Obama Repeals 5th Amendment
*please go to page 7 if this is not new to you.*
Government calls for inventory of all weopans at V.F.W. Posts including old muskets swords tanks and everything from WWII and Vietnam.
Link to source. www.infowars.com check front page to link to article
0
-
ARE FEDERAL GUN LAWS CONSTITUTIONAL?
By Michael LeMieux
January 8, 2010
NewsWithViews
If "We the People" are the creators of the government, and the government is authorized arms, then in order for the people to maintain their position, in relation to the government, they to must be armed. If the servant government (servant of the people) has arms, and the people do not, then the roles are reversed for the people can not resist a government that has become tyrannical.
This same logic applies to self defense. If the law abiding citizen does not have the means to resist a lawless adversary, then the will of the adversary becomes the law. Our Congress had formally passed an "assault weapons" ban. The stated goal was to remove the arms used by gangs, drug smugglers, and extremists. How many of us really believe that anyone in any of the aforementioned groups, who owned an "assault weapon," would get rid of those weapons, just because the Congress passed a law? However, many law abiding citizens did, in fact, give up their arms so as to remain "law abiding." The end result is no change for the criminal element and a disarming of the citizen. This has happened, without exception, with EVERY gun law passed by Congress. In this regard, every gun law, by definition, aids the criminal and penalizes the law abiding citizen.
The Second Amendment, arguably the most contentious of all the Bill of Rights amendments, however, is the least tried in the Supreme Court. It simply states:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
It may be a small amendment, but, it carries the weight and guarantee for all other rights. For without the capability of the people to defend themselves, to prepare as a militia, or to reign in a tyrannical government, we all become serfs and subjects.
There are those among us that would argue the collectivist position that the amendment pertained only to the Militia and not to individuals. The Supreme Court has spoken on the collective issue in U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999), in which it states: "Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (Bold Added)
As the foregoing statement clearly shows, there is one aspect of this amendment which is based in the collective thought, and that is collective safety. The Second Amendment prohibited the government from infringing on an individuals right in order to protect a collective purpose. If the federal could disarm the populace, then the states would have no effective militia and no means to defend itself. This is why there is such a strong tie between the militia and the people.
Remember, the constitution and "Bill of Rights" are there to restrain the government; not the people. This was an instruction to the government to leave the peoples' guns alone. They could not trespass on or encroach upon our right as citizens to own and bear arms. If we look at the enforcement of federal laws and the cost government has placed on the American people I think we must conclude that infringement has and is occurring. The federal government has the right to regulate its' jurisdictions outside of the state jurisdiction; but I will show that the enforcement of those laws is where they have violated the Constitution.
In the early years of our nation, it was common sense and historically imperative that the people be armed. They were armed not only for self defense, but as defense against invasion from nefarious nations as well as from "ambitious and unprincipled rulers" who would look to remove their rights and to enslave the nation.
In general, Laws are made to codify certain unwanted behavior and to establish acceptable behavior in society. However, as soon as you transfer this mechanism to inanimate objects, this logic fails. To illustrate, I think we would all agree that a criminal who steals, rapes, or murders is doing wrong. The tools he may use in that action do not change the act. "Ah," says the liberal/communist, "but you remove the ability for him to get the tool, now he cannot accomplish the act." If only that were true. I look at the genocide that has taken place in African states; the mutilation by means of machete; where limbs were severed and people left to bleed to death. Whole villages where women were raped, breasts removed, children hacked to death. Evil will do what evil does by whatever means is at their disposal. To assume the morally bankrupt of our society would stop a behavior by solely passing a law against an instrument he may use in the commission of a heinous crime is na?ve at best. Added to this is the undercurrent of black market supplies of weapons, around the world and here in America. The criminal does not obey laws, and he is prohibited to obtain weapons, yet he still gets them. Thus the net effect is to disarm the victims, making them unable to lawfully protect themselves.
The law abiding citizen is, by definition, not the problem. The problem is the criminal, because by definition, he does not obey the law. As importantly, is the fact that the government is treating ALL citizens by the standards of the criminal. For instance, a criminal uses a handgun in the commission of a robbery. Another criminal uses an ice-pick to commit the same crime. A third uses a baseball bat. With the logic of the gun control advocates the mere possession of a gun, an ice-pick, or a baseball bat should be outlawed. The root of the problem, however, is not the objects with which they perpetrate their crime; it is their willingness to commit the crime. The item used to aid that crime is merely the tool. And as every tool used to commit a crime has a peaceful use, outlawing the tool ONLY infringes on the person who would not use it for nefarious reasons.
What our nation needs are laws that punish criminal behavior and to stop criminalizing honest citizens who wish only to protect themselves and their families. Both the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) statistics have shown that the majority of violent crimes are committed without firearms, and the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that were illegally obtained, bypassing gun laws. So the net effect of gun control laws is to affect the law abiding citizen and has virtually no effect on the criminal element of our society.
The enactment of "firearms laws" is a relatively recent occurrence for the federal government. The Federal Firearms Act in 1934 was the first act by congress to regulate firearms. This act was based upon the perceived need to regulate the firearms industry and license the dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths within the firearms trade. It was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Appropriately it was codified under Title 15 of the US Code - "Commerce and Trade". The new "laws" under the Act included the creation of a Federal Firearms License (FFL), for anyone doing business in the firearm trade. One of the primary goals was to prohibit FFL holders from selling firearms to convicted felons. Requiring FFL holders to keep records of all firearms sales, and for the first time it made any alteration of firearm serial numbers a crime. Some felt this was an infringement on state jurisdiction by enacting a law that reached past the state boundary, in violation of the Constitution.
From 1934 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled "Crimes and Criminal Procedures." Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of "Commerce and Trade". However, if you are bound by "Commerce and Trade", you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the "trade." Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers from commerce to crime.
Shortly after President Kennedy's assassination, in 1968, the "Gun Control Act" was passed. It was an attempt by the government to justify broad-sweeping firearms control. The finesse with which the government's lawyers crafted and pushed this bill through can be seen right from the opening lines. The bill is entitled: "An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms." Doesn't that title sound allot like Chapter 15? In fact, even though there is much overlap between Title 15 and Title 18, Title 15 was never repealed.
This was done to provide better control of "interstate" traffic in firearms. However, the stated purpose of the act is as follows:
Title I - State Firearms Control Assistance
Purpose
"Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence,"
Did you catch that? To support State, and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution say anything about the federal government assisting law enforcement? Remember, the federal government cannot legally do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. So where is its justification? It has none; any federal law that falls outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is repugnant and is void. That does not stop the jack-booted thugs from kicking in your door and enforcing unjust and unconstitutional laws; it just makes them wrong with a gun.
I can not say this enough, the birth rights we have as American Citizens are higher than the Constitution. They exist by virtue of our creation and are bestowed at birth and these rights cannot be taken by any government, unless we give them away. The Second Amendment is paramount to all other rights, because without this right, we cannot defend the other rights. I have come to understand that those without a means of defense become victims to those who will force their will upon them. I have personally seen this in Somalia, Pakistan, Kuwait, the Philippines, and Afghanistan. In most cases, the only reason we received respect from the enemy was because we had the means to remove them from the face of the earth. Make no mistake, if it were not for the Second Amendment, this nation would not be here today. Our future still depends on the willingness of "We the People" to stand up and fight to keep this right.
It is a proven axiom that a criminal will not try to commit a crime while a police officer is present. Thus the saying "There is never a policeman around when you need him." There are those who want a society where there are no guns. A society where a woman can walk down a street at night without fear of molestation. Where drugs, gangs, corruption, and evil no longer exists. There is such a place, but it only exists in the stories of Hollywood. The cold reality is that evil does exist and we must protect ourselves and our families against that evil.
So, who is responsible for our protection? Is it the government, the state, the local police? It may surprise you to learn that none of these is the correct answer. Time and time again the courts have ruled, and those rulings have been upheld, that there is no requirement for any level of government to guarantee our individual protection. In this nation, the policy of policing is that of "general" peace and order; and no one person or group can have any expectation of individual protection.
To illustrate this I would like to present the following case that illustrates this position:
In Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) the courts ruled: "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." (Emphasis added)
There are literally hundreds of cases that say exactly the same thing. In the liberal world, I constantly hear that the police are trained to protect the innocent. Quite often this happens solely because they are out on the streets looking for bad guys. Odds are, eventually they will run into a crime in progress and take action. The police are there to bring criminals to justice, which is what they get paid for. However, in order for one to be deemed a criminal they must first perpetrate a crime. Only then can the police take action. You and you alone have the primary responsibility for your protection and safety. By law, someone who pays another to commit a crime is just as guilty as if he committed the crime himself. In my estimation, someone who pays another for protection, and is unwilling to take responsibility for their own protection, is guilty of cowardice. Willingness does not equate to capability. Many people are willing to protect themselves, but do not have the capability. If you are not willing to fight, or even kill to protect your own life or the lives of your family, then you cannot ask someone else to do it for you.
The Constitution states that the Second Amendment "shall not be infringed." How many laws does it take before it is considered infringed? 500? 5,000? 20,000? That's about how many laws we have on the books today, over twenty thousand. Not infringed means exactly that; leave it alone.
The United States was built and survived because of private ownership of arms. Many gun haters cannot abide hearing this; and they manage to forget, or they don't understand the history that brought us through the oppression of the English Kings. One of the sparks to the war of independence was the Kings' mandate to disarm the people. Our forefathers included in the Constitution the guarantee that the people would never be disarmed again.
The firearm is a tool, nothing more nothing less. It has no powers but what the person wielding it provides. If that person be evil, then evil may be produced. If that person be good, then the good man has a means by which he may protect himself and his family from the evil man. If a man be prone to commit assault or even murder, what does he care about gun laws? Will this evil doer decide to not use a gun when he robs, rapes, abducts children, or kills because there is a law stating he may not carry a gun? Of course not! The evil person cares not for the law, therefore gun laws ONLY affect the law abiding citizen, not the criminal. But it is my belief the lawmakers know this. The excuse, of fighting crime, is only the "reason" to pass the law not the desired effect. The desired effect is removal of honest gun ownership. Once this is accomplished the country is then helpless against the rulers of our nation. Another means of checks and balances, the final means, will be abolished.
The last seventy years have been a continual neutering of the American patriot. When all is said and done, the wresting of our God-given rights from the "communist-liberal left and the power-hungry government bureaucrats" may come down to one thing; our Second Amendment Right.0 -
Gun Control Advocate Shoots Intruder
By Bob Ellis on January 7th, 2010
DakotaVoice
What would you think if a long-time gun control advocate ended up shooting someone? Might the word "hypocrite" come to mind?
It did for me, and apparently for many others.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports North Carolina state senator R.C. Soles shot one of two intruders who attempted to break into his house.
But it gets even more interesting than the mere hypocrisy of a gun control activist shooting somebody.
The New York Times reports Soles won't be seeking re-election, which is not a surprise since state prosecutors have said they plan to charge Soles because "he acted criminally when he shot a former law client."
WWAY sheds additional light on this:
Thursday, a Columbus County grand jury found probable cause to seek an indictment against Soles for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury.
In late August, Soles shot 22-year-old Kyle Blackburn outside the Senator's home in Tabor City.
Blackburn was a client of Soles' law firm. Soles told police he shot Blackburn in self-defense, saying that Blackburn was trying to break into his home. Blackburn told us he was leaving the property when he was shot.
While what happens within a grand jury proceeding is secret, we can presume that ballistics evidence was part of what was reviewed yesterday, specifically whether the bullet wound indicated that Blackburn was facing the Senator or running away when he was shot.
We also know surveillance cameras were running at Senator Soles' house at the time of the shooting.
The shooting itself wasn't captured on camera, but what transpired before and after the shooting may have helped the jurors determine how the events played out.
Now, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for someone who advocates diminishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. But when I learn that they consider themselves elite enough to own a weapon, any sympathy I might have had goes out the door.
And apparently this wasn't even a clear-cut case of self-defense. The shooter knew the man who was shot, and a grand jury found sufficient evidence to charge the shooter for criminal activity.
This happened a few months ago, but I'm just now finding out about it from Marty Rickard. Better late than never, to find out about this kind of hypocrisy from a member of the gun control lobby.0 -
Sunstein Attacks Second Amendment
Kurt Nimmo
infowars ---check the link for video---
January 15, 2010
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that. it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
In a lecture at the University School of Law on October 27, 2007, Obama's administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs emphatically stated that you do not have a right to own firearms. "It is striking and noteworthy," said Cass Sunstein, "that well over two centuries since the founding, the Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns."
It is said Sunstein is a constitutional scholar. And yet he fails to mention that opinions dealing with the Second Amendment come from almost every period in the Court's history and almost all of them are consistent with the proposition that the Second Amendment is an individual right. See David B. Kopel, The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment.
"My coming view is that the individual right to bear arms reflects the success of an extremely aggressive and resourceful social movement and has much less to do with good standard legal arguments than [it] appears," Sunstein said elsewhere in the lecture (not included in the above clip). "My tentative suggestion is that the individual right to have guns as it's being conceptualized now is best taken as a contemporary creation and a reflection of current fears - not a reading of civic-centered founding debates."
"Mr. Sunstein's overt hostility to the idea that the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms, including for purposes of self-defense, is not something that should be welcomed from somebody whose job might entail weighing in on the value of anti-gun regulations. It also makes his more recent assurances that he is a Second Amendment stalwart seem rather disingenuous, at the very least," an editorial published by The Washington Times stated last September.
In July of 2009, Sunstein sent a letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia assuring him that he strongly believes the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms. "Your first question involved the Second Amendment. I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case, clearly recognizing the individual right to have guns for hunting and self-defense. If confirmed, I would respect the Second Amendment and the individual right that it recognizes."
In response, Chambliss dropped his hold on the nomination of Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In other words, Sunstein lied about the Second Amendment in order to fool Congress into accepting his nomination.
It's too bad Chambliss didn't see the above video before voting to confirm Sunstein. If he had, Sunstein would probably not be in the government now. He would not be threatening to close down the First and Second Amendments.0 -
Bill Exempts Guns From Federal Law
Interested-Participant
January 16, 2010
(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) A bill has been introduced in the Oklahoma legislature to protect the Second Amendment rights of the state's citizens.
House Bill 2884, creates the "Oklahoma Firearms Freedom Act," which declares that a "personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Oklahoma and that remains within the borders of Oklahoma is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce."
The legislation notes that regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and that Article II, Section 26, of the Oklahoma Constitution "clearly secures to Oklahoma citizens, and prohibits interference with, the right of individual Oklahoma citizens to keep and bear arms."
As a result, under the bill, guns manufactured in Oklahoma and sold to citizens of the state would not be subject to federal regulations since "those items have not traveled in interstate commerce."
Applicable firearms will be required to clearly display "Made in Oklahoma" on a major metallic part.
And there's more:
Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of other activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state `nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or `non-effective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations - in order to protect the liberty of the state's citizens.
Oklahoma's bill brings the number to 16 states that have seen a Firearms Freedom Act introduced in the past year - most recently, New Hampshire, Virginia and Missouri.0 -
Feds, Cops Attempt to Shut Down Legal Gun Sales in Austin, Texas
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
January 18, 2010
The police in Austin, at the behest of the federal Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, has attempted to shut down legal gun sales. The Texas Gun Shows website has the following posted: "Vendor notice - Austin show only: At the direction of the Austin Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, ONLY LICENSED FFL DEALERS will be allowed to set up and sell firearms at the N. Austin show location."
FFL is short for "Federal Firearms License." It is a federal license that enables an individual or a company to engage in a business pertaining to the manufacture of firearms and ammunition or the interstate and intrastate sale of firearms. It does not control gun sales between individuals on the local level.
Texas residents may purchase rifles, shotguns, handguns ammunition, reloading components, or firearms accessories. No permit or registration is required under state law. It is unlawful to knowingly sell, rent, give or offer to sell, rent or give any firearm to a person under 18 years of age, without the written consent of his parent or guardian, but entirely legal for adults to sell firearms.
The BATF and Austin cops are attempting to discourage gun sales with this color of law trick. It is not backed up by any law on the books. It is intimidation.
In recent years the feds have attempted to portray entirely legal gunshows as a nexus for criminal activity. Gun Show Undercover, a project of the City of New York and its mayor the anti-Second Amendment extremist Michael Bloomberg, has traveled around the country and filmed what it declares to be illegal gun sales. The BATF claims that 30 percent of guns involved in federal illegal gun trafficking investigations are connected to gun shows.
The BATF claims Mexican drug cartels exploit the so-called gun-show loophole. "Guns are purchased illegally, sold at a profit to drug dealers and used to kill innocent people and police officers, all while local law enforcement authorities lack the federal support they need to do their job," Bloomberg wrote in April, 2009. "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has estimated that 90 percent to 95 percent of the guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes have been purchased in the United States, because Mexico's laws make it much more difficult for criminals to buy guns."
Bloomberg has pushed for closing down gun shows. "More than 350 mayors from both political parties have joined together to urge Congress to repeal these restrictions - and to close the gun-show loophole, a step both Sen. John McCain and President Obama have supported," he wrote.
In response to this propaganda, Fox News reported that 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S. Most of the illegal guns sold in Mexico originate from South Korea, China, and Russia. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
For now, gun sales between adults are legal in Texas. Residents of Austin should not be intimidated by this bogus color of law attempt to chill the Second Amendment.0 -
Tennessee Follows Texas In Banning Private Gun Shows
Paul Joseph Watson
InfoWars
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Tennessee has followed Texas in demanding that dealers obtain licenses and turn over a plethora of information to authorities before being able to host a gun show in another devastating attack on the second amendment.
The legislation, HB 2422, which has not yet passed, would make it a Class A misdemeanor for any person to organize, plan, promote, or operate a gun show without government approval.
The bill makes it a crime for anyone who wishes to operate a gun show unless they follow the following procedures;
(1) Notifies the TBI and the chief law enforcement officer in the county in which the gun show is to be held of the dates, times, and location of the gun show;
(2) Verifies the identity of each gun show dealer participating in the gun show by examining a valid photo identification document of the dealer, before commencement of the gun show;
(3) Requires each gun show dealer to sign a ledger with information identifying the dealer, including the dealer's name and address, before commencement of the gun show; and
(4) Maintains a copy of the records described above in (2) and (3) at the gun show promoter's permanent place of business for one year from the date of the gun show.
The legislation also contains a blanket ban on all unlicensed gun sales within 1,000 feet of an unapproved gun show.
The bill would take effect on January 1, 2011 if signed into law.
As we highlighted yesterday, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is actively issuing directions banning private sales of guns without licenses at gun shows in Texas, despite there being no law to justify such demands.
A caller to the Alex Jones show brought attention to BATF notices handed out at the entrance of the Texas Gun And Knife Show, on North Lamar, in Austin this past weekend.
The flyers (pictured below) state that anyone selling a firearm "will be asked to comply with" conditions including operating through a licensed FFL dealer.
The notice also states that "Selling firearms in the parking lot will not be permitted."
"The lady at the front desk used her `mommy voice' to get everyone's attention." Scott from Austin told The Alex Jones show, noting that the owners of the private building where the gun show was held were contacted by the APD and the BATF and directed to hand out the notices.
Scott also told listeners that a petition in protest of the directions was being handed around at the show.0 -
Steve,
Looks like if this type of activity keeps speading, and it will, we'll find some private property, and have our own gun show.
F' em![:(!]0 -
Screw 'em all.....Times a gettin' short. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
Screw 'em all.....Times a gettin' short.
HPD,
It is, indeed.
'They' are becoming more arrogant and tyrannical with each move they make....
and with each move, the 'swarm' becomes more agitated.0 -
At least the legislature in TN has the balls to pass legislation instead of the total usurpation of power instituted in Austin.
But it is OK folks. All of this activity is permitted, nay encouraged by SCROTUS in Heller. Total registration is the goal, and these are the necessary steps to make it happen.
Interesting point:
TN HB 2422 makes the operation of an unlicensed show a Class A misdemeanor, not a felony. This would be an excellent case for a court challenge. Any takers will get my support, both moral and financial.0 -
Brown Win in Massachusetts: Rise of the Independents and the Tea Party
Kurt Nimmo
InfoWars
January 20, 2010
Last night the corporate media portrayed Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts as a victory of Republicans over Democrats. It wasn't Republicans, however, that catapulted Scott Brown's win over Massachusetts Democrat and attorney general Martha Coakley. It was independent voters in the traditionally liberal and Democrat dominated state that made the difference, not Republicans.
"David Paleologos, director of Suffolk University's Police Research Center, whose recent poll foreshadowed a Brown win, said independent voters who were fired up over the lingering recession and faltering economy, the loss of jobs and the cost of government mandated health care drove the election," reports the Boston Herald.
Democrats, of course, say it is all a big right-wing extremist coup d'?tat.
"Over the past few weeks, radical right-wing activists turned Massachusetts into ground zero for the Tea Party movement, and we saw a taste of what's to come in 2010," warned New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley.
Buckley and the Democrats may attempt to spin the election as a victory for "radical right-wing activists," but the truth is something entirely different - the election served as a referendum on big government and irresponsible and out of control federal spending. Scott Brown was elected in one of the most liberal states in the country not because he is a Republican, but because his victory will shut down Obamacare and send a message to Democrats.
In fact, Scott Brown's political philosophy - akin to that of big government Republican Mitt Romney - is irrelevant. Brown is your typical "center-right" politician - he voted for Romney's health care plan, supports gay marriage, and said he would have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. He apparently buys into the climate change scam as well.
On the other hand, he campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility and limited government, something mainline Republicans always do on the campaign trial, only to betray their promises once seated. George Bush campaigned as a traditional Republican. Once in office, he ratcheted up the federal deficit and began invading small defenseless countries. Republicans dutifully fell in line.
None of this matters, even with the hysterical warnings by Democrats that the "radical right-wing" and much maligned Tea Party have changed Obama's game plan. Scott Brown talked about ending gridlock in Washington, but his election victory represents just that - breaking the Democrat voting majority and ensuring that they will not be able to force Obamacare and other big government programs down the throats of the American people.
Scott Brown's victory is a victory for the Tea Party - not the GOP hijacked Tea Party but the original one that is solidly Libertarian and opposed to the Democrat vs. Republican politics as usual.0 -
It is instructive to note, Steve, that Mr. Brown supports the moves by the Austin PD and the Tennessee legislature to ban FTF sales at gun shows.
IMO, time will tell if the Tea Parties become a force for liberty, or if they are a limited-issue construct that will sacrifice some liberties for others.
The support of Mr. Brown suggests the latter, though we must recognize that in this specific case, the limited issues are an important consideration.0 -
Don, I know. His views are only slightly less asquew than Kennedy's were but I think it sends them a message that people who haven't participated in the voting system in the past are waking up. Hopefully we see a large removal of imcumbants and get some fresh faces in there that are willing to listen to the people that voted them in.
In fact, on Oct. 17 2001 he voted to deny Red Cross volunteer workers extra financial aid for thier efforts at ground zero.
I never said I liked the guy.0 -
APD Releases Official Explanation of Gun Shows Shut Down
Kurt Nimmo
InfoWars
January 22, 2010
An APD News press release dated January 19, 2010, offers an official explanation of the actions taken by the Austin Police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to ensure the shut down of Texas Gun Shows in central Texas. The press releases reveals that in addition to the ATF, Federal Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement (ICE) agents were involved in the conspiracy to deny Texans access to firearms at legal gun shows.
"Austin Police Department Firearm Review Unit detectives assisted in the Austin portion of the operation. They observed and participated in multiple arrests of prohibited persons (primarily convicted felons and illegal immigrants) that obtained firearms illegally at a local gun show. Federal convictions were obtained in a majority of the cases," the press release states.
The alleged criminal activity occurred at the venue prior to Darwin Boedecker and Texas Gun Shows leasing the space. The APD, however, does not make this fact clear in the press release.
Due to the history of criminal activity at the gun show, the Nuisance Abatement Unit scheduled a meeting between the property lessee (HEB Grocery), the building sub-lessee (Andrew Perkel a.k.a Austin Market Place), the event promoter (Darwin Boedecker-Texas Gun Shows) and ATF. During this meeting, APD along with ATF offered to all parties, recommendations to curb the illegal activity that had been documented in the past. At the conclusion of the meeting the lessee agreed that the recommendations should be followed and instructed their sub-lessee to follow the recommendations. The sub-lessee then informed the event promoter to implement the recommendations at the next show.
According to the APD, Boedecker agreed to the following: 1) Only licensed gun dealers are allowed to sell firearms at the gun shows, 2) The promoter will provide on-site security to prevent parking lot gun sales, and 3) The promoter will define a process for people other than licensed dealers that show up with a gun that they want to sell.
Darwin Boedecker posted the first two of these "recommendations" at the show held on the weekend of January 16-17, 2010.
It is not illegal for private citizens in Texas to sell firearms. The demand by the ATF and Austin cops is a direct violation of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution). In addition, under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence (including parking lots) are not subjected to federal regulation.
The APD subsequently used the ruse of "criminal activity" (citizens legally selling firearms) as an excuse to close down the Texas Gun Shows. "Following the staged arrest of a man by the Austin Police - subsequently released without charge - the BATF pressured lease holders HEB to shut down the oldest gun show in central Texas," Infowars reported on January 18, 2010.
It is now obvious the shut down of Texas Gun Shows is part of a larger effort by the Obama administration to close down gun shows and deny the American people their right to buy and sell firearms.
"What's being touted as the largest single investigation and prosecution against individuals in the history of the Justice Department's enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act occurred Monday in Las Vegas," writes Illinois Gun for Infowars today. "The individuals arrested are executives and employees of military and law enforcement products companies that were in Las Vegas to attend the 2010 Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show (Shot show) and are charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)."
"The Justice Department called the case the largest single investigation and prosecution of individuals in the history of the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars bribery of foreign government officials," reports The Boston Herald.
The FBI operation was conducted as a sting. The individuals in question did not actually violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The corporate media, with the exception of The Boston Herald, BusinessWeek, and firearms trade magazines, failed to report the story.0 -
We need more support than this. Granted, it was at 5 PM and if you know anything about Austin traffic it was difficult to attend. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_X-CVR5L140 -
Steve ;
Sadly, I can attest from many years in this fight...you simply CANNOT get get owners to fall out for these actions. I have never understood it..have attended many over the years..and it is an utter embarrassment to the gun community for their lack of interest in protecting their azes.0 -
Highball beat me to it. But I would also point out, that most gunowners are also gun-controllers and typically self-centered americans, via the lifelong brainwashing they have been saturated with from the govt. and the media. Most, even those who attend these shows, probably agree with them being shut down. They are just getting "theirs" while they can. Who gives a damn about our children and the slavery we're handing them. 0 -
I don't understand it either. Maybe some have given up, maybe some are just sitting still in wait. I can't stay off of the front lines on this one. I understand that I am in my early stages of this fight but I will do what I can to combat these issues. I will try to educate one a day until we have a majority instead of 3%. I doubt that we will see a majority on this for lack of education on the material presented. I have little hope for the uneducated sheeple but I must not give up this late in the fight. Hope you guys understand.
Had to come back and edit. I will not be the downtrodden. I will fight. HB, many of the youth that can grasp a concept are on my side. We have ranks to replenish the fallen.
steve0 -
Please Send This Letter to Your Senators in Opposition to the Bernanke Nomination
Webster G. Tarpley
InfoWars
January 26, 2010
My dear Senator,
I am writing to urge you to vote against the confirmation of Ben Bernanke for a second term as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Bernanke has failed in his responsibilities both as a banking regulator and in his administration of Federal Reserve lending. Bernanke presided over the final phase of the $1.5 quadrillion financial derivatives bubble which is the central cause of the present world economic depression. He was the principal advocate for the reckless and irresponsible policy of bailing out bankrupt money center institutions, allowing them to live on as zombie banks at astronomical taxpayer, but with no corresponding benefit whatsoever for the economic life of the broader society. Bernanke is responsible for the super-toxic alphabet soup of Federal Reserve lending facilities like the TAF, the TALF, and so forth. These betrayals of the public trust have offered 0% credit to predatory institutions including Wall Street banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, money market funds, and other financial institutions. Bernanke has thus used public resources to subsidize financial speculation in all of its most destructive forums, while doing almost nothing to provide cheap credit for production that would benefit factories, farms, mines, building construction, small business, exports, scientific research, energy production, and infrastructure building. Economic activity in all of these fields is now dying for lack of credit, which is being denied by the very institutions Bernanke is trying to save. Everything that Bernanke has done is diametrically opposed to the rational credit policy needed to fight an economic depression.
Bernanke must therefore be rejected. Instead, the Senate should support a new Fed chairman with the qualifications necessary to preside over the nationalization of this illegal, unconstitutional, and failed institution. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 must be repealed. The future of the Fed is as a bureau of the United States Treasury responsible for providing cheap federal lending as a public utility for productive activity in the form of tangible physical commodity output, not speculation and financial services. In the future, the size of the money supply, short-term interest rates, and the approved categories of lending must be taken out of the hands of unelected and unaccountable cliques of predatory bankers, and deliberated in the full glare of publicity by the House, the Senate, and the president, as the United States Constitution actually requires. Because of Bernanke's pattern of subservience to Wall Street interests, it is clear that he cannot be the official suited to to carry out this historic transition. Worse, reports concerning telephone calls made by Treasury Secretary Geithner in September 2008 suggest that Bernanke may also be a party to illegal operations by the Fed in regard to the bailout of AIG and its derivatives counterparties at that time. It is unthinkable that the Senate would approve Bernanke unless and until these grave suspicions have been cleared up.
Today's newspapers suggest that Bernanke, even if he should be rejected by the Senate this week, would still attempt to stay in power as a member of the Board of Governors through 2020, exerting his power through his colleagues presently on the board. This would amount to nothing less than a bankers' insurrection. In this eventuality, the Congress must swiftly impeach Bernanke and remove him from office immediately.0 -
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
My buddy took a 7.62 to the chest. I haven't been right all day. I don't want to stand thier with his mom and burry him. Keep that flag. I don't wanna see it.
I take it your buddy is a troop?
My condolences to you and the family. So much is wrong, seems only anger can keep a guy from growing weary.0 -
Thanks, Steve.
You will not hear me criticize a man attempting what you are doing..as long as the clear meaning of the Second is kept in mind.
I doubt that to be a problem with you at all.0 -
Man Arrested for Practicing Second Amendment, Warning About Martial Law
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
February 11, 2010
In Massachusetts, more than a dozen but less than twenty firearms are considered an arsenal and may get you arrested and held for "evaluation," especially if you mistrust and fear the government.
"A Massachusetts man is under arrest for the stash of guns police found in his possession," reports MSNBC, WHDH-TV, and the Associated Press. "Authorities took Gregory Girard, 45, into custody Wednesday afternoon on weapons charges after apparently finding dozens of guns inside his Manchester-by-the-Sea home."
According to the report, flares guns, handcuffs, kevlar vests, and helmets are weapons.
Girard's crime? He feared the government would impose martial law. "He was convinced that martial law was imminent," said a prosecutor.
Authorities were tipped off by his wife, a Cambridge psychiatrist. She told police she was afraid to go home and plans to file a restraining order. "He made the following statements to her, `Don't talk to people. Shoot them instead. It's fine to shoot people in the head, because traitors deserve it,'" the prosecutor said. It was not reported in what context the statements were made.
Girard rarely left the house, hoarded food and medication and warned those in adjoining apartments not to be alarmed by noises that sounded like gunfire, according to his neighbors, the report states. He had converted his third-story loft into a firing range, according to police.
In Massachusetts, this enough to get you arrested and held for psychiatric evaluation. Actually threatening and assaulting somebody is not required. All you have to do is have a couple guns, assorted military and police equipment, and talk about martial law.
In April of 2009, Massachusetts passed S18, a martial law bill. It gives the governor the power to authorize the deployment and use of force to distribute supplies and materials and and allows local authorities to enter private residences for investigation and to quarantine individuals.
"Any person who knowingly violates an order of the commissioner or his or her designee, or of a local public health authority or its designee, given to effectuate the purposes of this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of note more than one thousand dollars, or both," the legislation states.0 -
Sounds like this duds wife had a creative lawyer...
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Man Arrested for Practicing Second Amendment, Warning About Martial Law
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
February 11, 2010
In Massachusetts, more than a dozen but less than twenty firearms are considered an arsenal and may get you arrested and held for "evaluation," especially if you mistrust and fear the government.
"A Massachusetts man is under arrest for the stash of guns police found in his possession," reports MSNBC, WHDH-TV, and the Associated Press. "Authorities took Gregory Girard, 45, into custody Wednesday afternoon on weapons charges after apparently finding dozens of guns inside his Manchester-by-the-Sea home."
According to the report, flares guns, handcuffs, kevlar vests, and helmets are weapons.
Girard's crime? He feared the government would impose martial law. "He was convinced that martial law was imminent," said a prosecutor.
Authorities were tipped off by his wife, a Cambridge psychiatrist. She told police she was afraid to go home and plans to file a restraining order. "He made the following statements to her, `Don't talk to people. Shoot them instead. It's fine to shoot people in the head, because traitors deserve it,'" the prosecutor said. It was not reported in what context the statements were made.
Girard rarely left the house, hoarded food and medication and warned those in adjoining apartments not to be alarmed by noises that sounded like gunfire, according to his neighbors, the report states. He had converted his third-story loft into a firing range, according to police.
In Massachusetts, this enough to get you arrested and held for psychiatric evaluation. Actually threatening and assaulting somebody is not required. All you have to do is have a couple guns, assorted military and police equipment, and talk about martial law.
In April of 2009, Massachusetts passed S18, a martial law bill. It gives the governor the power to authorize the deployment and use of force to distribute supplies and materials and and allows local authorities to enter private residences for investigation and to quarantine individuals.
"Any person who knowingly violates an order of the commissioner or his or her designee, or of a local public health authority or its designee, given to effectuate the purposes of this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of note more than one thousand dollars, or both," the legislation states.0 -
Raising the Bar for Nullification
by Michael Boldin
lewrockwell
Recently by Michael Bolden: Colorado, South Dakota Firearms Freedom Act Introduced
Around the country, twenty-two states are currently considering a bill known as the "Firearms Freedom Act." This bill declares that guns, accessories, and ammunition made within a state, sold within that state and kept in that state are not subject to federal laws or regulations under the "Interstate Commerce Clause" of the Constitution.
Montana and Tennessee passed a Firearms Freedom Act into law in 2009, and a number of states are moving that direction in the 2010 legislative session. In South Carolina, where a Firearms Freedom Act was also introduced in 2009, some representatives have taken things a step further.
NULLIFYING GUN REGISTRATIONS
Introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly this week is House Bill 4509 (H4509), which if passed, would make law that "no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State."
No caveat for regulations under the commerce clause. No caveat for types of firearms either. This bill says NO to all gun registrations - period.
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition.
In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts:
"The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government"
and
"where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them"
In short, nullification means this: The state is taking a position that a particular federal law is unconstitutional, and thus, the law in question is void and inoperative, or "non-effective," within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.
But nullification is much more than just mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice requires active resistance to it by the people and the state government.
INTERPOSITION
In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws - that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are "duty bound to interpose" or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.
H4509 includes strong language to assert this principle:
Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition, and these requirements violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people
(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.
(C) Any person violating the provisions of this subsection (B) is guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.
Supporters of such legislation point to laws passed by other states that have effectively nullified federal laws around the country. Fourteen states have now defied federal laws on marijuana. And, two-dozen states have refused to comply with the Bush-era Real ID Act, rendering that 2005 law virtually null and void today.
Guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes.
The final goal? It's a long way off - a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.0 -
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
The final goal? It's a long way off - a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.
Hey, we can dream.......right?0 -
I'm gonna take a break for a bit and catch up on some reading. I will continue with my efforts after gaining more knowledge.
steve0 -
Steve;
Thanks, fella, for your efforts. Rest assured, many of us here appreciate your drive. Don't be a stranger, drop around and let us know all is well with you.0 -
Unplug the Signal: The Truth Will Not Be Televised
Nathan Janes
February 24, 2010
A flow of information is constantly streaming from the television set; a bombardment of words and pictures. The speed at which this information is communicated makes it easy for the signal to take control, switching the viewer's brain to stand-by as information is absorbed without analysis or question. Today the television's constant signal shapes the conclusions of the masses and produces the collective norm. The signal prescribes what is news and what is truth through the words of so-called experts and authorities, gelding the consciousness and independent thoughts of those subjected to it. Through television, the masses can be made to accept the most monstrous distortions of reality. The signal is a chill wind of continuous oppression over the minds of the masses. It controls the management of society and culture, creating uniformity across all subjects.
The fuel for this vehicle of mass deception is a technique known as perception management where an array of psychological techniques are used to alter the truth, leading the viewer to a desired conclusion. Some call this spin or propaganda while others know it as lying. According to Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister for Adolph Hitler, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Most of what can be found on the nightly news is nothing but advertisements selling more government and a false reality that benefits only those in control. Television is the dictator of information; newspaper and radio are the whisper campaign of the television's message.
It is expected that Americans will consistently prescribe to the doctrine of the television. It is subtly communicated that one should stay within the collective and never challenge the message, for doing so may be considered an aggression towards culture. The message is, "Be a good consumer; always obey authority; you know nothing; listen only to experts; be content and never question or express new ideas." This signal is being broadcast across millions of screens, indoctrinating the unconscious minds of those who choose this as their only reality. Self-censorship occurs when these individuals become so deeply indoctrinated that they are afraid to discuss any information outside the paradigm of television-created culture; they police their thoughts to ensure they won't conflict with this culture. Sadly, many people's reality today does not allow any outside information to process, instead it is written off as conspiracy or blatant lies. Our consciousness has been destroyed so much that fiction has become reality. An entire lifestyle of poisonous foods, pharmaceuticals, and fluoridated water are accepted as safe and sold to us at the cost of our health and well being.
Those of the establishment are using the incredibly powerful weapon of mass psychology as a method of controlling the minds of the masses and altering the behavior of individuals. Edward Bernays, a pioneer in the field of public relations in the 20th century, applied Sigmund Freud's theory of psychoanalysis to manipulate the masses by engineering consent. According to Bernays, "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it." Advertisers and psychologists of the billion dollar culture creation industry manufacture trends through the proliferation of insecurities; and manipulating desires and emotions. These concepts are also employed to control how individuals think about politics, as well as the possibilities and limitations within society. Those welding power within our streams of mass communication market their plans into each generation as individuals adopt specific ways of thinking and never suspect that all the major events and trends within their lifetime are actually planned by an elite few before they are even born. In our society today, culture is created from the top down. Virtually all forms of culture are created by the ruling class to build a false sense of reality, ensure social compliance, and control the future course of cultural evolution.
Predictive programming is a tool used by the establishment to acclimate the public to new ideas, trends, beliefs, and threats. It is used through television by including certain situations or ideas within the plots of many fictional shows, familiarizing the viewer with these concepts no matter what they may be watching. When similar situations occur or like ideas are circulated in the world we think that these particular things are quite natural for we have unknowingly been made familiar with them through television. By viewing nearly any popular show on television, one can see the same propaganda that will be aired on the nightly news. Propaganda on a wide array of subjects has been interwoven into a great number of television shows. Just a few of these subjects include global warming, vaccinations, torture, terrorism, national security, the militarization of police, and the degradation of the family unit. Through predictive programming, television shapes culture and prevents individuals from asking questions.
Crisis' are created on a daily basis and broadcast across the airwaves to keep individuals in a state of panic and fear. Whether it be the threat of a pandemic or terrorism, the constant state of crisis has created a form of mental illness as we are slowly acclimated into an age of crisis. By using Hegelian dialectic, the television promotes the problem, guides our reaction, and presents the solution. The problem of terrorism was exclaimed, a strong emotional response was evoked, and it was stated that our rights need be sacrificed in order to protect us from the threat. We've lost personal sovereignty under the guise of terrorism; we're stopped and searched; we're watched by cameras as we go about our lives; and we're encouraged to spy on our neighbors. We have been trained to accept the life of a prisoner.
America is in a state of enlightened despotism where most individuals live only to satisfy selfish inner desires and remain ignorant of the state of the world around them. In most public places one can find a television transmitting propaganda around the clock ensuring the masses remain focused on trivial matters. From birth we take the world as it's presented on television. We don't question it and any serious criticism of TV is becoming psychologically impossible in society. Who would suspect getting born into a world where everything around you is a continuous lie? The youth of today are convinced that the experts and personalities on television are the authority of credible information while parents and older generations are foolish with dated ideas. Children are conditioned to disconnect from what is truly important to their well being and instead focus on mindless trivia, sports, celebrity gossip, and buying an array of material things. They invest their psychological worth in fantasy characters on television while ignoring or even scorning individuals contributing to the betterment of humanity. They are discouraged from getting involved in their local community and often lack the ability to think independently or to resist corruption. As their children's minds are molded by television, there is barely a murmur from the public.
For over half a century, our society has lived under this signal of mental programming and conditioning. The message is clear: don't be a leader, don't engage in critical thinking, and don't care about the people in your life. Until individuals become aware of the current information war, our standard of living and our liberties will continue to be degraded and we will continue to lose communities and meaningful relationships between people. Currently, pockets of resistance are beginning to spring up everywhere as some unplug the signal and regain control of their own thoughts. Informed individuals are canceling their cable and satellite subscriptions and instead spending time with their families and children while participating in meaningful experiences. They are seeking alternative news sources. They are reading about those who weld incredible influence over culture like Edward Bernays, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Charles Galton Darwin, Plato, Bertrand Russell, and Aldous Huxley. However, it is a continuous battle to educate the masses for the television remains our greatest threat to individual sovereignty and the largest obstacle to becoming a truly informed individual. Fortunately, unplugging from the signal is easy. The television can simply be turned off. Through doing so, you may realize nearly our entire world is now a hoax; things once known as truth are fake. We have been trained like dogs to be obedient to our television; our master has had our minds on a tight leash. Let us never forget the truth will not be televised.
Doesn't have much to do with the 2nd but I found it to be a damn good article.0 -
It doesn't have to be about the 2nd to be critically important.
Very good post Steve. It should be over in GD.
I guess I am a conspiracy type, since I have chosen the internet as my source of info, like you and this article.
I have chosen the redpill. The matrix is no place for a freedom lover.[;)]
Thanks Steve.0 -
Great article.
We do not watch TV in our family. For this and other practical reasons. I know when I am talking to someone whether they are TV addicts. Most people are. Why else would you pay for the content that is on cable and go out and spend hundreds of dollars on a device so you can watch that drivel.
The braindead TV addicts have a great celebration every year called the Super Bowl where they sit around eating and drinking crap while watching messages that tell them to eat and drink more crap. Drug habits make for better citizens than those addicted to TV.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
336 comments