Articles published in April, 2009
When will the first shot actually be fired? Very soon. Are you ready? Will you fight back? Others are trying the legal and political rout, read obamas plans.
Washington, DC - – Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who “wasn’t going to take away our guns”?
Well, guess what?
Less than 100 days into his administration, he’s never met a gun he didn’t hate.
A week or so ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn’t have the political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that didn’t keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun owners.
It’s called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work.
First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the “illicit” manufacture of firearms, what does that mean?
1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition… without a license….”
Hence, reloading ammunition — or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit — is clearly “illicit manufacturing.”
Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be “illicit manufacturing.” And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy definition of “illicit manufacturing.”
2. “Firearm” has a similarly questionable definition.
“[A]ny other weapon” is a “firearm,” according to the treaty — and the term “weapon” is nowhere defined.
So, is a BB gun a “firearm”? Probably.
A toy gun? Possibly.
A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else.
If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of the other provisions in the treaty:
* Banning Reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.
Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty — just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.
* Banning Gun Clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses — which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.
* Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances.
We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico to define offenses “committed in its territory” in a very broad way. And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.
Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute through “other means of peaceful settlement.”
Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision in a pro-gun manner?
* Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition — a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost.
* Gun Registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a “reasonable time,” that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database.
Is An animal rights extremist a terrorist? According to the FBI YES. So then how can guns and ammo owner’s be as well? Most of us hunt!!!
An “animal rights extremist” from Berkeley, Calif., was added to the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list of terror suspects, federal agents said Tuesday.
Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 31-year-old computer specialist, has been on the run since 2003 and is wanted in two bombings that year of corporate offices in California, said Michael J. Heimbach, an assistant director of the FBI’s counterrorism division.
“He is a known animal rights extremist,” Heimbach told reporters Tuesday at a Washington, D.C., news conference.
He added that San Diego set an improvised explosive device in the bombings that caused “extensive property damage and economic hardship.”
“The investigation revealed that metal nails were used in the construction of the device to create a more forceful effect,” Heimbach said.
It’s the first time an accused domestic terrorist has been put on the “Most Wanted List,” which includes Usama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and Adam Yahiye Gadahn, among others. San Diego is the 24th person on the list.
San Diego is the only ‘Most Wanted’ terror suspect sought for attacks he allegedly committed in the United States.
San Diego has a tattoo that proclaims, “It only takes a spark,” according to authorities.
The move to add a domestic, left-wing terrorist to the list comes only days after the Obama administration was criticized for internal reports suggesting some military veterans could be susceptible to right-wing extremist recruiters or commit lone acts of violence.
That prompted angry reactions from some lawmakers and veterans groups.
An arrest warrant was issued for San Diego after the 2003 bombings in northern California of the corporate offices of Chiron Corp., a biotechnology firm, and at Shaklee Corp., a nutrition and cosmetics company.
The explosions caused minor damage and no injuries.
A group calling itself “Revolutionary Cells” took responsibility for the blasts, telling followers in a series of e-mails that Chiron and Shaklee had been targeted for their ties to a research company that conducted drug and chemical experiments on animals.
Officials have offered a $250,000 reward for information leading to his capture, five times the reward amounts offered for other so-called eco-terrorists wanted in the U.S.
In February, the FBI announced San Diego may be living in Costa Rica, possibly working with Americans or people who speak English in the Central American country.
Law enforcement officials describe San Diego as a strict vegan who possesses a 9mm handgun. On his abdomen, he has images of burning and collapsing buildings.
The FBI’s “Most Wanted” terrorist list is distinct from the much longer-running “Ten Most Wanted” list. Al Qaeda chief bin Laden is on both.
On the tenth anniversary of the deadly high school shootings in Columbine, Colo., California lawmakers announced new efforts to keep guns and ammunition away from people who are barred from possessing those items.
Assemblyman Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, is backing a bill to require people who sell handgun ammunition to be licensed. It would also require sellers to conduct business face-to-face, bar Internet or mail order sales and require a thumbprint and other identifying information of people who buy ammunition.
That information would be given to state officials who could check it against the rolls of people who are barred from possessing ammunition. Sacramento currently enforces such limitations and the chief of police said Monday that 50 people have been arrested since the rules took effect in January 2008.
De Leon said the bill would close “dangerous loopholes” in California law. A similar bill that aimed to stop sales of ammunition to prohibited people died in the state Senate last year.
Another bill, introduced by Assemblyman Paul Krekorian, D-Burbank, would establish a new procedure for people who are barred from possessing guns to relinquish those weapons.
Well here we go again…and who among us can possible say, “I’m surprised!” as the Democrat gun-grabbers, under the leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder, begin their assault on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms once more.
This time they’re not going to do it “for our own good,” they’re going to attempt it for the good of Mexico. Mexico?!?!! Yep, Mexico.
Now I know what you are going to say, “Since when is the Attorney General of the United States of America supposed to be working for the good of the citizens of the United States of Mexico?”
You simpleton, didn’t you know, it’s in the Constitution…somewhere…at least it must be…after all, he’s doing it and he wouldn’t do anything that is not within the purview of his office…would he?
Unfortunately the answer to that simple, if somewhat sarcastic, question is a resounding “Damn right he would.” Democrats and especially Liberal Democrats, of which there are at least a few, or so I am told, believe our Constitution is an impediment. Most certainly our newly elected President believes that and said so way back in 2001 when he was just a simple corrupt Illinois State Senator talking on Chicago’s public radio station In that interview, our Lord High Empty Suit in Chief, bemoans:
“…as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties — says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.”
For any who believe in the Constitution as originally written, that entire comment is frightening. For him to say that the Warren Court “wasn’t that radical” is, to say the least, a unique understanding of the most activist court in American history. He then complains that they (the Warren Court) failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
Sorry Mr. President, I love those essential constraints. I want them to be respected, just as I want the Constitution to be respected…as it was written, not as you wish it was written. Those essential constraints were placed in our Constitution to protect the citizens from people like you.
So anyway, as I was saying our new Attorney General, the man whose job is to ensure that the Constitution is protected, has suggested that a new, even more draconian version of President Clinton’s so-called “Assault Weapons Ban” known as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 should be reinstated. He has also suggested that Congress pursue another Liberal red-herring, the so-called “gun show loop hole,” a chimera that Liberals continually claim to have seen, but have never proven to exist.
Here are the facts. The Assault Weapons Ban had no effect on crime in the United States. It did not reduce violent deaths due to firearms or “ugly gun’s” in any appreciable or measureable way. When it was allowed to sunset in 1994 after ten years, there was no appreciable effect. Since the law was allowed to lapse, the murder rate has hit a 43 year low…I am not claiming that this has any relationship to the lapse of the gun ban, I merely point it out the absurdity of the claims made by those who seek to reinstate the law. Obviously if the ban had any positive effect, we should have seen an uptick in violent deaths after the sunset date…we did not.
Let me once more explain what the Second Amendment of the Constitution is and is not.
The Second Amendment does not grant Americans the right to keep and bear arms…it forbids the government from “infringing” on that pre-existing, natural right which every law abiding American citizen has. In this sense, President Obama was right in his lament, if not in his sentiment. The Constitution is a charter of liberties which the government is expressly forbidden from infringing. The Amendments don’t grant us rights, they proscribe the government from limiting those rights.
America is unique among all other free nations in that our rights don’t come from the government, they come from God. They are inherent rights which pre-existed the constitution or any government. Our Founding Fathers recognized this fact and thus codified the concept in both the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”
Thus we know from the Declaration, that our rights come from our “Creator.” Our Founding Fathers recognized that any rights which are granted by men or their governments may be taken away by those same men or governments. Rights which come from God however, may never legally be taken away by men or the governments of men. They are “unalienable” rights. They can never legally be severed from their possessors. They are absolute.
Now as to the purpose of having the right to keep and bear arms, that too seemed intuitively obvious to our forefathers. They believed that the ownership of property was the ultimate inherent, unalienable right and that all other rights sprang from that right. Thus, if the ownership of property is a right, then a man must be capable of protecting that property against any and all who would attempt to dispossess him of it. Therefore the possession of a weapon capable of allowing a citizen to protect his property was an essential and undeniable right.
We can look to the Declaration of Independence once more for guidance. Continuing from the above quote:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
If it be a man’s right, or rather say the “governed’s” right to abolish any government which “becomes destructive” to our “unalienable rights,” then those “governed” must possess the ability to bring such a change about. This means a modern firearm capable of defending the citizen against any who would oppress him, including his government’s own military.
Many are shocked when I say this. They will scoff and ask, “You mean that your neighbor should have a howitzer?” My answer, according to my understanding of the intent of our Founding Fathers is “Yes, if that neighbor feels that a howitzer is necessary for him to defend himself against an oppressive government.” Radical thinking…not according to the Framers of our Constitution.
Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and many others wrote expressly about the necessity of the citizen possessing contemporary firearms. Here are a few quotes listed on the GunCite website:
“We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;”
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
“To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.”
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
—James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
—John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
—Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all?”
—Patrick Henry to Edmund Pendleton at The Virginia ratifying convention June 2 through June 26, 1788
And never forget the words of Benjamin Franklin:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
—Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
All of these man believed it to be an absolute necessity for citizens to possess firearms. I don’t believe they were advocating that right for the purpose of hunting.
The assumption that these “arms” of which our forefathers wrote so eloquently must be “modern firearms.” is a simple extension of the purpose for which they advocated possession of those firearms, to defend against tyranny whether it be from the state, or any group of usurpers.
In the 1780′s a large group of men armed with muskets was a match for any army, because the weapons were the same. If it was the intent of our Founding Fathers that we be capable of defending ourselves against the tyranny of the state, then it only follows that we be armed in a similar manner as any military force the state might use against us. The logical extension of our founders words is that every law-abiding citizen who so chooses should have at their disposal according to their capability to afford them any weapon available to our military troops.
This of course means the striking down of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which bans the unlicensed possession of short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and firearms capable of firing in fully automatic mode. It also mandates the striking down of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which added any weapon with a rifled barrel larger than .50 caliber. It also includes bombs, explosives of certain types and any ammunition that contains more than 1/4 oz of explosive, grenades, etc.
Some, perhaps many would call this an extreme view of our right to keep and bear arms, but according to the words and beliefs of our Founding Fathers as they made them known in their writings, it is the only logical conclusion.
Our Founding Fathers were suspicious of governments and powerful centrally controlled governments most of all. Judging by the actions taken so far by this new President and his appointees that suspicion appears to be justified. In closing I will add this little poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power as they began persecuting and prosecuting those with whom they disagreed:
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then…they came for me
…And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
Can the same thing happen in America? If the people fall asleep, you better believe it can…and will.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
The House Thursday voted 32-7 in favor of the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act sponsored by Fairbanks Republican Mike Kelly and 10 co-sponsors.
DHS report on how any American who doesn’t follow the obama administration blindly, who owns guns and ammo, who is a christen, or believe in freedom is a “RIGHT-WING TERORIST” regardless of your political leanings.
This can not be seen enough
The recent DHS report entitled: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” has nothing to do with protecting our country from the current threat of terrorism. It has everything to do with gathering information on people and groups who oppose the Obama regime in Washington.
The subtle suggestions and speculation contained in the language of the document suggest that it was written from a paranoid, far left radical perspective, the kind of mindset found in the White House today. One example of this is found in the statement: “Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool.” Notice the use of the word “historical.” There is no doubt that this is turning out to be an historical election, but not for the reason they think.
In this article, we will not only look at the document itself, but also consider where this diatribe may have originated.
The document is extremely weak on facts, but generous on speculation and conjecture. Where there is a lack of facts, the writer substitutes his own speculation. For example:
The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
Notice the use of “the first African American president.” This is referred to repeatedly throughout the document. In the eyes of the author, “right wingers” are just naturally racists that would be attracted to “hate groups” for racial reasons. This sounds like something right out of Jeremiah Wright’s church of black theology.
Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
This also shows the ignorance and liberal biased attitude, or should we call it “brainwashing” of the author. Conservatives know this is utter nonsense but the Kool-aid drinking left doesn’t know that. They have been told for years that Republicans and conservatives are racists and most liberals believe it, including Barack Obama.
I should point out that at no time does the document refer to “conservatives” by name. All references are made to “domestic rightwing terrorists” or “Rightwing extremists.” “White supremacists” and “Christian Cults” are included in that category and the report uses those groups in it’s examples.
The report tries to draw parallels between the recession of the early 1990s and today’s recession. In fact, most of the report refers to the 1990s and suggests that today’s political climate of unrest is similar to that era. The report would seem to suggest that “rightwing extremists” are not particularly happy with Democrat presidents, even acting presidents.
The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
It further states:
The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
Need I point out that these are very real concerns of conservative Americans, except the part about returning military veterans. Especially when it comes to the not “perceived,” but now very real threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers such as the U.N., and the possible passage of new restrictions on firearms which would violate citizen’s 2nd Amendment rights in the Constitution.
The only specific incidents of violence by such groups, cited in the report, are the Timothy McVeigh bombing of the 1995 Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and the incident at the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco Texas in 1993. Note that the Branch Davidians didn’t attack anyone. They were attacked by Janet Reno and the ATF under the Clinton Administration.
But the McVeigh attack seems to be used as the model for all suspected, and unnamed, “rightwing extremist” groups referred to in the report. There is no mention of Reno’s ATF attack on the Branch Davidians, and the McVeigh attack in Oklahoma City is the only example they have to support this report. The Ruby Ridge standoff of an armed militia with the U.S. Government in 1992 is mentioned only in passing.
But the report does not focus exclusively on such persons or groups. It also includes unnamed conservative groups — described in the report at “hate groups,” which have a single issue focus such as abortion, gun control, illegal immigration, gay marriage, or simply oppose unconstitutional big government — or are 2nd or 10th Amendment advocates:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
Notice the language used here does not say “illegal immigration,” but just “immigration.” In this section we also find that the author attributes the dramatic increase of gun and ammunition sales across the country since Obama’s election to “rightwing extremists.”
The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.
So if you are one of the millions who went out and bought guns and ammo while it is still legal to do so, then you are now considered by this administration to be a “rightwing Extremist.” Issues such as abortion, illegal immigration, and gay marriage are defined as “Rightwing extremism” in other sections of the document.
In the section entitled Disgruntled Military Veterans, DHS assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. It again refers to Timothy McVeigh as a returning Desert Storm vet. But then it says this:
A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.
Gee, what a coincidence! In 2006 some unnamed civil rights group claimed that right wing radicals were learning warfare in the military. Then in 2008, they got out and rejoined their extremists groups. What a surprise, if true. What has this to do with the good men who joined the military to serve their country? Virtually nothing.
The report appears to draw a distinction between “rightwing extremists” and “law-abiding citizens.” Even “rightwing extremists” are law-abiding citizens if they haven’t broken any laws.
Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists — as well as law-abiding Americans — to make bulk purchases of ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity. Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time.
It is true that there are some well armed, maybe even radical, rightwing militia in the country, but except for the ‘Skinheads’ and ‘neo-Nazis’ the vast majority of these groups are concerned with defending their rights and liberties, and the Constitution of the United States. They are the groups who are saying “When the government comes for my guns, they’re going to have a fight on their hands.” Wasn’t that pretty much the attitude of the Founding Fathers? These are the people who scare this government the most, and with good cause.
The report suggests concern over “rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes” usurping U.S. sovereignty and the Constitution, but makes no mention of the United Nations and the treaties that Obama is signing onto that do just that.
Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.
The report fails to mention that the United Nations is experiencing a rise in economic power and influence. This is no conspiracy theory. Global warming treaties; global banking agreements; UN attempts to tax American citizens; regulations on parents’ rights; political correctness; global economic equality; international gun controls; the World Court; the World Bank; The G-20 summit; The Durban summit; excessive government spending and borrowing from foreign powers, and UN support and promotion of Islam in America are just a few examples of the threats to American sovereignty and liberty being pushed by the Obama Administration.
Fear of Communist regimes and related conspiracy theories characterizing the U.S. Government’s role as either complicit in a foreign invasion or acquiescing as part of a “One World Government” plan inspired extremist members of the militia movement to target government and military facilities in past years.
Quite understandable and equally understandable that it may happen again. But it’s not just “rightwing extremists” that see the growing threat of Communism that has been taking over our country since the end of the Second World War. It’s not hard to see the Marxist/Communist direction that Obama has been going in at an alarming pace. This is no conspiracy theory, it is very real, and patriotic Americans are not going to stand for it and just sit quietly, watching it happen.
Nothing contained in this report indicates terrorism against American civilians. Every threat suggested or imagined suggests attacks on the government itself in retaliation for usurping individual and states 10th Amendment rights, and leading the country down the path of socialism.
With most of this report based on nothing but speculation with references to the 90s, it suggests a feeling of strong paranoia by the author or authors. It shows an awareness of the rage and outrage being directed at the Obama Administration for what it is doing and intends to do to our country.
No one has taken credit for writing this report. Once it became public, it was said that it was written by some unnamed midget deep in the bowels of the DHS investigation unit. Keep in mind that this is the department that has kept us safe from terrorist attacks for nearly the past 8 years.
The midget mentality demonstrated in this report could not possibly have done that, and the report certainly would have had to have been approved by the mental midget’s superiors in the department — who never would have approved this worthless document as a viable intelligence report.
Why? Because this report contains no viable intelligence — much like the person who wrote it. It is a hit job on conservative values that reflects the kind of thinking that prevails in the mind of Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel.
Could it be that the material in this document originated in the White House and was sent to DHS for publication? I strongly suspect that this may is the case. Obama has to find something to do when he’s not out flying around the world and speaking to his teleprompter. He may be dictating polices of George Soros, but it’s obvious that he is not doing the job of president.
My honest impression of this report is that its focus is primarily on “rightwing extremist” groups who could pose a threat to Obama and the power of the federal government. I am not familiar with the value system of neo-Nazis and Skinheads, but this report would seem to apply common conservative Christian values to these groups and other armed militia groups.
This may be the cause of many conservative talkers to misrepresent the report and exaggerate its contents. Almost every paragraph uses the term “rightwing extremists” specifically. That does not necessarily mean “conservatives” in general, although it’s quite understandable that conservatives would resent having their value system portrayed in this context.
There are no references to “Ron Paul” or any other bumper stickers, nor are there any specific signs mentioned that police should be looking for. Except for some specific events of the 1990s, everything talked about in this report is in general terms and offers law enforcement authorities no useful information other than to suggest that they may see an increase of radical rightwing extremists and groups.
At the same time, the DHS report may open the door to domestic wiretapping and spying on conservative activists and those who oppose the Obama regime.
Local law enforcement agencies in many parts of the country are not allowed to report illegal aliens to DHS. However, this document, sent to all law enforcement agencies, requests that they report to DHS, anyone or any group of Americans that are described in this report, so that the federal government can keep an eye on them.
The Bush Administration used it’s powers of surveillance to spy on real terrorists who posed a threat to our country and our citizens. The Obama Administration doesn’t seem to be interested in spying on foreign Islamic terrorists who pose a real threat to our country and citizens. Who will the Obama Administration be using DHS surveillance to spy on?
This should be of major concern to all Americans.
Source: DHS/I&A “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”
Watch the whole video, no mater what side of the political spectrum you are on. Post here weather or not you think this is paranoid ranting, a true look at what the future is to come or whatever.
It is hard to believe that I am a radical right-wing extremist because I believe in the following.
-Believe and support the constitution as and should be the law of the land
-Support the troops
-Want lower taxes
-Believe in states’ rights
-Think the federal government is too big
-Oppose illegal immigration
-Believe abortion is wrong
-Have religious values
-Think Barrack Obama was a bad choice for President
I think I am also labeled an extremist because I believe in the principles of personal responsibility and hard work.
UNEAU — On the same day they rejected an attorney general designee who is a board member of the National Rifle Association, members of the state House on Thursday approved a bill exempting guns and ammunition manufactured and kept within Alaska from federal firearms regulation.
House members voted to reject Gov. Sarah Palin’s nominee to head the Department of Law, Wayne Anthony Ross, but voted 32-7 in favor of the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act, which would apply to firearms built, sold and kept in Alaska.
Critics denounced the bill as unconstitutional. They say it’s a threat to Alaskans who act on the measure and face federal prosecution.
Prime sponsor Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, attracted 10 co-sponsors and said the bill is both a measure to allow manufacture of guns and a statement that Alaska intends to reclaim some of its rights. Alaska has seen rights eroded in the oversight of navigable waters, fish and game, and access to natural resources, Kelly said, but can reclaim rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
“We will handle the regulation of it,” he said.
Kelly said the federal government has regulated firearms in part though the oversight of interstate commerce. The bill addresses that by exempting firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories that are manufactured and retained in the state. Guns and ammo that fit that criteria should be exempt from federal regulation, including registration, he said.
The bill says the Alaska attorney general may defend a gun manufacturer charged with violating federal law.
MEXICO CITY, President Obama will announce in a visit here that he will push the U.S. Senate to ratify an inter-American arms trafficking treaty designed to curb the flow of guns and ammunition to drug cartels and other armed groups in the hemisphere.
Senior administration officials confirmed that he will make the announcement after meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon this afternoon. The meeting is the centerpiece of Obama’s first visit to Mexico, whose government is engaged in a broad war against heavily armed drug cartels now threatening the integrity of the state.
“The Obama administration’s commitment to seek ratification [of the treaty] is important because stemming the number of illegal firearms which flow into Latin America and the Caribbean is a high priority for the region and addresses a key hemispheric concern relating to people’s personal security and well-being,” said a senior Obama administration official.
Obama’s visit here, the first by a U.S. president to the capital in 13 years, represents a show of support for Calderon, who two years ago became the first Mexican president to so fully deploy the army against drug cartels supplying a enormously lucrative American market.
Since then, more than 10,000 people have died in drug-related violence that is most intense along the U.S.-Mexican border. The Bush administration won approval for a three-year, $1.4 billion counter-narcotics package for Mexico and some Central American countries in June 2008, but the military hardware has been slow in arriving.
Many of the guns used by the drug cartels travel south from the United States. Some assault rifles recovered by Mexican authorities have been traced back to U.S. military bases.
In the days leading up to the president’s visit here, senior Obama administration officials said the government was focused on enforcing existing U.S. laws to stop arms smuggling, although Mexican officials have called for more help.
Obama’s announcement on the treaty — formally known as the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other Related Items — will mark an additional step.
The Clinton administration signed the treaty, better known by its Spanish acronym CIFTA, after the Organization of American States adopted it in 1997. In all, 33 countries in the hemisphere have signed the treaty. The United States is one of four nations that have yet to ratify the convention, although Obama administration officials say the U.S. government has sought to abide by the spirit of the treaty for years.
The treaty requires countries to take a number of steps to reduce the illegal manufacture and trade in guns, ammunition and explosives.
In addition to making illegal the unauthorized manufacture and exporting of firearms, the treaty calls for countries to adopt strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a cooperative process for sharing information between national law-enforcement agencies investigating arms smuggling.
Advocates for the treaty have argued that the United States, even if it is trying to follow many of the convention’s requirements, is undermining its credibility by failing to ratify it. The treaty was sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1998, but no action has been taken since then.
U.S. gun-rights groups participated as observers in drafting the treaty, which experts say includes language stating that it does not impinge on the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. But U.S. advocates of the treaty say its passage bogged down in the waning days of the Clinton administration, and never emerged as a priority for the Bush administration.
Jorge Chabat, a professor of international studies at the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics in Mexico City, said Obama’s advocacy for the treaty marks “an important step toward ending the permissiveness in the United States” toward arms trafficking on its border.
“Obviously there is a part of this that is symbolic,” Chabat said. “But President Obama has moved to do more against this arms trafficking from the U.S., and this is part of that. There is a great deal of fear behind this that the border violence will enter the United States.”
Johanna Mendelson Forman, senior associate of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said “this goes beyond symbolism.”
“It sends not only a positive message to Mexico, but also to the region that the United States wants to be a reliable partner in improving security,” she said.