Although I am no fan of Bill Maher I am posting this video as evidence that some on the Left are beginning to question this President and the Tyrannical policies being imposed on the American People.
Posted in Bill Maher, Boston, NRA, Police State, Politics, President Obama, Second Amendment
Tagged Ayn Rand, Barack Obama, Bill Maher, Paul Ryan, police-state, Politics
Here are the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Posted in Assult Weapons, ATF, Beer, Bill of Rights, Dept. of Homeland Security, Elected Officals, EPA, FCC, Federal government of the United States, First Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Registry, Health Care Law, History, NDAA, NRA, Oath Keepers, Paul Ryan, Police State, Politics, Preppers, Republic, REX84, RHINOS, Second Amendment, Second Amendment Rights, SHTF, State Constitutions, Tea Party, TSA, Tyranny, United States Constitution, United States Declaration of Independence, US Congress, Wayne LaPierre
Tagged First Amendment, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Free Exercise Clause, Freedom of speech, Government, NRA, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, United States, United States Constitution
Hat tip to Fox News for this report
New York and California have for generations of Americans been considered destination spots to express personal freedoms — one with a city big enough for anybody with a dream to perhaps become a star and the other a state synonymous with the so-called laid-back lifestyle.
But such attitudes have drastically changed, according to a new study that finds the two states last in individual freedom.
The “Freedom in the 50 States” study published last week by the libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center ranks New York last and California second to last.
The survey is based on fiscal issues such as job prospects and tax rates, regulatory policies that include property rights and personal freedoms such as gun laws.
“When it comes to overall freedom, New York ranks dead last,” the study’s authors said.
They point out that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has taken away – or at least tried to take away – several personal freedoms, including his failed effort to outlaw the sale of sodas 16 ounces and larger.
“Though the law ran into a judicial buzz saw on the eve of its enactment earlier this month, it demonstrates the attitude city and state legislators have toward their constituents,” the authors noted.
Bloomberg has already imposed a stiff tax on cigarette sales and is a leading advocate for tougher gun laws.
In addition, New Yorkers pay a state income tax of 14 percent.
“Even New Yorkers who don’t care about sweet drinks have to deal with the highest state and local tax burden in the country,” the authors wrote.
The result is New Yorkers are voting with their feet, with roughly 1.7 million leaving between 2000 and 2010, though newborns and new immigrants are keeping the state’s population steady, according to the study.
“We’re not living in a police state,” White Plains attorney John Murtagh told CBS New York. “But the economics of New York clearly don’t work. And then you see things like Mike Bloomberg and his Big Gulp sodas.”
The top five states with the most freedom are North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, New Hampshire and Oklahoma, according to the study from the center, at George Mason University in Virginia.
North Dakota came in first in large part based of its “very low taxes” and government debt, the authors said. “However, its spending is uncharacteristically high.”
The three other lowest ranking states are Rhode Island, Hawaii and New Jersey, in descending order.
The study authors said California’s biggest problem is business regulation, though a recent attempt to impose a higher tax rate on the state’s highest earners has become a major complaint among residents.
“The Golden State, with hundreds of miles of picturesque Pacific coastline, nonetheless managed to drive off a net of 1.5 million residents between 2000 and 2010 — over 4 percent of its 2000 population,” the authors wrote.
They also pointed out Californians‘ personal income contracted by 0.4 percent a year in the seven years before the Great Recession struck, a record worse than any other state besides Michigan.
Posted in Big Government, Big Gulp, California, California Democratic Party, Communists, Democratic Party (United States), Economy, Fox News, Freedom, Gas Prices, Mayor Bloomberg, Police State, Politics, Progressives, Socialism, State Constitutions, Taxes, Tyranny
Tagged California, Communists, Democrats, George Mason University, Liberals, Mercatus Center, Michael Bloomberg, New Hampshire, New York, New York City, North Dakota, Progressives, Socialists
Department of Homeland Security: 1.2 billion .40-caliber JHP
National Weather Service: 46,000 .40-caliber JHP
Social Security Administration: 174,000 .357 JHP
Remember jacketed hollow points (JHP) are a type of bullet that is intended to inflict the most damage to flesh of any bullet type.
International Law – The full metal jacket round which is all the military shoots, and is also sold as surplus, is not designed to kill. The Hague and Geneva Conventions prohibit shooting humans with hollow point or expanding ammunition because that type was designed to cause as much trauma as possible.
In addition, the DHS is buying massive amounts of AR-15’s. The DHS description of the weapon in the purchase order is, “Personal Defense Weapon”. It is interesting that they do not refer to the AR class weapon as an “Assault Weapon” in their purchase.
Why would the Department of Homeland Security need these types of Vehicles on American streets?
I think the handwriting is on the wall for all to see should they choose to do so. Declaring a State of Emergency or Martial Law is all but a stroke of the pen away with this President and don’t think he would not love to do it. He stated himself that
“If he could be a Dictator”
he could do what he needs to do. Would that be the…
“Fundamental Transformation of America”?
One only has to add 1+1=2. The Government is arming themselves to the teeth with assault rifles, ammo, and armored personal carriers all the while trying to Disarm the Population.
It just can’t get anymore clear then that folks!
Posted in 2nd Amendment, Assult Weapons, Bill of Rights, David Axelrod, Department of Justice, Dept. of Homeland Security, DHS, Dictator, DOJ, Economic Collapse, Eric Holder, Executive Order, FBI, FCC, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Fema Camps, Foreward 2012, Fundamental Transformation of America, Gun Control, Gun Registry, Indefinite Detention, IRS, Martial Law, MSNBC, National Security Guards, NDAA, NRA, Oath Keepers, Obama Administration, Police State, Presidential Appointments, Rachel Maddow, Redistribution of Wealth, REX84, RHINOS, Riots, Senate Bill 1867, SHTF, Social Security, Tea Party, TSA, Tyranny, U.S. Military, UNITED NATIONS, United States Constitution, Veterans, Wayne LaPierre
Tagged DHS, Geneva Conventions, Hollow-point bullet, Home Land Security Department, Martial Law, Personal defense weapon, Social Security Administration, U.S. Military, United States Department of Homeland Security
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In modern usage, the term “dictator” is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly[citation needed]. Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality.[citation needed]
On March 30, 2011, Senator Charles Schumer (D–NY) with 15 cosponsors, including the Senate Majority and Republican Leaders, as well as six other Democratic Senators, six other Republican Senators, and an Independent Senator,[1] introduced in the Senate the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 (S. 679). The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The bill reduces the number of presidential appointments that require the consent of the Senate and establishes within the executive branch a Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations. Individuals nominated to senior executive offices suffer slow and detailed background investigations and mounds of duplicative paperwork before a President sends their nominations to the Senate. After nomination, many nominees suffer time-consuming inaction or time-consuming and excruciating action as the Senate proceeds (or does not) with consideration of the nomination. The sponsors of S. 679 have identified a valid problem, but proposed the wrong solution. Congress should not enact S. 679.
When the delegates of the states gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and wrote the Constitution, they distributed the powers of the federal government among two Houses of Congress, a President, and a judiciary, and required in many cases that two of them work together to exercise a particular constitutional power. That separation of powers protects the liberties of the American people by preventing any one officer of the government from aggregating too much power.
The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate’s consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.
Read the rest of the Article at…..:The Heritage Foundation
Posted in 2nd Amendment, Assult Weapons, Communists, Dictator, Foreward 2012, Manchurian Candidate, Martial Law, Marxism, NDAA, NRA, Oath Keepers, Police State, Politics, President Obama, REX84, Senate, Senate Bill 1867, United States Congress, United States Constitution, Washington DC
Tagged Chuck Hagel, Congress, Executive (government), Heritage Foundation, Obama, President of the United States, Senate, United States, Wikipedia
Hat tip to Fox News for this report
Even the most open, democratic governments have sought laws and new forms of surveillance that many see as a new wave of censorship — and that includes the United States.
The U.S. government asked Google for data on its users more than 31,000 times in 2012 alone, for example. And the government rarely obtained a search warrant first, Google recently revealed; in nearly all cases, the company ended up turning over at least some data.
Some argue that heightened surveillance, restrictions on Internet freedom and even censorship are necessary to protect intellectual property rights, prevent cyber-espionage, fight child pornography, and protect national interests such as nuclear power plants from hackers. And here the U.S. is far from alone.
“A number of democratic states have considered or implemented various restrictions in response to the potential legal, economic, and security challenges raised by new media,” notes the Freedom House report “Freedom on the Net 2012.”
Anxiety over online theft and cyber-attacks is not unwarranted. Virtually every major U.S. company and media outlet has been a victim. Google was attacked back in 2009. Facebook, Apple and Microsoft revealed this month that hackers had breached their defenses. And The New York Times and Wall Street Journal have fought off Chinese hackers for months. Indeed, dozens of countries have their own online hacking groups — so-called cyber or asymmetrical warfare divisions.
“It’s been going on in China since at least at least May 2002,” said Alan Paller, founder of the SANS Institute, an information security and training firm.
Consequently, lawmakers — even President Obama in his State of the Union speech — have been motivated to take steps to stem the hacking tide. However, the road to better security could also stifle free speech.
When the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) met in Dubai in December, some 89 member countries including Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran, supported a treaty that would give individual governments more control over the Internet’s infrastructure.
Sensing a thinly veiled attempt to suppress dissent, 55 countries — including Canada and the U.S. — said no.
While the agreement has failed (for the time being), individual governments — including Canada and the U.S. — continue to introduce their own legislation to control what’s online.
North of the border, for example, the Canadian government proposed Bill C-30, known as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. Proponents claimed the measure was designed to combat the exploitation of children, but it required Internet service providers to create monitoring systems that would allow the police to intercept and track all online communications — without a warrant. The public reaction was so fiercely opposed to Bill C-30 that Canadian authorities were forced to withdraw it this month.
Watchdog Agencies
Far from leading to the spread of democracy and freedom online, the events of the 2011 Arab spring led many authoritarian countries to clamp down more tightly, fearful of rebellious citizens inciting and organizing online.
Here’s the latest from three groups monitoring Internet freedom:
Reporters Without Borders
A 2012 list of countries that are “Enemies of the Internet” notes that more than ever before, online freedom of expression is now a major foreign and domestic policy issue.
Freedom House
According to Freedom on the Net 2012, a survey by the independent watchdog group, of the 47 countries covered “20 have experienced a negative trajectory since January 2011.
Google
The Web giant has been using its reach to monitor Internet openness. The Transparency Report visualizes disruptions in the free flow of information, whether it’s a government blocking information or a cable being cut.
On this side of the border, the U.S. government continues to conduct warrant-less online searches. Thanks to outdated laws such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and other regulations protecting copyrighted materials, U.S. authorities are increasingly looking at private online communications, often without any oversight by a judge.
Google says it has seen a 70 percent increase in requests from authorities for information about its users, information which includes private e-mails and search data. The biggest requester? The U.S. government, which sought information 8,438 times in the last six months of 2012. Google complied with those requests in roughly 88 percent of the cases.
While Google states it is against such broad government access to personal information — dealing with such requests costs Google time and money — where it stands on strict Internet freedoms is mutable.
Shortly before his State of the Union speech, President Obama signed an executive order designed to let federal government agencies share critical cyber-threat information with private companies to protect companies involved in supporting the nation’s critical infrastructure.
“We know hackers steal people’s identities and infiltrate private e-mail,” the President said in his speech. “We cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing in the face of real threats to our security and our economy.”
Even though the data shared by the government could include personal information, in this case companies have been in favor of the executive order. The reason: private firms don’t have to in turn share data their data about their users with the government.
However, that may be about to change. As the President implied, Congress is working on reintroducing the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). It would enable companies to divulge private information to government authorities if the companies perceived some form of “cyber threats.” Any personal information — Facebook jokes, Twitter tussles, errant Web searches — could be handed over to a variety of government agencies if that information has anything to do with the potential vulnerability of a computer network.
“CISPA offers broad immunities to companies who choose to share data with government agencies,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Mark M. Jaycox explained in a blog post. “It also creates avenues for companies to share data with any federal agencies, including military intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency.”
While congress has yet to hammer out new, possibly more precise, language for a reintroduced CISPA bill, the powers it grants to both private companies and government authorities could end up making them partners in nationwide surveillance — the same complaint often levied against countries like China.
Posted in 1984, Barack Obama, Big Brother, Big Government, Browser Based, Censorship, Conservative Bloggers, Democrats, FBI, FCC, Fox News, Homeland Security, Hunger Games, Internet, Martial Law, Marxists, NDAA, NRA, Obama Administration, ONE WORLD ORDER, Police State, REX84, Tyranny, UNITED NATIONS, United States, United States Constitution, Washington DC
Tagged Barack Obama, Canada, Democrats, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Freedom House, Google, International Telecommunication Union, Internet censorship, New York Times, Progressives, United States, White House
Hat tip to The Blaze for this report
National Rifle Association executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre continued speaking out against President Obama’s recent gun control proposals Saturday night, zeroing in on “the real consequences of background checks,” according to the NRA.
The organization has been targeted by many on the left in the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary last December. While the NRA argues that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens creates a safer community, many in the administration and on the left disagree, saying it leads to more gun violence and accidental deaths.
Most recently, the NRA has been publicizing a memo it by from the Justice Department that says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration,” and says gun buybacks would not be effective “unless massive and coupled with a ban.”
LaPierre began his speech with a reminder on why he believes it’s so important to counter strict gun control measures:
“The Second Amendment — it’s not just words on parchment. It’s not a frivolous suggestion from our Founding Fathers to be interpreted on a whim. It lies on the very heart of what our country was founded upon. Our Founding Fathers knew that without the Second Amendment, all of our other freedoms could be in jeopardy. [And] our freedoms are the very essence of America. They are what make America unique.”
Now, he said, we’re witnessing the single-most devastating attack on that right that “our country has ever seen.”
He discussed NRA proposals to make schools safer, noting that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) admitted that she had gun control legislation in her desk for a year and was waiting for the “right time” to introduce it. In his opinion, many gun control opponents more about politics than they are proven solutions.
“Waiting for an unspeakable act to occur so the American people could be persuaded to buy her political agenda?” LaPierre commented with disgust. “It’s not about making our kids or our streets safer, it’s all about their decades-old agenda.”
He soon got to the heart of his speech: universal background checks, and what he claims they’re really all about:
“Don’t you be fooled. There is nothing “universal,” nor “reasonable” about it. They ought to stop pretending and stop calling it what it will never be. Criminals will never be a part of it, and I have come to believe that the adjudicated mentally incompetent [won't either]…This so-called universal background check that you’re hearing about is aimed at one thing: it’s aimed at registering your guns and, when another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns.”
“Imagine right now, your name on a massive government list,” he asked the audience, noting that it would be pretty “handy” for a drug dealer, thug, or criminal. “How safe do you think that government list will be?” he continued, noting the flood of personal information released this year by various media outlets on gun owners.
LaPierre proceeded to highlight other gun control proposals state by state, concluding with a word on how the Mexican government has asked the U.S. Senate for a registry of all gun owners in the United States.
“What is the point of that?” he asked.
“They have all the security they want,” LaPierre said, referring to politicians. “Our only means of security is the Second Amendment when the glass breaks in the middle of the night, and we have a right to defend ourselves…They don’t have the right to take that right away.”
“Was this what our Founding Fathers intended?” he asked. What Washington needs to do is recognize that Americans really have shared goals: they want their communities to be safer, and they will do anything to protect their kids.
Start focusing on that, he said, and “stop trying to convince the American people that all law-abiding gun owners are criminals in waiting.”
He concluded with an inspiring statement on how many gun control proposals have failed, and NRA members and Americans need to continue standing up and making their voices heard. He told the crowd to call their congressmen and senators this week, then sit down and write a hand-written letter, and follow up with an email.
“We will not be duped. We will not be demonized. And we will not be divided,” he said.
“As lawful gun-owners, we deserve nothing less than absolute respect as people that believe in our individual rights, believe in individual responsibility, believe in protecting our families, and believe in defending our country.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Posted in 2nd Amendment, Glenn Beck, Gun Control, Gun Control Activists, Gun Registry, Gun Sales, Joe Biden, NRA, Oath Keepers, Obama, Police State, Politics, Preppers, The Blaze, Universal Background Checks, Wayne LaPierre
Tagged Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Gun Control, History, LaPierre, National Rifle Association, NRA, United States, Wayne LaPierre
Posted in 2nd Amendment, Assult Weapons, Bill of Rights, Founding Fathers, Freedom, Freedom of religion, Freedom of Speech, God, Government, Gun Control, Gun Control Activists, Gun Sales, Martial Law, NDAA, NRA, Oath Keepers, Obama, Police State, Politics, Preppers, State Constitutions, Veterans, Wolverines
Tagged Founding Fathers, Free State, Government, Liberals, life, Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Militia, Obama, Politics, Right to keep and bear arms, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, United State, United States Constitution
Hat tip to The Blaze for this report
Democrats in Missouri introduced startling anti-gun legislation that would require gun owners to hand over their legally purchased so-called “assault weapons” to “the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction” within 90 days.
Under the proposed bill, “Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.”
Here are some additional provisions found in the gun control bill:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
4. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.
So essentially the law would turn a law-abiding gun owner today, into a felon tomorrow.
State Reps. Rory Ellinger (D-86) and Jill Schupp (D-88) reportedly introduced the anti-gun legislation, House Bill 545, this week.
Gun confiscation is being talked about more and more by lawmakers as a means to get so-called “assault weapons,” which are really semi-automatic rifles, off the streets. Democrats in California last week also proposed legislation that called for the potential confiscation of the state’s 166,000 legally purchased semi-automatic rifles.
California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) defended the massive gun control package, saying “we can save lives.”
Breaking: MN Democrats Introduce Law to Confiscate Guns… Using Same Language as MO Democrats
(thegatewaypundit.com)
Posted in 2Chronicles 7:14, 2nd Amendment, Assult Weapons, Aurora, Bill of Rights, Dictator, Executive Order, Glenn Beck, Gun Control, Gun Control Activists, Gun Sales, Homeland Security, Hunger Games, National Guard, NDAA, NRA, Oath Keepers, Obama, Police State, Politics, Preppers, Second Amendment Rights, Senate Bill 1867, The Blaze, United States Constitution, Violent Crime
Tagged Assault weapon, California State Senate, Darrell Steinberg, Democratic, Gun Control, History, Law enforcement agency, Magazine (firearms), Missouri, Obama
Posted in 2nd Amendment, Alex Jones, Andrew Breitbart, Assult Weapons, Barack Obama, Bill of Rights, Czars, FBI, Foreward 2012, Freedom, Gun Control, Gun Sales, History, Homeland Security, Martial Law, National Security Guards, NDAA, NRA, Oath Keepers, Police State, Preppers, REX84, Senate Bill 1867, SHTF, Stock Market Crash, Tyranny, United States Military
Tagged Australia, California, History, Protocols, Recreation, Travelogues, United States, Vicki
 | samiam60 on Trust me, I’m your … |
 | muse1876 on Trust me, I’m your … |
| samiam60 on Trust me, I’m your … |
| samiam60 on Trust me, I’m your … |
| samiam60 on Trust me, I’m your … |
