous man and should be forced to resign from congress. This amendment is part and parcel of the trend in this country to suppress dissent by patriots by calling them domestic terrorists,” warns writer Mike Baker.

Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) expressed his concern about the amendment on the house floor, noting that under Homeland Security’s very definition of what constitutes an “extremist”, the majority of Americans will be characterized as hate criminals.

“While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as “extremists,” warned Franks.

“I take extreme offense that the federal government — through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official — would dare to categorize people who are “dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration” as “right-wing extremists” and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings’ Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged,” said Rep. Franks.

As we reported in April, a recent Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment equates gun owners with violent terrorists and states that radical extremists are “stockpiling” weapons in fear of an Obama administration gun ban.

The document, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, states;

“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

A similar report was also issued by the DHS at the end of March which listed the “alternative media” with other radical extremist groups and implies that people who disagree with the mass media’s version of events are potential domestic terrorists.

Both documents were just the latest in a long sordid line of training manuals in which the federal government characterizes millions of American citizens as potentially violent terrorists who are a threat to law enforcement, and designates them under the umbrella term of “extremists,” in the same context cited in Hastings’ amendments.

As we have exhaustively documented with the MIAC report and a whole host of others, the federal government apparently has very little concern for any perceived terrorist threat to America coming from the MIddle East or Al-Qaeda cells within the country, and indeed if any such threat existed we are only in more danger, because the feds have been busy training law enforcement that law-abiding American citizens who exercise their legal right to purchase firearms or who exercise their first amendment right to discuss politics or run websites, are potential terrorists who want to instigate a violent revolution.

In addition, current Department of Defense anti-terrorism training course material states that the exercise of First Amendment rights in the U.S. constitutes terrorist activity.

Over the last few years we have documented countless examples of security assessment reports from the likes of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as police training manuals, which state that anti-war protesters, gun owners, veterans, Ron Paul supporters and those who merely cite the Constitution should be equated with extremists and domestic terrorists.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods

The fact that the government is now treating people who merely criticize its conduct as domestic terrorists is the clearest signal possible that the United States has entered a period in history similar to Germany in the early 1930’s and that it can only be a matter of time before the right “emergency” provides the justification for dissidents to be targeted for round-ups and mass imprisonment.

No one can claim now that this is merely a paranoid delusion – the government itself is training its law enforcement and military arms that protesters and people who use their First Amendment rights are domestic terrorists.

The facilities for round-ups of “extremists” who dare to exercise their First or Second Amendment rights are already being prepared, again with the help of Hastings, who sponsored (HR 645) – the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act.

The bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network of FEMA camp facilities to be used to house U.S. citizens in the event of a national emergency.

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

The bill mandates that six separate facilities be established in different Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions (FEMA) throughout the country.

The camps will double up as “command and control” centers that will also house a “24/7 operations watch center” as well as training facilities for Federal, State, and local first responders.

The bill also contains language that will authorize camps to be established within closed or already operating military bases around the country.

As we have previously highlighted, in early 2006 Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps would also be used “as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency.”

As far back as 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.

A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, was more recently updated and the revision details a “template for developing agreements” between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.”

Alex Jones has attended numerous military urban warfare training drills across the US where role players were used to simulate arresting American citizens and taking them to internment camps.

Hastings’ efforts to have millions of law-abiding American citizens lumped in with racist gangs and designated as “extremists” arrives on the back of Federal hate crimes legislation, which in reality would criminalize “thought crimes,” that has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act).

S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:

“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)”

In other words, if a talk show host engages in “hostile” speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been “harmful” to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.

If both bills are not opposed and thrown out then the First Amendment will become nothing more than a relic of a bygone age.

All of these coordinated moves to demonize informed, armed and pissed off Americans as extremists, terrorists and hate criminals represents the federal government’s final push to brainwash the population into accepting the notion that some Americans are dangerous, that they are enemies of the state, and that they can be targeted in the same way that victims of the “war on terror” are now being targeted across the world – through misappropriation of guilt, torture and indefinite imprisonment.

RELATED: ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CLASSIFY PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN AMERICANS AS TERRORISTS

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/bill-gives-attorney-general-power-to-designate-gun-owners-tax-protesters-as-terrorists/

Video: Emergency Alert – Stop the NEW Real ID – S.1261 – The PASS Act

Dprogram
July 3, 2009

This ALERT is regarding the MORPHING of REAL ID in to the PASS ACT. The REAL ID as you may or may not know was the failed law that snuck through congress in May of 2005 that would require all Americans to Carry a standardized FEDERAL ID card with an embedded trackable chip.

NOW I need you to contact your senate committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs IMMEDIATELY to STOP THE PASS ACT – S.1261

Special interests groups are trying to force Democrats, Independents and Republicans to support this legislation. States have been and are working to ensure drivers licenses are secure documents and have document integrity. The federal government, in spite of the states, wants to set international standards that are not needed. The federal government wants control of your state drivers license. The federal government is bribing states to go along with its plans.

We spoke with Mark Lerner about the emerging PASS Act a few weeks ago.

Our freedom and our rights are not for sale!

Some governors want to take the bribe money.

The senate committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will be considering the legislation very soon.

The PASS Act does not repeal the Real ID Act. It does repeal provisions of the Real ID Act; those provisions that are included in Title II of the Real ID Act 2005. The Real ID Act is still intact and is federal law.

The PASS Act contains many of the most egregious aspects of the Real ID Act; including the requirement for a digital facial image/photograph that will be mandated to be internationally facial recognition compatible.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods

There is not a federal law that prohibits the simultaneous use of CCTV/surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology in real time.

The PASS Act will do nothing to provide a higher level of National security. Under the provisions of the PASS Act the documents used to obtain a drivers license are not authenticated. These documents are called breeder documents.

Although requirements for new databases and the linking of databases are not part of the PASS Act the fact remains through aamva.net and NLETS states can still have information contained in their state Department of Motor Vehicles made available to both federal and international law enforcement agencies without a court order.

Two international agencies (AAMVA and the ICAO, an agency of the United Nations) were involved in U.S. policy and law – the Real ID Act 2005 and the newly proposed PASS Act. DHS has called AAMVA the hub and backbone of the Real ID Act. On AAMVAs own web-site it proclaims it is an international organization that serves law enforcement and motor vehicle administrators.

Both the Real ID Act and the PASS Act result in Americans being enrolled into a single global biometric identification system that links a persons body to their ability to buy and sell.
WE ARE ASKING EVERY AMERICAN TO CALL EACH OF THE SENATORS in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee AND SAY:

We are opposed to the Real ID Act and the PASS Act
We are opposed to being enrolled into a biometric identification system
We do not want our social security numbers in state DMV databases
We do not want RFID chips in our drivers licenses
We are opposed to the federal government intervening in the issuance of state drivers licenses

TAKE ACTION RIGHT NOW AND CONTACT call these numbers:

Senator Lieberman (20… Chairman

Senator Collins (202) 224-2523

Senator Akaka (202) 224-6361

Senator Bennet (202) 224-5852

Senator Burris (202) 224-2854

Senator Carper (202) 224-2441

Senator Coburn (202) 224-5754

Senator Ensign (202) 224-6244

Senator Graham (202) 224-5972

Senator Landrieu (202) 224-5824

Senator Levin (202) 224-6221

Senator McCain (202) 224-2235

Senator McCaskill (202) 224-6154

Senator Pryor (202) 224-2353

Senator Tester (202) 224-2644

Senator Voinovich (202) 224-3353

The First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments are under attack. The Second Amendment will follow. This is not a partisan issue. All Americans must take action now. 16 calls per American, 16 minutes (one minute per call) for a Lifetime of Freedom.

This Alert has been provided by the STOP REAL ID COALITON and Restore the Republic.

Please forward this ALERT to all you know, embed it on your favorite blogs and forums, and take action now to preserve freedom in America!

I am Gary Franchi, and remember I am not here to make you a follower I am here to make you a leader among the people. Goodnight, and God bless America.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/video-emergency-alert-%e2%80%93-stop-the-new-real-id-%e2%80%93-s1261-%e2%80%93-the-pass-act/

Up ↑