False Flag Fort Lauderdale Shooting, Just Like Sandy Hook: Why Now?

January 14, 2017

(The Sleuthing Journal) - Fort Lauderdale’s shooting hoax had several goals. Crisis actor ‘Esteban Santiago’ fake-attacked the Florida airport at a particular time — for a specific reason.

Was the Ft Lauderdale airport false flag staged to push gun control? Or were the gun grabbers more scheming this time?

By observing (famous gun grabber) Michael Bloomberg, we see why Ft Lauderdale airport was attacked by a ‘shooter’ — and why that false flag ‘shooting’ had to happen when it did. Michael Bloomberg funds 3 front groups, including “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” (MAIG). Bloomberg’s mayors are convicted felons — who can’t own guns (since they’ve been convicted of felonies). Bloomberg’s mayors have been convicted of extortion, covering up homicides, and molestation.

Just like the Marysville, WA ‘school shooting’ hoax, Michael Bloomberg staged the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting to terrorize America into accepting his gun-ban scheme.

Ft. Lauderdale Airport. Why will nobody help this man? 'Cos it's a hoax. (Anaconda MaltLiquor)


Sandy Hook 'Dad' Caught Playing Two Roles • Crisis Actor Parent and Swat Team Member • Part 1 (Kyle Ordway)

CNN Cuts Off Bernie Sanders After He Calls Them 'Fake News' Jokingly

Drooperdoo wrote at Reddit:

I have yet to see any of these sites peddle false stories. CNN is nothing BUT false stories. From their phony Gulf War reporting (where they pretended the correspondent was in Iraq, but he was really in Atlanta), to their being at the Ferguson riots and they interviewed the camera man (passing him off as a random man in the street), to the multiple times they got caught feeding focus groups pre-scripted lines. It happened during the Presidential debates and it just happened against last week. Everything about that network is fake. (In fact, since the NDAA legalized propaganda in 2012, the entire mainstream media has collapsed into North Korean-style Ministry of Propaganda programming, with one fake news story after another. I've never in my lifetime seen so much naked bias and false reporting.) Outside the MSM, however, we're seeing a renaissance of real reporting. . . . But you have to leave the propaganda matrix to get it. It's sad, really. We're watching the legacy media die. They keep asking how these other venues are getting higher ratings, yet they recoil when the simple answer comes back: "They report the truth". The truth to CNN is like garlic to a vampire. They could increase their viewership and internet clicks instantly by doing serious journalism again, but they'd rather get those government propaganda checks from the Pentagon and those public relations checks from George Soros and the DNC. Hence every one of their stories is now "How Trump is Hitler".

CNN is a propaganda mouthpiece for the CIA, State Department and Pentagon.

CNN is the epitome of fake news. The whole entire 24 hour program is one giant propaganda production. They tell nothing but lies. 

Give them credit, they work hard for that designation:

• CNN Cuts Off Soldier Who Voted For Paul and Spoke Out Against More War!
• CNN cuts off soldier then Ron Paul brings him on stage to let him finish talking!!
• CNN Cuts Off Reporter - CNN Cuts Live Feed After Reporter Tells the Truth About Hillary Clinton
• CNN cuts satellite feed as soon as WikiLeaks is mentioned by Congressman Collins
• Compilation of CNN & MSNBC Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton
• CNN caught telling focus group what to say live on air after Debates
• CNN cuts congressman's feed when he brings up WikiLeaks
• CNN deception: Live aerial footage of police running into Sandy Hook was of another school

CNN has always pulled stupid shit like this. They're notorious for green-screening their "on-the-ground" reporting. Like check out this 2-foot tall reporter with the world's best sea legs.

CNN on Wikileaks of Podesta and DNC emails:

• CNN employee and now DNC's Donna Brazille provided debate questions to Hillary Clinton prior to debate
• CNN says it's ILLEGAL for you to read the Wikileaks/Hillary Clinton emails
• Podesta emails: CNNs Wolf Blitzer gets his questions for Trump directly from the DNC
• CNN guest calls Assange a pedophile without any evidence or challenge from the host
• DNC and Podesta emails: Compilation of emails outlining the DNC-MSM collusion as well as the DNC plot to subvert the Sanders campaign (from /r/DNCleaks)
• Donna Brazile grilled on leaking CNN debate question(s) to Hillary

Occasional watch these corporate media outlets when you want to see what agenda is being pushed to the masses.

Fake CNN Footage on Sandy Hook False Flag Operation:

• CNN deception: Live aerial footage of police running into Sandy Hook was of another school

Scalia's Death Instantly Made the 2nd Amendment the Biggest Issue of the 2016 Presidential Election

Chelsea Clinton promises her mom’s Supreme Court will gut the 2nd Amendment

April 22, 2016

Robert Laurie, Canada Free Press - Back in February, I argued that the death of Antonin Scalia instantly made the 2nd Amendment the biggest issue of the 2016 presidential election.  Since then, Republicans have been busy bickering about transgender bathrooms and who they hate more: Trump or Cruz. While they indulge in that incredible waste of time, the left is cruising toward a future where the Constitution is decimated by a statist Supreme Court pick.

Obama has already nominated Merrick Garland to fill Scalia’s position on the bench. He’s about as anti-2A as they come, and if he’s confirmed, you can be 100% certain that he’ll overturn 2008’s District of Columbia v Heller decision. That would eliminate the concept of gun ownership as an individual right, basically gutting the 2nd Amendment.

He may or may not make it through the nominating process, but rest assured.  If he doesn’t, Hillary can’t wait to appoint someone else who will eliminate your rights. As Chelsea Clinton is all too happy to admit; her mom has plans for Heller…



In other words, “With Scalia dead, we can finally destroy your 2nd Amendment protections the way we’ve always wanted to, and we’re pretty excited about that.”

Remember, these are the people who constantly promise you can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor, and that no one wants to destroy your ability to “hunt and protect your family.”

As we head toward November, never forget that Hillary views the Constitution as nothing more than an insignificant obstacle. At heart, she’s an authoritarian gun-grabber who, if it furthers her agenda and pleases her donors, will gleefully shred every single one of your rights.

‘Operation Fast and Furious’ Put 2,000 Weapons into Hands of Mexican Criminals While Lecturing Americans About Gun Control

January 21, 2016

(National Review) - Obama-administration scandals never resolve. They just vanish — usually, under a new scandal.

So it was with one of this president’s earliest embarrassments, “Operation Fast and Furious,” designed to help the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) dismantle drug cartels operating inside the United States and disrupt drug-trafficking routes. Instead, it put into the hands of criminals south of the border some 2,000 weapons, which have been used to kill hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

Now, Fast and Furious is back in the news. Earlier this month, a raid on the hidey-hole of drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman recovered not only the notorious drug lord, but a (“massive”) .50-caliber rifle, capable of stopping a car or shooting down a helicopter, that originated with the ATF program. Rest easy, though: Only 34 such rifles were sold through the program.

The news comes just days after a federal judge rejected President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege to deny Congress access to Fast and Furious–related records it requested back in 2012 as part of an investigation into the gun-walking operation. Despite the IRS scandal, Benghazi, and a host of other accusations of malfeasance against this White House, it remains this president’s sole assertion of executive privilege.

Three-and-a-half years later, the question is still: Why?

In November 2009, the ATF’s Phoenix field office launched an operation in which guns bought by drug-cartel straw purchasers in the U.S. were allowed to “walk” across the border into Mexico. ATF agents would then track the guns as they made their way through the ranks of the cartel.

At least, that was the theory. In reality, once the guns walked across the border, they were gone. Whistleblowers reported, and investigators later confirmed, that the ATF made no effort to trace the guns.

In March 2010, a few ATF agents voiced an obvious concern: Couldn’t the guns end up being used in crimes? Seven months later, that’s exactly what happened. The brother of the former attorney general of the state of Chihuahua was murdered, and Fast and Furious weapons were found at the scene.

In December, the scheme’s ramifications crossed back over the border. On December 14, four Border Patrol agents were staked out near Rio Rico, Ariz., eleven miles north of the Mexican border. A five-man “rip crew,” a group looking to rob drug smugglers crossing the border, opened fire when the agents attempted to apprehend. Agent Terry was struck in the back and bled to death. Two of the guns involved in the shootout were traced back to Fast and Furious, which continued for another six weeks.

The operation was finally shut down with the help of Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), then ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who promptly opened an investigation. Two months later, Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), then chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, opened his own investigation in the House.

Operation Fast and Furious would have been bad enough. But the investigation made clear a widespread cover-up. In February, in response to a request from Grassley, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich submitted for the record a letter declaring that any claim “that ATF ‘sanctioned’ or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them to Mexico — is false. ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.” In November, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that gun-walking was, in fact, used, and in December the Obama administration formally withdrew Weich’s letter from the congressional record — because it was, in Holder’s words, “inaccurate.”

Operation Fast and Furious would have been bad enough. But the investigation made clear a widespread cover-up.

By that time, Holder had become a figure of particular interest. What did the attorney general know about the operation, and when did he know it? In May 2011, he claimed to have known about gun-walking tactics for only a few weeks. But by October, new documents showed that Holder had been briefed about Operation Fast and Furious as early as July 2010. And in January 2010, just months after the ATF had launched Operation Fast and Furious, personnel from the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, a multi-agency network run by the Department of Justice, had been brought in to provide additional manpower.

Furthermore, the operation may have had an explicitly political angle. E-mails obtained by CBS News in late 2011 showed ATF officials corresponding about the possibility of using Fast and Furious to push through a regulation requiring gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” In other words, the ATF permitted certain gun shops to conduct certain, inadvisable sales to dangerous people and then planned to point to those sales to justify the need for new reporting requirements.

By the summer of 2012, Holder and the House Oversight Committee were at a standoff, the attorney general claiming he had been fully responsive to the committee’s request for documents, Issa claiming that the DOJ had withheld 1,300 key pages. President Obama, intervening, declared that the documents were protected under executive privilege — a risible claim, legally, and a suggestive one, given the White House’s denial of involvement. In late June, at the recommendation of the committee, Holder became the first sitting member of a presidential cabinet to be held in contempt by the House of Representatives.

In September, the administration declared victory. The Department of Justice’s inspector general released a report recommending disciplinary action against 14 federal officials and absolving Holder — seemingly. In fact, the report noted a series of extraordinary coincidences in which, several times in 2010 and 2011, information about the program made it all the way to Holder’s desk — but without the attorney general’s ever managing to pass his eyes over it. Odd, that.

Since then, the investigation into Fast and Furious has been tied up in the courts, where the House challenged the president’s executive-privilege claim.

But the ATF & Co.’s horrendous judgment continues to take a toll. By the time of the House’s contempt vote, some 300 Mexicans had been killed or wounded by Fast and Furious firearms, and that number has surely risen. In December 2013, a walked gun was found at the site of a gunfight at a Mexican resort that left five cartel members dead.

The guns have found their way north, too. A weapon owned by Nadir Soofi, one of the two Muslim terrorists who tried to shoot up Pamela Geller’s “Draw Muhammad” contest in Texas last May, was acquired through Fast and Furious.

The guns have found their way north, too.

It is difficult to overstate both how stupid and how incompetent were the whole host of federal officials involved in this fiasco, who first thought it was a swell idea to traffic thousands of guns to Mexican criminals, then blithely forgot about them. It is difficult, too, to overstate the contempt of this administration for transparency, given that, having made those fatal mistakes, its response was to hide them from a congressional inquiry, going so far as to invoke executive privilege to do so. At best, the operation and its aftermath were an exercise in astonishing malpractice; at worst, the administration knowingly exhibited a reckless disregard for human life — then covered it up.

Under “Operation Fast & Furious,” the U.S. government became a de facto arms dealer to Mexican drug cartels and Islamist criminals.

But this administration still wants to lecture Americans about gun control . . .

Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Embrace the Second Amendment as a Crime-fighting Tool as Americans Grow Ever-more Pro-gun

"It appears that the President continues to subscribe to the thought that more restrictions on law abiding gun owners will reduce crime and save lives. For the vast majority of homicides committed in this country, the suspects are not obtaining their firearms through a dealer, at a gun show, or through any other legal pathway. Criminals are buying firearms from other criminals in order to commit more criminal acts. It is clear that it is the criminal that we need to focus on and not the law-abiding gun owner who deserves and, more importantly, has the Constitutional right, to own firearms for their personal protection, for their collection, for hunting, for target practice, or for no other reason that they want to. It is important to note that the addition of restrictions directed at the law-abiding gun owner has done nothing to reduce the criminal elements use of a firearm in the commission of crime. Look no further than Baltimore City with their record breaking firearm murder rate and over 900 shootings in 2015. This is a state that is viewed as one of, if not, the most restrictive states for firearms purchasers in the country. To sum this up, no, I am unsure how these proposals might impact the all too numerous gun laws already on the books, but I am confident the President's proposals will have no impact on crime. - Harford County Maryland Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler, January 6, 2016

Growing number of police chiefs, sheriffs join call to arms

January 15, 2016 

Fox News - It's Florida Sheriff Grady Judd's duty to protect the citizens of Polk County -- but he figures it's their job, too.

One of a growing number of rural and big-city law enforcement officials who openly encourages responsible gun ownership, Judd believes guns allow citizens to defend themselves when police cannot.

“If you are foolish enough to break into someone’s home, you can expect to be shot in Polk County,” Judd said in a statement after a homeowner shot a would-be home invader earlier this month. “It’s more important to have a gun in your hand than a cop on the phone."

Such full-throated embrace of the Second Amendment as a crime-fighting tool isn't confined to red states like Florida.

One California police chief is backing teachers in his district packing heat. Detroit Police Chief James Craig has been a leader in urging his community to arm itself. A Maryland sheriff is working with the state’s general assembly to try to make it easier for citizens to obtain handgun permits.

In the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s most recent ranking of states with the strongest gun laws, California (1), Maryland (4) and Michigan (15) ranked near the top of the pack.

Some gun rights advocates say terror attacks at home and abroad have contributed to a change in attitudes about gun ownership among community members and authorities, even in locales historically hostile towards the Second Amendment.

“That has helped play into it, and there’s no doubt the active shooter scenario has, too,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “You’re seeing people say, ‘How do you respond?’”

The answer varies based on where you live, and how your law enforcement leaders are selected.

Police chiefs are typically appointed by mayors, and their politics tend to line up with whoever chose them. Sheriffs, in contrast, are voted into office and in some cases espouse values of a constituency that is growing ever-more pro-gun.

“Historically, sheriffs have been very pro-gun rights,” Gottlieb told FoxNews.com. “But they’ve stepped out of the box and they’re now publicly making it known that firearms are good for self-defense.”

In Oklahoma, Garvin County Sheriff Larry Rhodes and Creek County Sheriff John Davis have each recently reduced costs associated with getting a gun license. Davis is also keeping administrative offices open longer on weekends to allow more people to apply.

“As a result of the ever-increasing violence being committed upon the American citizen and the current state of our country, I encourage each citizen of Creek County who is legally able to fully utilize their Second Amendment right ‘to keep and bear arms,’ as legally prescribed by the Oklahoma Defense Act,” Davis said in a statement.

Rhodes said his plan made simple fiscal sense.

“The benefits of people getting their license, carrying lawfully, certainly outweigh the money I would lose,” he told KFOR.

In Florida, several sheriffs are playing the role of pitchman for an armed populace.

Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey has told citizens they must be “that first line of defense,” according to Florida Today. Marion County Sheriff Chris Blair told the Tampa Tribune, “If you are certified to carry a gun, I would like to encourage you to do so.”

In Wisconsin, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is one of the more visible pro-gun faces.

“I want as many law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in this county as we can get so that I have the partner that I need to beat back this sort of violence,” Clarke said during an interview on “Hannity” last week.

The attitude of sheriffs like Clarke and Judd is, at least in-part, a response to the attitudes of the people they serve.

“There’s no doubt at this point it’s consumer-driven to a large extent,” Gottlieb said. “Because they’re elected, they have to make their constituents happy. We’ve seen a record number of firearms sold. And people come in to get permits to carry, and you want to be customer-service friendly, and you want to make it easier – or you might not get re-elected.”

The number of concealed handgun permits soared from 4.6 million in 2007 to 12.8 million in 2015, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. Those numbers match an evolution in the general public’s attitude toward guns. Just 35 percent of respondents in an August 2000 Gallup poll said they felt safer with a gun in the house. That rose to 42 percent in 2004, 47 percent in 2006 and 63 percent in 2014.

“There is momentum in the country for expanding the right to carry,” New York University Law Professor James Jacobs told FoxNews.com. “But the people who are leading the charge on gun control, they say momentum is changing in their direction. There seems to be a real disconnect here in terms of peoples’ perceptions of what the trends are.”

Shadow Government Wants to Seize All Weapons, Including Personal Citizen-owned Conventional Firearms Used for Hunting and Self Defense, and Draw Down the U.S. Military Under an "International Agreement to Establish an Effective System of International Control," a "UN Peace Force"

The UN Programme of Action (PoA) and the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) are arms control processes that take place within the framework of the United Nations. They are developed and advanced by the 193 UN Member States; however, elements of the two processes and what they aim to achieve are very different. Click here for a chart that outlines and clarifies some of the major differences between the PoA and the UN ATT.

The ATT passed by a huge majority on April 2, 2013. The U.S. signed the treaty on September 23, 2013. In the U.S., the biggest pro-gun lobby group, the National Rifle Association, vowed to fight against ratification of the treaty by the Senate, although the UN says the treaty does nothing to interfere with domestic firearms legislation. However, a comprehensive ATT would cover all conventional arms, including small arms and light weapons and possibly ammunition.

On the last day of the Arms Trade Treaty conference, which began in March 2013, the North Lawn building buzzed with reporters seeking perspectives. There were Russian and Arab TV crews, Japanese magazine journalists, and writers from at least half a dozen African publications. The U.S. media presence, hailing from the world's largest arms exporter, was harder to find. Which is to say, it was nearly impossible to find. In two weeks of commingling with ATT delegates and observers, the only American reporters I met were Ginny Simone, the face of NRA News, and Richard Johnson, a freelancer who has covered the U.N. since Brezhnev, most recently for an obscure website called South-South News. "In terms of media, it's gotten pretty sleepy around here," said Johnson, before recounting the glory days of the 1970s. "Now it's more about Twitter than press conferences. The institutional media only flocks when North Korea does something, or there's drama in the Security Council."  This lack of media presence was reflected in the pages of the nation's largest newspapers, which largely ignored the treaty negotiations. The Washington Post was a no-show. So was The Wall Street Journal. The Los Angeles Times reported from the West Coast on a State Department press release and published a story on the treaty's passage credited to "Times Staff and Wire Reports." [Alexander Zaitchik, Media Matters, April 3, 2013]

On December 4, 2015, the Zionist-controlled New York Times called for the confiscation of firearms from U.S. citizens in a bombshell front-page editorial—the first one in almost 100 years.

Treason: The Disarmament of the United States, and the Declaration of World Government [Excerpt]

October 30, 2013

Timothy A. Pope - CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy Admiral Chester Ward wrote:

"The main purpose of the CFR is promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." 

This high ranking military officer went on to explain their procedures for influencing policy, claiming:

"Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the US government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition."

And that is precisely what is now happening among the ranks of our military command structure. The shake-up (identification, vilification and nullification) of all flag officers and other ranking commanders loyal to the Republic and the US Constitution who will not outwardly go along with the one world government—the main opposition force—are being confounded, discredited and removed.

One world government, you say?

On February 17, 1950, James Paul Warburg, founder of the United World Federalists, who helped fund Hitler's rise to power during the Nazi's Third Reich, confidently declared to the United States Senate:

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." 

In America, the original seeds of world government were planted by Truman in the US Public Law 87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act. Look it up.

Oregon Noncombatants Labeled "Terrorists" for Political Purposes

Ammon Bundy, the leader of a small, armed group that is occupying a remote national wildlife preserve in Oregon said Tuesday that they will go home when a plan is in place to turn over management of federal lands to locals. Bundy’s general message about federal overreach on public lands is one that resonates in a county where cows outnumber people 14 to 1, and 75 percent of the land is owned by the federal government (see map below). The "government of the people, by the people," "we, the people," who pay the taxes that keep the government running, collectively own the land. Click here for a slideshow.

People of Burns, Ore., conflicted, fearful as wildlife refuge occupation drags on

January 8, 2016

Yahoo News - Wednesday marked the fifth day since a group of armed antigovernment activists led by Ammon Bundy seized the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, turning what began as a peaceful protest against the arrest of two local ranchers into a potentially violent occupation.

In the days since, local schools have been closed. The FBI, Oregon State Police, and sheriff’s deputies from across the state have descended on Harney County, as have the national media.

The message Harney County Sheriff David Ward and other local leaders have sent to the occupiers has been to relinquish the federal refuge and go home. But among rank and file members of the community, attitudes toward Bundy and his band of pertinacious protesters are more complicated.

After all, it was the heavily protested prison sentences of two of their own local ranchers, convicted on arson charges for setting federal land on fire, that brought the Bundy brigade to this quiet piece of country in the first place. And while most people are quick to clarify that they don’t support the group’s tactics, Bundy’s general message about federal overreach on public lands is one that resonates in a county where cows outnumber people 14 to 1, and 75 percent of the land is owned by the federal government.

A group calling itself Citizens for Constitutional Freedom said it wants an inquiry into whether the government is forcing ranchers off their land after Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, reported back to prison Monday. Ammon Bundy said the group felt it had the support of the local community. 

Ammon Bundy, one of the sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, speaks to reporters during a news conference at Malheur … Click here for the slideshow.

Essentially, the protesters have created a sort of conflict of conscience that appears to be driving a wedge between them and the people they claim to want to help.

Grasty, for example, said he was “embarrassed” and “angry” about the heavy law enforcement presence at the courthouse Wednesday and told the community members in the room, “If you feel the same way, that anger needs to be pointed in one direction only: at Mr. Bundy and his friends.”

But Commissioner Dan Nichols, on the other hand, wasn’t so sure.

Nichols, who said he paid a visit to the wildlife refuge and left with a vastly different perception of the situation than the one he’d had going in.

“I gotta say, with the fear that’s in this community, these people are respectful, courteous,” Nichols said, referring to Bundy’s group. Nichols said he was welcomed onto the property and had a “pleasant” discussion with Bundy before asking him to consider leaving.

“We’ve expressed locally many, many times that we agree with the same concerns, but we do not agree with the methods being done,” Nichols said. “We appreciate their support but we also want them to go home.”

At the same time, Nichols argued, “Those people up there aren’t a threat.”

“In fairness to them, they’re frustrated and angered Americans just like all of us,” he said. “They’ve been pushed and prodded and frustrated to the point that they’ve gone a step beyond where we as a community are willing to go.”

And despite their questionable methods, Nichols noted, the activists have managed to draw national attention to issues concerning the Western United States.

“There’s an overreach of government and an overreach of regulations,” he said.

Zionist-controlled New York Times Calls for Confiscation of Firearms from U.S. Citizens; U.S. Supreme Court Backs Assault Weapons Ban

Yes, They Do Want To Take Your Guns

If the anti-gun crowd is going to be honest about its intentions, then it should at least be honest about the devastation its agenda would wreak upon the country.

December 7, 2015

Daniel Payne, The Federalist - I have no idea what an editorial board meeting of The New York Times looks like, but I sometimes picture it as a gathering of the titular Dead Poets Society from the rather overrated 1989 Robin Williams movie: a bunch of mostly confused people discussing things they don’t really understand, all the while believing that they are doing something subversive.

That’s the impression one got last week, anyway, after reading the Times’s bombshell front-page editorial—the first one in almost 100 years—that demanded in no uncertain terms we “end the gun epidemic in America.” The Times declared we need to “reduce…drastically” the number of firearms in this country, “eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition,” claiming it is a “moral outrage and a national disgrace” that American individuals can buy firearms “designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.” 

Editor's Note: The Zionist-run New York Times apparently has no problem with the federal government arming its workforce, our public servants, with such firearms and buying billions of rounds of ammunition, including hollow-point bullets. In recent years, federal agencies (excluding the DOD/military) have purchased about two billion rounds of ammunition — that would be about six bullets for each U.S. citizen.

The Times’ Proposal Won’t Reduce Violence

There is a rich and tragic irony underneath this rather shameless screed, namely that the two rifles used in the recent San Bernardino shooting—rifles the Times explicitly flagged—were modified in such a way that they were already illegal under California law. This made no difference to the shooters who carried out the act, which is an archetypal example of criminal behavior. It turns out that murderers aren’t interested in following the law, and that they will violate gun regulations if it suits their murderous intent.

Missed points aside, it is reasonable to assume the Times’s proposed bans will not stop at the kinds of rifles used in San Bernardino. The paper lists five other shootings in order to bolster the editorial board’s case—shootings that took place in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, and Connecticut.

The Times’s proposed bans will not stop at the kinds of rifles used in San Bernardino.

But these incidents involved a great many different weapons: Charleston’s killer used a .45-caliber handgun, Virginia Tech’s shooter used both a 9mm and a .22-caliber pistol, the Colorado movie theater shooting involved a Remington shotgun and a .40-caliber handgun in addition to the shooter’s rifle, and the Oregon shooter was armed with five different handguns. The Navy Yard shooting two years ago—which killed almost as many as the shooting in San Bernardino—was carried out largely with the same Remington shotgun used in Aurora. If someone is both trained and determined, in other words, virtually any kind of firearm can “kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.”

Does the Times wish to confiscate and ban these types of extremely common firearms? One assumes the answer is yes—which is to say, the newspaper is demanding not simply a ban on a few classes of guns, but rather the wholesale prohibition of essentially every practical firearm in America.

Gun Control and Discrimination in Israel

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) published reports documenting racism in Israel, and the 2007 report suggested that anti-Arab racism in the country was increasing. One analysis of the report summarized it thus: "Over two-thirds of Israeli teens believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together....The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend or let their children befriend Arabs, and would not let Arabs into their homes." The 2008 report from ACRI says the trend of increasing racism is continuing. An October 2010 poll by the Dahaf polling agency found that 36% of Israeli Jews favor eliminating voting rights for non-Jews. In 2003–2009 polling, between 42% and 56% of Israelis agreed that "Israeli Arabs suffer from discrimination as opposed to Jewish citizens;" 80% of Israeli Arabs agreed with that statement in 2009. A 2012 poll revealed widespread support among Israeli Jews for discrimination against Israeli Arabs. [Source]

The Follow-Up Committee for Arab Education notes that the Israeli government spends an average of $192 per year on each Arab student compared to $1,100 per Jewish student. The drop-out rate for Arab citizens of Israel is twice as high as that of their Jewish counterparts (12 percent versus 6 percent). The same group also notes that there is a 5,000-classroom shortage in the Arab sector. In Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education, Nurit Peled-Elhanan, a professor of language and education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, describes the depiction of Arabs in Israeli schoolbooks as racist. She states that their only representation is as "refugees, primitive farmers and terrorists," claiming that in "hundreds and hundreds" of books, not one photograph depicted an Arab as a "normal person." [Source]

The Mossawa Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel reported a tenfold increase in racist incidents against Arabs in 2008. Jerusalem reported the highest number of racist incidents against Arabs. The report blamed Israeli leaders for the violence, saying: "These attacks are not the hand of fate, but a direct result of incitement against the Arab citizens of this country by religious, public, and elected officials." The Bedouin claim they face systemic discrimination and have submitted a counter-report to the United Nations that disputes the Israeli government's official state report. They claim they are not treated as equal citizens in Israel and that Bedouin towns are not provided the same level of services or land that Jewish towns of the same size are, and that they are not given fair access to water. The city of Beersheba refused to recognize a Bedouin holy site, despite a High Court recommendation. [Source]

A senior Catholic spokesman, Fr Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Custodian of the Holy Land, has claimed that a lack of police action, and an educational culture in which Jewish pupils are encouraged to act with "contempt" towards Christians, has resulted in life becoming increasingly "intolerable" for many Christians. In 2012, pro-settler extremists attacked a Trappist monastery in the town of Latroun, covering walls with anti-Christian graffiti denouncing Christ as a "monkey" and daubing the 11th century Monastery of the Cross with offensive slogans such as "Death to Christians." According to an article in the Telegraph, Christian leaders feel the most important issue that Israel has failed to address is the practice of some ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools, which teach children that it is a religious obligation to abuse anyone in Holy Orders they encounter in public, "including Ultra-Orthodox Jewish children as young as eight spitting at members of the clergy on a daily basis." Incidents of spitting on Christian clergymen in Jerusalem have been common since the 1990s. Ruling on the case of a Greek Orthodox priest who had struck a yeshiva student who spat near him in 2011, a Jerusalem magistrate wrote, "Day after day, clergymen endure spitting by members of those fringe groups — a phenomenon intended to treat other religions with contempt. ... The authorities are not able to eradicate this phenomenon, and they don't catch the spitters, even though this phenomenon has been going on for years." [Source]

Ben Carson Says An Armed Citizenry Would Have Been Able to Greatly Diminish Hitler's Slaughter

"To conquer a nation you must first disarm the citizens. Nothing drives the people harder than sudden fear of death." - Adolf Hitler

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison

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

The great object is that every man be armed. - Patrick Henry

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. - Thomas Jefferson 

Militia: a military force or ‘citizen army’ (1590); a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers; a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Ben Carson says armed Jewish people could have stopped Holocaust

Ben Carson followed up on his ‘Holocaust’ remarks by clarifying his thoughts on gun free zones, disarmament and ‘the left wing press trying to stir up controversy”. Click here for the video.

October 9, 2015

New York Daily News - Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon-turned-politician, said Thursday that gun control played a part in the World War II slaughter of 11 million people deemed "undesirable” by Nazis, including six million Jews.

“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,” he said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

The comment came after the CNN host read a passage from Carson’s book, “A More Perfect Union,” which was released Tuesday.

“German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s, and by the mid-1940s Hitler's regime had mercilessly slaughtered six million Jews and numerous others whom they considered inferior ... Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance,” the passage read.

Blitzer rebuffed Carson’s suggestion by pointing out the Nazi’s military supremacy.

“They had a powerful military machine, as you know, the Nazis,” the host said.

“I understand that,” Carson barked back. “I’m telling you that there is a reason that these dictatorial people take the guns first.”

Related:

• 70 Million People Were Rounded Up and Killed in the 20th Century Because of Gun Control 
• Totalitarian Governments Don't Want Citizens to Have Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny
• How Do You Bypass the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act? You Militarize the Police 
• Retired Army Officer Warns That Homeland Security is Preparing for War Against U.S. Citizens

About 4.2 Million Adults Receiving Social Security Disability Payments Could Lose Gun Rights

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

July 18, 2015

Chicago Tribune - Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.

The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.

A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."

There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary.

If Social Security, which has never participated in the background check system, uses the same standard as the VA, millions of its beneficiaries would be affected. About 4.2 million adults receive monthly benefits that are managed by "representative payees."

The move is part of a concerted effort by the Obama administration after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., to strengthen gun control, including by plugging holes in the background check system.

But critics — including gun rights activists, mental health experts and advocates for the disabled — say that expanding the list of prohibited gun owners based on financial competence is wrongheaded.

Though such a ban would keep at least some people who pose a danger to themselves or others from owning guns, the strategy undoubtedly would also include numerous people who may just have a bad memory or difficulty balancing a checkbook, the critics argue.

"Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe," said Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money. "They are very different determinations."

Steven Overman, a 30-year-old former Marine who lives in Virginia, said his case demonstrates the flaws of judging gun safety through financial competence. After his Humvee hit a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2007, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and a brain injury that weakened his memory and cognitive ability.

Federal Agency Overseeing Water and Power is Procuring Ammunition for Nonmilitary Purposes

Hoover Dam, Lake Mead officers getting 52,000 rounds of ammo

Bureau of Reclamation to buy 52,000 rounds of ammo for Hoover Dam, Lake Mead officers

July 13, 2015

AP - The federal agency overseeing water and power is in the market for 52,000 rounds of ammunition for its officers at Hoover Dam and the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, raising questions about weapons for nonmilitary purposes.

The Bureau of Reclamation put out a bid in June for 41,600 rounds of hollow-point ammunition and 10,400 rounds of shotgun ammunition.

The ammo is paid for by revenue from utility companies that buy electricity from Hoover Dam, but the bureau won't say how it will be used or offer details on its law enforcement plan at the popular tourist destinations.

A 2008 review of federal law enforcement indicated 21 officers patrolled Hoover Dam, the Las Vegas Sun reported (http://bit.ly/1HiEhZp ).

"We want to limit the amount of information any bad guys might have about our protection capabilities," Bureau of Reclamation spokeswoman Rose Davis told the newspaper.

In addition to the bureau, which operates in Nevada out of its Boulder City office, the Department of Homeland Security and the Las Vegas police department are also called upon to handle Hoover Dam security.

The Bureau of Reclamation most recently purchased a large stock of ammo in 2013 and since 2008 has requested ammunition 19 times for use nationwide.

U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., has said he will seek answers from the bureau including how many officers are using firearms and how they are using them.

The lawmaker was among a group of GOP congressmen who tried, unsuccessfully, to prohibit some federal authorities from using or buying weapons after a high-profile standoff in Nevada turned tense. In April 2014, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters faced off with the Bureau of Land Management after a federal judge authorized that agency to remove his cattle from public land. No shots fired although both sides were armed.

Related:

• 20,000 New Federal Border Agents Toting Guns and Government Badges
• U.S. Government Plans to Use Military Force Against Its Citizens and is Arming Some of Its Employees in Case of Civil Unrest and Martial Law

Gun Rights Advocates Fear U.N. Treaty Will Lead to U.S. Registry

UN Gun Ban: 5 Articles You Must Read to Better Understand UN Arms Treaty Debate

January 30, 2015

NewsMax - Complicated international policies, legal terms, and passionate arguments on both sides of the U.N. gun ban debate make it challenging to grasp the true purpose and potential impact of the Arms Trade Treaty, which took effect on Christmas Eve 2014.

The United Nations treaty is aimed at regulating the international trade of weapons, from small firearms to missile launchers, in hopes of keeping them away from terrorists.

Totalitarian Governments Don't Want Citizens to Have Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny

A Second Amendment right to gun ownership is a constitutional right to bear arms as a defense against tyranny.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

70 Million People Were Rounded Up and Killed in the 20th Century Because of Gun Control

Before we passively allow the feds to strip away our last line of defense from an increasingly totalitarian government by acquiescing to the United Nations and American advocates for gun control, perhaps we should examine the end game resulting from past gun control efforts.

The following is a little history lesson regarding gun-grabbing and the carnage that ensued.

1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated (Stalin ruled from April 3, 1922 - October 16, 1952).

3. Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

4. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

5. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people. Being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 70 million. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control.

No matter how we might personally feel about the gun control issue, we should realize that every dictatorship ever in world history moved to remove guns and other weapons from the people!

Related:

Will the U.S. Military Fire Upon U.S. Citizens? 
Round Up of Americans Under Martial Law
Military Detention Bill

Flashback: Pennsylvania Drafts 2009 Mandatory Vaccination, Gun Confiscation Law

Pennsylvania Drafts 2009 Mandatory Vaccination, Gun Confiscation Law

October 16, 2009

Farm Wars - State governments continue promoting emergency powers legislation, even while insisting these unconstitutional powers will never be used. Here are a few excerpts from Pennsylvania House Bill 492, the “Emergency Health Powers Act” [PDF]:

Section 2523-D. Effect of declaration.
(b) Emergency powers of Governor.–During a state of public health emergency, the Governor may:
(4) Mobilize all or any part of the Pennsylvania National Guard into service of the Commonwealth. An order directing the Pennsylvania National Guard to report for active duty shall state the purpose for which it is mobilized and the objectives to be accomplished.

Section 2532-D. Access to and control of facilities and property.
The public health authority may exercise, for such period as the state of public health emergency exists, the following powers concerning facilities, materials, roads or public areas:
(3) To control, restrict and regulate by rationing and using quotas, prohibitions on shipments, price fixing, allocation or other means, the use, sale, dispensing, distribution or transportation of food, fuel, clothing and other commodities, alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives and combustibles, as may be reasonable and necessary for emergency response.
(5) To control ingress and egress to and from any stricken or threatened public area, the movement of persons within the area and the occupancy of premises therein, if such action is reasonable and necessary for emergency response.

Section 2542-D. Mandatory medical examinations.
(a) Powers of public health authority.–The public health authority may exercise, for such period as the state of public health emergency exists, the following emergency powers over persons:
(1) To compel a person to submit to a physical examination or testing, or both, as necessary to diagnose or treat the person subject to the following:
(i) The medical examination or testing may be performed by any qualified person authorized by the public health authority.
(ii) The medical examination or testing may not be reasonably likely to result in serious harm to the affected individual.
(iii) The medical examination or testing shall be performed immediately upon the order of the public health authority without resort to judicial or quasi-judicial authority.
(iv) If the public health authority is uncertain whether a person who refuses to undergo medical examination or testing may have been exposed to an infectious disease or otherwise poses a danger to public health, the public health authority may subject the individual to isolation or quarantine as provided in this article.
(2) To require any physician or other health care provider to perform the medical examination or testing, or both.
(b) Enforcement.–An order of the public health authority given to effectuate the purposes of this section shall be immediately enforceable by any law enforcement officer.
(c) Penalty.–A person who refuses to submit or perform a medical examination or test under this section commits a misdemeanor of the third degree.

Section 2544-D. Vaccination and treatment.
(a) Powers of public health authority.–The public health authority may, for such period as the state of public health emergency exists, compel a person to be vaccinated or treated, or both, for an infectious disease subject to the following provisions:
(1) Vaccination may be performed by any qualified person authorized by the public health authority.
(2) A vaccine may not be given if the public health authority has reason to know that a particular individual is likely to suffer serious harm from the vaccination.
(3) Treatment may be performed by any qualified person authorized by the public health authority.
(4) Treatment must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual.
(b) Refusal.–If, by reason of refusal of vaccination or treatment, the person poses a danger to the public health, the person may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to the provisions of this article.
(c) Enforcement.–An order of the public health authority given to effectuate the purposes of this section shall be immediately enforceable by any peace officer.
(d) Penalty.–A person who fails to comply with this section commits a misdemeanor of the third degree.

Section 2572-D. Enforcement.
(a) General rule.–The public health authority shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this article through the imposition of fines and penalties, the issuance of orders and such other remedies as are provided by law.

Section 2574-D. Liability.
(a) State immunity.–Neither the Commonwealth, its political subdivisions, nor, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, the Governor, the public health authority or any other State official referenced in this article shall be liable for the death of or any injury to persons or damage to property as a result of complying with or attempting to comply with this article or any rule or regulations promulgated pursuant to this article.
(b) Private liability.
(3) During a state of public health emergency, no private person, firm or corporation and employees and agents of such person, firm or corporation who renders assistance or advice at the request of the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions under the provisions of this article shall be civilly liable for causing the death of or injury to any person or damage to any property except in the event of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

For our purposes here, the most important clause in this Act is as follows:

A vaccine may not be given if the public health authority has reason to know that a particular individual is likely to suffer serious harm from the vaccination.

Unfortunately, the CDC has already declared–contrary to evidence from 1976 onwards–that individuals are unlikely to suffer serious harm from vaccination!

And if you do suffer harm–as thousands of others have over the years–the state and its contractors accept no responsibility.

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case on Whether Gun Owners Have a Constitutional Right to Carry Handguns Outside the Home

U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

May 5, 2014

Reuters - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to weigh in on whether gun owners have a constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home.

The court decided not to hear a challenge to a New Jersey state law that requires people who want to carry handguns to show they have a special reason before they can get a permit. The court has shown a reluctance to wade in on the issue in recent months, declining to hear cases that challenged similar regulations in New York and Maryland.

The gun owners challenging the law said that the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not limited to the right to keep a handgun at home.

By declining to hear the New Jersey case, the Supreme Court left intact a July 2013 decision by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the law.

The high court has yet to decide whether there is a right to carry guns in public, a question left unanswered in its two most recent gun-related decisions.

In the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, the court held that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms. Two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court held that the earlier ruling applied to the states.

The case is Drake v. Jerejian, U.S. Supreme Court, 13-827

Obama's Litmus Test to U.S. Military: Will You Fire on American Citizens or Not? Those Who Will Not are Being Removed (an Ideological Purge of the U.S. Military)

Obama to top brass: Will you fire on American Citizens? - Gary Franchi of WHDN Boston Interviews Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Dr. Jim Garrow

Obama placing fellow America-haters in the US Military

February 19, 2013
 
NextNewsNetwork - Will you fire on American citizens if the Commander in Chief gives the order? This is the question being asked of America’s top generals by the Obama administration.

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new litmus test in determining who will stay and who must go [among] his military leaders,” begins the post of Nobel Prize nominee Dr. Jim Garrow, originator of the Pink Pagoda project that rescues baby girls from “gendercide” shortly after their birth in China.

Garrow goes on to say: “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not. Those who will not are being removed!”

Now a video is showing narrator Gary Franchi interviewing Dr. Garrow, who is calling the ‘Fire on US Citizens’ order a “serious breach of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.”

“Watch what Barack Obama does, not what he says. . .his patriotic words are in conflict with his actions... he treats the Constitution as a faint relic,” says Garrow.

Every patriotic American who cares about our land needs to see and study this important video(above). Whether or not you care about gun ownership, take heed because Garrow gives an account of the discrepancy between the opinion an average Chinese citizen “in the street” has of President Obama and that held by Chinese Communist leaders. 

“He’s a traitor to his own country,” is the prevailing attitude of the Chinese man in the street.

Giving the command to fire on one’s own citizenry is beyond the pale of acceptable presidential governance.  The “OathKeepers” website has posted its “ten commandments” of allegiance concerning the Oath to the Constitution all warriors must take, and the main emphasis is on refusal to fire on average American citizens for owning guns, an inherent right granted to them by the Second Amendment!

“China wants America to be disarmed,” Garrow continues on the Franchi video.

He reports that the Bank of China evaluation team came into America recently to evaluate our coal and gas reserves, which they could take over in exchange for our enormous debt owed to China.  The Chinese bankers are attempting to equate that debt with the value of America’s natural resources!

The Kansas area was of special interest to the Chinese team as it attempted to set prices on our clean coal and oil reserves. The team allegedly told Obama they want American citizens disarmed.  After all, having to shoot average residents of the world’s last Republic would make the Communists look bad on the world stage!

“We have a president that has such a deeply rooted hatred of America that it separates him from all other tyrants and who is allowing infiltration by Islamic influence at all levels of government,” says a patriotic poster.

John Brennan’s nomination as CIA Director would clearly solidify Islam in the Oval Office as Brennan has been called a recent convert to the Muslim faith.

This Gun Control and Confiscation agenda of the Obama White House may very well be the line in the sand which the President himself has drawn against United States citizens. It must NOT be permitted to succeed.

Related:

• Tom Fife Says Obama is a Communist and was Groomed to be President
• Obama is the Manifestation of a Multi-Generational Soviet Plot to Destroy America

Retired Supreme Court Justice Wants to Rewrite the Constitution, Especially the Second Amendment

Justice Stevens: Make 6 changes to Constitution

April 21, 2014

AP - In the aftermath of the Connecticut school shootings that left 20 first-graders and six educators dead, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens began thinking about ways to prevent a repeat.

The result is Stevens' new book — his second since retiring from the court at age 90 — in which he calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, of which two are directly related to guns. Others would abolish the death penalty, make it easier to limit spending on elections and rein in partisan drawing of electoral districts.

His proposed amendments generally would overrule major Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees, including ones on guns and campaign finance in which he dissented.

The book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, is being published Tuesday by Little, Brown and Co., two days after Stevens' 94th birthday.

Stevens said in an interview with The Associated Press that the Newtown, Conn., shootings in December 2012 made him think about doing "whatever we could to prevent such a thing from happening again."

He said he was bothered by press reports about gaps in the federal government database for checking the background of prospective gun buyers. Those gaps exist because the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that states could not be forced to participate in the background check system. Stevens dissented from the court's 5-4 ruling in Printz v. United States.

One amendment would allow Congress to force state participation in gun checks, while a second would change the Second Amendment to permit gun control. Stevens was on the losing end of another 5-4 decision in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court declared for the first time that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.

He acknowledged that his proposed change would allow Congress to do something unthinkable in today's environment: ban gun ownership altogether.

"I'd think the chance of changing the Second Amendment is pretty remote," Stevens said. "The purpose is to cause further reflection over a period of time because it seems to me with ample time and ample reflection, people in the United States would come to the same conclusion that people in other countries have."

Justices often say that their dissenting opinions are written with the hope that today's dissent might attract a majority on some future court.

But Stevens has gone a step beyond by proposing the constitutional changes. Asked whether the book could in part be seen as "sour grapes," he readily agreed.

"To a certain extent, it's no doubt true, because I do think the court made some serious mistakes, as I did point out in my dissents," he said. "But I've been criticized for making speeches since I retired. Writing the book is not much different from continuing to speak about things I find interesting."

A recent example is the court's decision, again by a 5-4 vote, to strike down limits in federal law on the total contributions wealthy individuals can make to candidates for Congress and president, political parties and political action committees. Stevens said the decision follows from the 2010 ruling in Citizens United that lifted limits on political spending by corporations and labor unions. Again, he was in the dissent in another 5-4 ruling.

Those cases, he said, talk about the importance of public participation in the electoral process. But this month's decision on the overall limits is "not about electing your representative," Stevens said. "It's about financing the election of representatives of other people. It's about the influence of out-of-state voters on the election in your district. It sort of exposes a basic flaw in the recent cases."

Stevens marked his 94th birthday Sunday, still in excellent health, but lately feeling his age. Speaking to AP a few days before his birthday, he said, "It's going to come and pass. I'm not sure it's something to celebrate."

Transcript of Public Hearing, Joint Committee on Regional Government, September 26, 1978, Edwardsville, Illinois, Norman Dodd, page 51, page 53

Devvy.com - "Now, the second experience that I would like to share with you, oh, and incidentally, it is the Ford Foundation's grants which are responsible for the formulation of this idea of regional government, and also the idea that given regional government, we must, in turn, develop and accept and agree to a totally New Constitution which has already been drawn up, as was mentioned just a few minutes ago."
 
[Editorial note: Let me leave Mr. Dodd's testimony for a moment. I have a copy of the New States Constitution, developed many, many years ago and refined in 1978 by the Center for Democratic Studies, a Rockefeller funded operation. This New States Constitution is to replace ours. Ask former Senatorette Nancy Kassenbaum, now married to Howard Baker - she helped draft this document. However, first a Constitutional Convention must be called and the globalists are desperate to pull a con-con.
 
They tried and failed in 1994, they will try again. Did you notice during the 105th Congress, each session these people continued to call for a Constitutional Amendment for virtually every major piece of legislation, i.e. a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a balanced budget amendment [another meaningless, phony ploy], an amendment to the Constitution for school prayer, for victim's rights, to fix the IRS? This is unprecedented in this century.
 
The last Constitutional Convention was in 1787. We've passed 16 Amendments to the Constitution without a con-con, so why all of a sudden do we need one for all the legislation listed above? We don't, but it's the only way they can throw out our Constitution and replace it with this Communist doctrine called a New States Constitution.]

Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America (Excerpt)

SweetLiberty.org - This transcript of the Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America was transferred from Col. Arch Roberts' website at Committee to Restore the Constitution.

---

A CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA, from the book, THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION by Rexford G. Tugwell, published 1974 (Harper & Row: $20.00) illustrates with chilling clarity the final objective of regional governance conspirators. The goal is a corporate state concentrating economic, political and social powers in the hands of a ruling elite. "A Constitution for the Newstates of America", is the fortieth version of this revolutionary document prepared by a team of social experimenters at the CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, Fund for the Republic (Ford Foundation), Post Office Box 4068, Santa Barbara, California 93103.
 
The Center, its first objective accomplished, has appointed socialist-oriented University of Denver Chancellor Maurice B. Mitchell as its new head and may merge with the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, a Colorado-based world government policy promotion agency.
 
Aspen Institute Chairman is Robert O. Anderson, chief executive officer, Atlantic Richfield Company; member, Committee for Economic Development (laid ground work for regional government), and advisory board member, Institute for International Education. Anderson is the principal figure in campaign aimed at seizing control of the National Rifle Association.

Constitution for the Newstates of America

PREAMBLE

So that we may join in common endeavors, welcome the future in good order, and create an adequate and self-repairing government - we, the people, do establish the Newstates of America, herein provided to be ours, and do ordain this Constitution whose supreme law it shall be until the time prescribed for it shall have run.
 
ARTICLE I

Rights and Responsibilities

A. Rights
  SECTION 1. Freedom of expression, of communication, of movement, of assembly, or of petition shall not be abridged except in declared emergency.
  SECTION 2. Access to information possessed by governmental agencies shall not be denied except in the interest of national security; but communications among officials necessary to decision-making shall be privileged.
  SECTION 3. Public communicators may decline to reveal sources of information, but shall be responsible for hurtful disclosures.
  SECTION 4. The privacy of individuals shall be respected; searches and seizures shall be made only on judicial warrant; persons shall be pursued or questioned only for the prevention of crime or the apprehension of suspected criminals, and only according to rules established under law.
  SECTION 5. There shall be no discrimination because of race, creed, color, origin, or sex. The Court of Rights and Responsibilities may determine whether selection for various occupations has been discriminatory.
  SECTION 6. All persons shall have equal protection of the laws, and in all electoral procedures the vote of every eligible citizen shall count equally with others.
  SECTION 7. It shall be public policy to promote discussion of public issues and to encourage peaceful public gatherings for this purpose. Permission to hold such gatherings shall not be denied, nor shall they be interrupted, except in declared emergency or on a showing of imminent danger to public order and on judicial warrant.
  SECTION 8. The practice of religion shall be privileged; but no religion shall be imposed by some on others, and none shall have public support.
  SECTION 9. Any citizen may purchase, sell, lease, hold, convey, and inherit real and personal property, and shall benefit equally from all laws for security in such transactions.
  SECTION 10. Those who cannot contribute to productivity shall be entitled to a share of the national product; but distribution shall be fair and the total may not exceed the amount for this purpose held in the National Sharing Fund.
  SECTION 11. Education shall be provided at public expense for those who meet appropriate tests of eligibility.
  SECTION 12. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. No property shall be taken without compensation.
  SECTION 13. Legislatures shall define crimes and conditions requiring restraint, but confinement shall not be for punishment; and, when possible, there shall be preparation for return to freedom.
  SECTION 14. No person shall be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
  SECTION 15. Writs of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in declared emergency.
  SECTION 16. Accused persons shall be informed of charges against them, shall have a speedy trial, shall have reasonable bail, shall be allowed to confront witnesses or to call others, and shall not be compelled to testify against themselves; at the time of arrest they shall be informed of their right to be silent and to have counsel, provided, if necessary, at public expense; and courts shall consider the contention that prosecution may be under an invalid or unjust statute.
B. Responsibilities
  SECTION 1. Each freedom of the citizen shall prescribe a corresponding responsibility not to diminish that of others: of speech, communication, assembly, and petition, to grant the same freedom to others; of religion, to respect that of others; of privacy, not to invade that of others; of the holding and disposal of property, the obligation to extend the same privilege to others.
  SECTION 2. Individuals and enterprises holding themselves out to serve the public shall serve all equally and without intention to misrepresent, conforming to such standards as may improve health and welfare.
  SECTION 3. Protection of the law shall be repaid by assistance in its enforcement; this shall include respect for the procedures of justice, apprehension of lawbreakers, and testimony at trial.
  SECTION 4. Each citizen shall participate in the processes of democracy, assisting in the selection of officials and in the monitoring of their conduct in office.
  SECTION 5. Each shall render such services to the nation as may be uniformly required by law, objection by reason of conscience being adjudicated as hereinafter provided; and none shall expect or may receive special privileges unless they be for a public purpose defined by law.
  SECTION 6. Each shall pay whatever share of governmental costs is consistent with fairness to all.
  SECTION 7. Each shall refuse awards or titles from other nations or their representatives except as they be authorized by law.
  SECTION 8. There shall be a responsibility to avoid violence and to keep the peace; for this reason the bearing of arms or the possession of lethal weapons shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law.