Home

Disasters Much Bigger than San Bernardino: What Candidates Need to Talk about

4 Comments

new-logo25Jane M. Orient, M.D.

Some candidates including Trump and Cruz support the right of Americans to own effective tools of self defense. But none are talking about the long-standing official government stance of keeping Americans as vulnerable hostages to nuclear weapons.

It is terrible that Americans can get shot at a Christmas party, but much worse will happen if we don’t confront the problems beginning at the top.

________________________________________________________________

After every shooting episode the response is the same formula: constant media coverage, much of it fact-free, and calls for thoughts, prayers—and still more gun control. It’s time to take a broader perspective than a focus on the dozens of individual tragedies.

Today, Americans are targets. Not just individual Americans, but also the United States of America. They are targeted by deranged individuals, by fanatical ideologues, by drug cartels, by terrorist organizations, and by foreign powers, some of whom have intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple independently targeted nuclear warheads aimed at American cities.

Our thoughts need to turn to what is really going on, and our prayers need to include “God save the United States of America.”

We have pervasive surveillance of our financial transactions, our telephone and electronic communications, our medical records, and our movements. The government has enormous powers of search and seizure, many unthinkable to drafters of our Fourth Amendment, and these are used against Americans engaged in normal business that threatens no one. We already have lots of gun control laws.

So how were terrorists in San Bernadino able to accumulate bomb-making material, an arsenal of weapons both legal and illegal, and body armor, without spurring any action by the authorities?

Terrorists have also engaged in operations that don’t yet have any poster children but that are far more dangerous than shooting up a Christmas party, such as disabling a key electrical substation. This shows the capacity for coordinated, sophisticate operations that could cripple the electricity grid for a long time.

Candidates such as Donald Trump and Ted Cruz call for controlling illegal immigration—surely necessary, but insufficient. The San Bernardino terrorists were here legally.

Here are the real issues that we need to discuss:

Americans are mostly helpless victims. The government that is supposed to protect us, though awesomely powerful, appears to be incompetent, corrupt, or—dare we suggest it?—on the other side.Americans are divided by a culture of grievances.America is dangerously weak.Foreign policy is recklessly provocative. More

Advertisements

Minnesota: More 2nd Amendment treachery from both sides

1 Comment

strip banner

new-logo25Marti Oakley        © copyright 2014 All rights reserved

___________________________________________________________________

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

_____________________________________________________________________

That great sucking sound you hear coming from the Capital is issuing from elected politicians as they bow,untitledbb scrape and pucker up for Bloomberg.  Bloomberg needs to go somewhere else to push his anti-2nd Amendment agenda.

Minnesota legislators both Republican and Democrat, have embarked on a mission to render the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution for the United States as void. Obviously enamored by the mere appearance of the highly detestable Michael Bloomberg from New York, a man who is reviled by many in his own state, politicians are lining up for the chance to do his bidding right here at home. Bloomberg showed up here in Minnesota after attacking New York gun owners and by co-opting a social group and converting it to a million mother’s campaign against owning guns in order to give his attack on the Constitution some kind of legs.

What are you people thinking?

I have no idea what it is going to take to make state legislators in every state realize that the public is not going to abide gun control laws. Most people realize this has nothing to do with preventing crime, and has only to do with limiting your right to defend yourself.  After all, an unarmed population is a compliant population, especially when only the criminals will have guns.  And make no mistake, if these first rounds of attacks are passed, more will come as they steadily chip away at the 2nd Amendment.

In fact, the bills currently under consideration in the Minnesota legislature are far more than that as your Constitutional right to due process is also relentlessly attacked. Also under attack is your right to speak out especially when in the presence of the political candidates who have promoted anti gun issues:

SF1915 by Senator Katie Sieben – restricts free speech near an election by subjecting efforts to call out candidate’s for their anti-gun records and to intrusive record keeping and reporting requirements. In other words, this is a “Gag-Act” designed to shut down Minnesota Gun Rights for exposing their actions to the public eye!

Well! She must be mighty proud to put her name on an open effort to abridge the 1St Amendment right to free speech.

More

WHY SCHOOL AND OTHER MASS SHOOTINGS CONTINUE TO BE SUCCESSFUL

6 Comments

strip banner

new logoby James Roger Brown

Sociologist, Intelligence Collection and Analysis Methodologist

www.thesociologycenter.com

thesociologist@roadrunner.com

____________________________________________________________________

 “Second, Homeland Security is controlled by sociopathic homicidal maniacs who are also stockpiling ammunition to kill you using plans developed over the decades in elite evil think tanks and Pentagon high security scenario gaming rooms which produced Operation Northwoods and its clones.”

_____________________________________________________________

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” (Attributed to CIA Director William Casey during his first staff meeting.)

When my brother and I were the ages of some of the children shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut my parents were raising us to be pacifists and do nothing if someone hit us. That lasted until the son of a Minister beat up both of us and threw my brother and me into an open sewageGun-Control-Works-Pictures-e1342051099803 ditch. After that we were told that we would receive a spanking if we did not win a fight.

Neither my Parents nor anyone else taught my brother or me anything about how to defend ourselves and win a fight. In the early 1960s when I was 13 my Father was transferred from a job in Ohio to Memphis, Tennessee where I was assaulted in school on a regular basis for being a “Yankee bastard.” I have intimate personal knowledge and scars of the consequences of not teaching your child how to effectively deal with violence.

I did not acquire any practical skills of self-defense until Basic Training in the United States Army. I subsequently acquired more advanced self-defense skills because of the areas of sociology I chose to specialize in. I have some practical understanding of the value that learning how to deal with both large and small scale violence can have. The most valuable skills I acquired are in the identification and use of improvised weapons.

The special tragedy of the success of all these mass killings is that, unless you are physically paralyzed or restrained, you are never defenseless. Your ignorance, stupidity and inaction may get you killed, but at no time are you defenseless even when at a disadvantage. If you cannot think of anything else, the shoes on your feet can be thrown to distract a shooter. If you are in a theater with sixty other people and someone starts shooting, that is 120 shoes the shooter would have to dodge while those closest to them could take them down and disarm them. As President George Bush demonstrated for the entire World at his December 14, 2008 Iraq Press Conference, you cannot stay focused on lying, or doing anything else, when you have shoes flying in your face. More

Indiana affirms 4th Amendment right to self protection

17 Comments

Marti Oakley           Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved

________________________________________________________________________

In December of 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a ruling so clearly unconstitutional, and one which was an outright assault on Constitutional protections and rights, that Indiana’s legislature passed a bill to void that ruling.  Governor Mitch Daniels signed the bill in March of 2012.  The new Indiana bill amends the 2006 Castle Doctrine bill.  This doctrine validates the right of citizens to protect themselves using deadly force to stop illegal entry into their homes or cars, allowing them to self-defend even against unlawful acts of law enforcement.

Indiana‘s original “2006 Castle Doctrine” met with overwhelming, bipartisan support, passing 44-5 in the Senate and 81-10 in the House.  The 2012 amendment to the 2006 Castle Doctrine was a result of the opinions issued last year by the Supreme’s in Indiana. The entire state nearly hurled at once behind this decision that included these statements:

“In sum, we hold that in Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.” Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David said,

We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

Does it make you wonder if this justice realized that he was acknowledging the unlawful (criminal) activity of law enforcement when he stated that the citizens no longer could defend themselves from these unlawful activities?

Indiana’s state government responded by amending the 2006 Castle Doctrine, reaffirming the right of citizens to self-defense to include specifically when law enforcement is acting unlawfully and is threatening bodily harm, or unlawful trespass under color of law, or no law at all.

From: Second Regular Session 117th General Assembly (2012)

           SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 1

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.

(b) As used in this section, “public servant” means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.

____ More

Revisiting Conflicts of interest: Revoking the corporate charters of state agencies

13 Comments

 
By: Marti Oakley (c) copyright 2010-11  All Rights Reserved
1320-281-0585
 
Republished per reader requests:
______________________________________________

In each and every state, incorporated agricultural agencies and their agents have enacted and enforced rules and regulations specifically designed and enforced to interfere with the prospective economic advantage of private producers.  No where is this more apparent than in the efforts by the state agricultural agency corporations to act under “the color of law” against milk producers; setting arbitrary standards and requirements and granting themselves the authority to;

__________________________________________________

One issue seemingly untouched by the all the legal eagles out there who claim to be defending independent and family ranchers and farmers is, the conflict of interest with intent to benefit between the state corporations (in every state) operating as “Departments of Agriculture” and private and individual farmers and ranchers who are being prosecuted and persecuted as these state owned corporations are empowered to make their own laws to benefit their own interests and to enforce those laws with full knowledge that constitutional rights and protections have been fraudulently eliminated for the sovereign individuals. More

YOUR FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST INTRUSION BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS OR OTHERS IS YOUR PROPERTY LINE!

Leave a comment

NARLO.ORG

REMEMBER!

YOUR FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST INTRUSION BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS OR OTHERS IS YOUR PROPERTY LINE!

Protect your property with our copyrighted 18″ x 24″ aluminum No Trespassing signs. NARLO’s No Trespassing Sign is one of the most durable, powerful, legally intimidating signs in America. To request our No Trespassing signs for your property, Click: HERE

SAMPLE COPY OF SIGN:  More

The Supreme Court & the NRA’s Response

Leave a comment

According to an article posted by Ohioans for Concealed Carry (June 28, 2008), written by Daniel White (NRA Files Second Amendment Lawsuits In Illinois And California Following Supreme Court Ruling), The National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed lawsuits against San Francisco and Chicago to overturn their gun ban laws in the wake of the Supreme Court’s “decision,” last week, about the Second Amendment.

The San Francisco suit is brought under a ficticious pseudonym in order to protect the identity of the plaintiff, a gay man living in public housing.

On the surface, these actions seem to be a righteous response to the so-called “victory” for the Second Amendment – which is not a victory at all (see my article, What the Second Amendment Really Means – And What the Supreme Court Really Means). Of course, this is by design, to project the continued camouflage the NRA needs in order to conceal the fact it has been working for gun control, not against it, for years. This is revealed in the language of the court document itself, which states:

“This is an action under Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 to vindicate the rights of law abiding, responsible San Francisco residents and residents of public housing to keep firearms as guaranteed by Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which guarantee the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to keep firearms in the home for lawful defense of their families and other lawful purposes.” (emphasis mine)

There are a few things wrong with this wording that you need to be alerted to, and which will make clear the NRA’s subterfuge. First is the term “law-abiding” or “law-abiding adults.” If the Constitution – not the several unconstitutional gun-control laws on the books – is the law of the land (as it is supposed to be), then the only law governing gun ownership that anyone need “abide” by is the Second Amendment of the Constitution itself, which clearly states that “…the right of the people [not some specified sub-set of the people, but all of the people] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

What does this mean? It means that the Constitution makes no distinctions about who has the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it make any distinctions about what type of weaponry the term “arms” is supposed to denote, nor does it make any distinctions as to under what circumstances or in what locations a person may keep or bear arms. It is clear the founders intended that the absolute right of everyone to keep whatever weapons they wanted to and to be able to freely carry them as they see fit – anywhere, any time – is an existing right that the government may not regulate, curtail or remove in any way. Why? Because this right is fundamental to protecting us from a tyrannical government and, of course, if that very same government has the power to confiscate our means of protecting our lives and liberty, then our free republic as we know it is finished.

So, it is evident, then, that the NRA’s supposedly indignant defense of the right to keep and bear arms is not any such thing at all. It is, in fact, a smoke screen, a diversion to make us believe that the NRA is standing up for our rights, when, in fact, it is playing right into the government’s hands (and quite deliberately, as it has been infiltrated and subverted by those who seek to eliminate gun ownership) by acknowledging the very same “reasonable limitations” the Supreme Court spoke of last week when it rendered its decision (which was, in itself, an unconstitutional act, as it violates the court’s constitutional limitations of power).

The fact is, everyone has an unalienable right to possess whatever weapons they deem necessary to defend themselves with and there are to be no restrictions of this of any kind. That is the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment. To allow anything short of this is a direct violation of the Constitution.

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: