June 16, 2014

MassachusettsA radical anti-gun bill, House Bill 4121, was rammed through the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security in a rare, non-publicized electronic poll vote on Saturday, June 7.  Floor debate in the Massachusetts House of Representatives could begin as early as this week, and your immediate assistance is needed to defeat HB 4121.
HB 4121 is dangerous legislation that seeks to further strip away your Second Amendment rights in Massachusetts.  As anyone who has gone through the process to legally obtain a firearm in Massachusetts knows, there is no dearth of existing state laws that regulate the sale, purchase and transfer of firearms.  State legislators on Beacon Hill should be repealing gun control laws, NOT enacting more to further restrict your Second Amendment rights.
This egregious bill would empower police chiefs with discretion in licensing owners for shotguns and rifles, ban the private sale of firearms except through a licensed gun dealer, grant authority to the state Attorney General to remove certain firearms from the approved “firearms roster” and require gun owners to provide a list of all firearms they currently own to the state with each renewal of their license.
These requirements are only a few of the many onerous and deeply flawed provisions that penalize responsible gun owners and sportsmen in Massachusetts and could turn law-abiding citizens into criminals.  Unfortunately, it seems as though the misguided Massachusetts General Court won’t stop until they have completely obliterated your rights.  As we’ve seen in other states, such as New York, these controversial registration schemes begin the slide down a slippery slope toward eventual confiscation.  Historical evidence clearly proves that gun registration enables gun confiscation, and criminals never register their firearms.
HB 4121 was introduced less than three weeks ago by House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop), and it seems that he is attempting to quietly jam this legislation through the process without adequate time and opportunity for public comment.

Click here for more info
Mindful Patriot's Comment: 
In Political Termsuseful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.  While these folks are marching for what they consider is a good cause, is actually quite the opposite. Disarming Americans will only lead to more death and higher crime rates, this has been proven in other countries with strict gun control. 


Gun control group marching over Brooklyn Bridge NEW YORK (AP) -- Some carried photos of loved ones cut down by a bullet. Others held signs imploring Congress to act. And nearly all shouted out "Not one more," a tear-stained rallying cry embraced by those who believe the U.S. needs tougher gun control laws.
More than 1,000 demonstrators - including nearly 100 from Newtown, Connecticut, the site of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting rampage - marched across the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday, demanding that action be taken to stem the recent wave of mass shootings across the U.S.
"I want to see our laws protect our children, not our gun lobbyists," said Andrew Morosky, 48, who lives in Newtown and whose children were friends with some of the 20 students who were killed along with six educators. "After what happened, I felt like I had to do something. I sat on the sidelines for too long."......


Read the full story here
‘Inventing terrorists’: New study reveals FBI set up terrorism-related prosecutions
From RT.COM


Nearly 95 per cent of terrorist arrests have been the result of FBI foiling its own entrapment plots as a part of the so-called post-9/11 War on Terror, a new study revealed.


According to the report entitled ‘Inventing Terrorists: The Lawfare of Preemptive Prosecution’, the majority of arrests involved the unjust prosecution of targeted Muslim Americans.

The 175-page study by Muslim advocacy group SALAM analyzes 399 individuals in cases included on the list of the US Department of Justice from 2001 to 2010.

“According to this study’s classification, the number of preemptive prosecution cases is 289 out of 399, or 72.4 percent. The number of elements of preemptive prosecution cases is 87 out of 399, or 21.8 percent. Combining preemptive prosecution cases and elements of preemptive prosecution cases, the total number of such cases on the DOJ list is 376, or 94.2 percent,” the report concluded.

The authors define ‘preemptive prosecution’ as “a law enforcement strategy adopted after 9/11, to target and prosecute individuals or organizations whose beliefs, ideology, or religious affiliations raise security concerns for the government.”



Nearly 25 percent of cases (99 of 399) contained material support charges. Another almost 30 per cent of cases consisted of conspiracy charges. More than 17 per cent of the analyzed cases (71 of 399 cases) involved sting operations. Over 16 percent of cases (65 of 399 cases) included false statement or perjury charges, and around six percent of cases involved immigration-related charges.
According to the report, since 9/11 only 11 cases posed “potentially significant” threat to the United States.
“Only three were successful (the [Tamerlan and Dzhokhar] Tsarnaev brothers and Major Nidal Hasan), accounting for 17 deaths and several hundred injuries,” the paper says.
One of the FBI’s strategies involved “using agents provocateur to actively entrap targets in criminal plots manufactured and controlled by the government.”
“The government uses agents provocateur to target individuals who express dissident ideologies and then provides those provocateurs 25 with fake (harmless) missiles, bombs, guns, money, encouragement, friendship, and the technical and strategic planning necessary to see if the targeted individual can be manipulated into planning violent or criminal action,” the report concluded.
The government could also choose to use “minor ‘technical’ crimes,” such as errors on immigration forms, an alleged false statement to a government official, gun possession, tax or financial issues, etc., to go after someone for their “ideology.”
“What they were trying to do is to convince the American public that there is this large army of potential terrorists that they should all be very-very scared about. They are very much engaged in world-wide surveillance and this surveillance is very valuable to them. They can learn a lot about all sorts of things and in a sense control issues to their advantage,” Steven Downs, an attorney for Project SALAM, which issued the report, told RT. “And the entire legal justification for that depends on there being a war on terror. Without a war on terror they have no right to do this. So they have to keep this war on terror going, they have to keep finding people and arresting them and locking them up and scarring everybody.”
In the conclusion, authors of the report offered the US government several recommendations that the DOJ “should employ” to change the present unfair terrorism laws. A total seven recommendations call on the US government to accurately identify people who offer material support for terrorism, strengthening the “entrapment” defense in the courts; abolish “terror-enhanced sentencing” that triples or quadruples jail time in cases linked to terrorist acts; disallow secret court proceedings, and immediately notifying defendants if any evidence in their case is derived from secret surveillance.

June 11, 2014



In the same interview where President Barack Obama blatantly lied about background checks, he praised Australia’s gun control laws, which Charles  C.W. Cooke notes relied entirely upon confiscation:
Let me be clear, as Obama likes to say: You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns.
When President Obama praises gun confiscation, he’s praising the blatantly-unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment by the federal government. Let’s not mince words here: he’s supporting a policy, that if he or any future government attempted to implement it, will lead to a nationwide armed insurrection that would likely destroy our government and our way of life.
We’ve read articles before praising the theory of confiscation, and note the disturbing mindset of those who would see Americans stripped of their most basic of  human rights—the right to self-defense—under the threat of overwhelming government force.
Some have such a visceral hatred for gun owners that they seem to relish the thought of their fellow Americans being slaughtered (indeed, that seems to be the continuing hope of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who have repeatedly referred to gun owners as “insurrectionists”).
These vengeful, hate-filled souls seem to have a fantasy that such a conflict would be a 1860s-style affair, where armed citizens resisting would line up in neat rows in an open field to be mowed down by government tanks and helicopters, much to their shrieking delight.
Those sick souls advocating for gun confiscation and civil strife seem to think that such a conflict would be something that would happen to “someone else.” They seem to have it in their minds that others in the military and law enforcement would do the dirty work of making their fantasies come to life, and that when the dust settled, they’d have a gun free nation, at no cost to themselves.
That is decidedly not how such a conflict would be fought, nor is it likely that they survive to see such an outcome.
They seem to forget that a significant percentage of the military and law enforcement officers that would be charged with enforcing their unconstitutional edicts are themselves, “gun nuts.” This is particularly true among the combat arms units within the military, police SWAT/ERT units and most sheriff’s departments, from the Sheriff’s themselves down through the ranks of their deputies.
Almost all of these individuals—currently, roughly 2 million soldiers, Marines, airmen, guardsmen, and reserves, and 800,000 law enforcement officers—swore their oaths to defend the Constitution, not any particular government, political party, or administration.
A significant number of would resign outright if the government ordered them to confiscate the arms of America citizens. Many others would defect as opportunity allowed, bringing along their expertise, intelligence, and perhaps their weaponry to wage war against the government. Others would remain on the job, but would not enforce the confiscation orders with any enthusiasm, and might stay on the job merely to pass along intelligence to their allies fighting on the side of the Constitution.
Those that defect would join a resistance composed of recently detached military combat veterans from the Afghan and Iraq wars with an intimate knowledge of insurgency and counterinsurgency tactics. It is impossible to know just how many of these veterans or others among the 80 million gun owners in this nation would choose to participate in active or passive resistance, but the figure would almost assuredly dwarf the number of poorly trained insurgents our military faced overseas in battles that continue to this day.
The remaining combined forces of government, now numbering something less than 1.5 million, would be charged with securing a nation of 318 million souls and 3.794 million square miles, not knowing who their enemies are, knowing that they and their families would be targets 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 a year, every year, in a war without front lines, a clearly defined enemy, or rules of engagement.

From Bearingarms.com
In the last few weeks and in the coming months leading up to state elections this fall, you will hear the liberal candidates ramble on about how raising the minimum wage will help the economy grow and that global warming is real and dangerous, so we must punish industry for their evil pollution by taxing and laying down more restrictive policies  i.e. cutting emissions from coal power plants by 30%.

I hate to break the news for the all the moon bats out there in la-la land, but making small business pay more for unskilled labor will only carry the increased cost to the consumer, causing the cost of living to increase proportionate to the increase of pay. On the flip side, government "stay at home benefits" will have to increase to cover the increased cost of living, leaving our country more in debt and less able to pay for vital defense costs which constitutionally is the most important job of government.

No matter if you believe in Global Warming or not, one fact should be clear to all liberty loving Americans, taxing corporations for pollution WILL NOT help fight to protect the environment.  For instance, how Obama has circumvented the Congress by directing the EPA to set standards to force coal powered power plants to invest BILLIONS to meet the standard, which will force energy costs to raise dramatically across the board that will only make Americans have less money to reinvest in the economy.

Why are Americans buying this? 

Fear, misinformation and class warfare.

Fear- Americans are growing fearful of each other because of the media push to saturate the American Media with the worst acts of violence and greed and not show the flip side of Americans banding together and stopping violent acts from occurring, meanwhile demonizing those who are by labeling Patriots and the Liberty Movement as terrorists.

  Misinformation- Remember Al Gore and the
other idiots crying the sky is falling with increased
temperatures  (for the last ten years has not raised) and more powerful storms that will kill millions......all lies to force opinion in their favor by fear not logic. Google how much Al Gore made from Carbon credits for proof.

Class warfare- Liberals while being the most wealthy class of politicians, constantly bash the Republican Party for rubbing elbows with the "top 1%" and not caring about the little guy, when in fact, it is the other way around. The wolf in sheep's clothing comes to mind.


Why is the current government(Obama) pushing climate change and wage increases?

Combine the increased cost of energy with increased cost of labor and you have all but killed job creation and the U.S. Economy in one large swoop. When any population becomes dependent on government benefits to survive you have effectively created a voting base who has no choice but to vote for those who oppress them, which effectively kills the voice of the American people and meaningful reform. Don't forget gun control either.....





Look at immigration and how Obama is allowing MILLIONS of illegals to move in. Why? 


Obama and the Democrats want to create voters, hence the push against Voter ID laws.  Another point that isn't being stressed is how many of these illegal criminals are terrorists from known enemies? Given the numbers, there could be major attacks on all major cities at once and there is no way to know because the safety of non-Americans is more important than that of Americans who our elected officials have sworn to protect.

How do we roll back government and rein in the power back to the people?

We must protest and actively become involved in the political process by any means. We must vote out anyone who wants to curb any rights given by god to the American People. Vote smart, be diligent and keep your aim true. Most importantly, when a friend, co-worker or family member brings up the myths about global warming or wage increases, please take the time to inform them of the truth and how what they're saying will only hurt our country.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
 ~John F. Kennedy



Obama Claims Gun Violence 'Off the Charts'





“Levels of gun violence are off the charts,” Obama said. ” There is no advanced developed country on Earth that would put up with this.”

Obama argued that Americans should be “ashamed,” using the opportunity to bemoan his inability to pass gun control legislation.

“We’re the only country in the world where this happens and it happens once a week,” Obama said.

Obama went on to refute any link between mass shootings and mental health as well, instead blaming the ability of Americans to collect ammunition.

“It’s not the only country that has psychosis, and yet we kill each other in these mass shootings at rates that are exponentially higher than anyplace else,” Obama said. ” What’s the difference? The difference is these guys can stack up a bunch of ammunition in their houses.”

Invoking his role as parent, Obama also pushed the notion that American gun owners are collectively responsible for mass shootings.

“This country has to do a lot of soul searching,” Obama said. “This is becoming the norm. And we take it for granted in ways that, as a parent, are terrifying to me.”

The President even went as far as praising Australia’s gun confiscation program, claiming that “very severe” gun laws have helped the country.

“Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown,” Obama said. “And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.”

Earlier that day, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that the President is “always” looking for ways to “unilaterally” act on gun control.

Read More HERE

June 10, 2014

The rash of insane gunmen targeting gun-free zones and the ever increasing demonetization of the liberty movement, including labeling "Don't Tread On Me" as a terrorist slogan and the whole exclamation that the patriot movement is a bigger threat to the U.S. than Muslim Terrorists. It is clear, the progressive-statists want all opposition to be defenseless and voiceless.  This can be seen even clearer with the targeting of conservative/libertarian alternative media and labeling them as being responsible for any bad guy that decides to kill innocents. One also cannot forget the queen of the gun grab Dianne Feinstein, who has tried to silence the 1st amendment by defining a journalist as a paid, mass media agent. Leaving you and this blog not protected by the 1st amendment. If that doesn't scary you, than you're one cold mutha-lover.

When I was a young kid, I loved to play connect the dots and seeing what would appear when I was finished. Sadly, now the dots are being connected and it is very scary what is appearing before us all. Liberals and some conservatives either knowingly or unknowingly are paving the way for checks and balances and the people's voice to be silenced with violent force if needed with little fear of any resistance, if they get away with disarming us.  While 90% of those who Rush calls "low information voters" honestly believe disarming the country would usher in a new wave of peace and free hugs, it will not.

History is full of examples where the people gave up their right to be armed and suffered the worst fates in history. I will not list these historical facts, because I know those who read this are educated and know the risks.

I have been asked numerous times by readers or anti-gunners:

 "Do you think Obama will throw you in a FEMA camp and take your guns?" "..are you paranoid that much?"

"My response is and always no I do not fear for my future, it probably won't happen while I am breathing, but what about my children and grand children?"

 If they disarm us now, what will be the fate of future Americans when a really bad guy is in office and wants to appoint himself king or dictator? I for one want my children to have all the freedoms I have enjoyed and most importantly, I want them to be able to defend themselves against any threat to their happiness and freedom.  It is up to us to educate and inform our neighbors, friends and family about the seriousness of current events. What we do now will forever shape tomorrow.

Keep your head up and stand strong. MOLON LABE







June 8, 2014

On June 7, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America founder Shannon Watts said a good guy with a gun "has never" stopped a bad guy with a gun. 

Watts made this comment in response to a question from CNN host Victor Blackwell. 
I want to challenge you on something Shannon. Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the NRA, after Sandy Hook, said the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And I think, essentially [what guns rights proponents are saying] is [they] want their wives to be able to carry--to be the good person with the gun. Is there an example in school shootings or a mall shooting or these public facilities, where that has been wrong? Where a bad guy with a gun has been stopped in any other way or by a person other than a law enforcement officer with a gun or by killing himself?
Watts responded: "This has never happened. Data shows it doesn't happen."

Read more here: www.breitbart.com

May 25, 2014

  Courthouse News Service

SANTA ANA, Calif. (CN) - After waiting for 4 hours for dialysis with a shunt in his arm, a veteran told a Veterans Administration hospital he was leaving, whereupon VA police beat the hell out of him and stomped on his carotid artery, giving him a stroke that killed him, and they lied to his wife about it, the widow claims in court.

     Norma Montano sued the United States of America in Federal Court, for the death of her husband of 44 years, Jonathan Montano. The Montanos' son and daughter also are plaintiffs.
     The lawsuit comes as veterans hospitals nationwide are under investigation for lying about wait times to which they subjected patients. News reports have not yet linked the long waits to any deaths. Norma Montano does not attribute her husband's death to the long wait, but to the needless beating.
     Jonathan Montano died on June 11, 2011, after VA police brutalized him at the VA hospital in Loma Linda on May 25 that year, his widow claims in the lawsuit.
     Jonathan, who was 65, had a shunt put in his arm by the VA hospital staff that day, and waited with his wife for treatment "for approximately four hours, without being treated," Norma Montano says in the complaint.
     "This greatly frustrated Jonathan Montano, who then decided that he didn't want to wait any longer at the VA Hospital in Loma Linda and decided to leave the hospital and to go to the VA Hospital in Long Beach," the complaint states.
     Jonathan told his wife to get the car to take him to Long Beach. As she went to get it, her husband "was told by the nursing staff not to leave the hospital," the complaint states.
     It continues: "Jonathan Montana told the nurse that he was leaving and was going to the VA Hospital in Long Beach, California, [and that] he wanted to leave the needle apparatus in his arm, so they wouldn't have to put a new one in at the Long Beach VA Hospital.
     "In response to Jonathan Montano's attempt to leave the VA Hospital in Loma Linda, California, the nursing staff called VA Police Department to stop Jonathan Montano from leaving the hospital.
     "The summoned VA Police Department police officers then stopped Jonathan Montano from leaving the VA Hospital in Loma Linda, by tackling him to the floor, slamming his head on the floor, and kneeing and stomping on his neck, and otherwise brutalizing and restraining him.
     "This kneeing and stomping on his neck by the VA Police Department police officers caused the dissection of his carotid artery, that resulted in immediate (or very soon thereafter) blood clotting, which resulted in [his] suffering a stroke. Moreover, the brutalization of Jonathan Montano resulted in him suffering other serious physical injuries, and associated physical, mental and emotional pain, suffering and distress." (Parentheses in complaint.)
     Norma Montano, wondering why her husband had not come to the car, went inside to look for him. Inside the hospital, she says, "she was told by a member of the nursing staff that Jonathan Montano suffered a stroke," and was in the emergency department.
     When she sought him there, "she was told by the emergency room doctor that her husband had fallen down and suffered a stroke, an untrue statement," she says in the complaint.
     It continues: "Later on, one of the nurses at the VA Hospital in Loma Linda took Norma Montano aside, and told her that her husband didn't fall, but was slammed to the ground by the VA Police, that Norma Montano was being lied to, and that it wasn't right what the VA Police did to Jonathan Montano.
     "On June 11, 2011, Jonathan Montano died from the stroke(s) that he suffered from being slammed to the floor and having his neck stomped on / pinned to the floor at the VA Hospital in Loma Linda on May 25, 2011."
     She claims the VA police brutalized her husband without any reasonable suspicion that there was "criminality afoot" or that he had committed a crime.
     She seeks damages and punitive damages for wrongful death, assault and battery, false imprisonment, constitutional violations, negligence, loss of consortium and intentional infliction of emotional distress.









Over $100,000 damage was done to this condo in Renton, WA.  (Source: KIRO)

RENTON, WA — A SWAT team spent hours firing “mortars, grenades, and teargas canisters” at an empty home.  The 4-hour siege destroyed windows, doors, and walls and left the home in ruin.  The suspect didn’t even live at the address, and the innocent homeowner was left homeless for months and ultimately was stuck with over $100,000 in repair bills, which the responsible parties have refused to pay.
The wild raid took place on April 25, 2012.  Police entered a gated community and surrounded a condo they believed to contain a robbery suspect.
Instead of knocking on the door or getting a visual on the suspect and arresting him, police decided to execute a dramatic siege in a residential neighborhood in hopes of causing anyone inside to surrender.  Police surrounded the condo, closed off the street, and evacuated the neighbors.
For four hours, police shot “rockets and grenades filled with pepper gas” at the home, breaking every window and making a mess of everything inside.  Teargas was fired from 40-mm canisters into the home, pumping everything inside full of caustic chemicals.  After hours of using their toys, SWAT placed explosives on the front door and blew it off the hinges. 
Read the rest of the story here

May 19, 2014



LAKE OZARK, Mo. — Complaints from residents are behind efforts to regulate where a firearm can be carried — either openly or concealed — in Lake Ozark.
On Tuesday, the Board of Aldermen approved an ordinance that makes it illegal for someone to carry a concealed weapon into any building that is owned, leased or controlled by the city.
Aldermen will discuss a proposed second city ordinance May 27 that would make it illegal to openly carry a firearm in some areas of Lake Ozark.
Police Chief Mark Maples said he suggested to city officials that the carrying of firearms within the city needed to be defined by ordinance after receiving a number of complaints and because of situations he had encountered within his own department.
It is now illegal to carry a concealed firearm in any police office, station or detention facility without the permission of the “chief law enforcement officer.” However, it is not illegal for someone with a concealed firearms permit to have the weapon in their vehicle while parking in a city lot.
“We were having bail bondsman and others come into the police station carrying concealed weapons despite the fact that there is a notice posted on the door prohibiting weapons in the building,” Maples said. “They all have concealed carry permits, and I don’t want to tread on anyone’s Second Amendment rights. But for safety’s sake, we can’t have anybody carrying firearms inside this building other than our own police officers.”
The ordinance also forbids anyone with a conceal carry permit from bringing a firearm into other city-controlled buildings, particularly City Hall, with the exception of elected officials.
Under the terms of the ordinance, violators would first be asked to remove the firearm from the premises. If they refuse to do so, they can be issued a citation and fined up to $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second offense and $500 for a third offense. And if the person is convicted in municipal court, the court will also notify the county in which the permit was issued as well as the Missouri Department of Revenue of the violation.
If approved during the next Board of Aldermen meeting, the second ordinance would make it illegal for permitted firearms owners to openly carry their weapons inside the city of Lake Ozark “in any indoor or outdoor area, whether publicly or privately owned, in which the public has access by right or by invitation, express or implied…”
The ordinance goes on to exempt from the statute all local, state and federal on-duty police officers, prison officials and other law enforcement personnel who normally carry weapons as part of their duties.
Maples said he decided to go forward with asking to have the second ordinance enacted after receiving several complaints from “festival goers who were concerned about seeing regular citizens walking around openly carrying firearms.”
“I knew that when I asked to have the ordinances written I would have to take some heat,” Maples said.
“But people need to understand, it’s not that I’m against the second amendment. I fully support the people’s right to bear arms. It’s just that we have a lot more events in this city than in most others, and when people see regular civilians walking around a festival crowd with a gun strapped to their side, they naturally get a little nervous.”
Maples said because a lot of the town’s festivals are held on The Strip and there are a number of bars in the area people are also concerned that those carrying the weapons may be drinking heavily.
“We get thousands of people in town during events. And if some of those people are openly carrying firearms, it makes for an uneasy crowd,” he said.
“It’s not usually locals that carry the guns to the festivals, and I don’t want to be inhospitable and keep visitors from coming to the lake.
“But ultimately, it’s my job to keep the people in this town as safe as possible. And, there really is no need for a regular citizen to openly carry a firearm to a crowded community event.”

May 6, 2014



Father of a student is arrested for violating a school board meeting rule, all because the school is forcing  children to read a book called "15 minutes" which has textually graphic sex/rape scenes. I believe this is another side effect of Common Core and the growing police presence in our public schools.


stand-your-ground
The primary Florida legislative initiative to repeal the state’s Stand-Your-Ground — SB116, embedded below — has officially died a sad little death in the state senate, as reported on the official state Senate legislative tracking site.  (This also effectively  dooms the complementary bill introduced in the state house, H4003.)
Introduced by Florida state Senator Geraldine F. “Geri” Thompson, whose district includes urban Orlando, SB116 met with only limited legislative success.
Oh, did I say “limited legislative success?” Sorry, I meant “no success.” Literally. None.
Filed on August 22, 2013, it was referred to the three committees necessary for any criminal law bill to advance to a full senate vote — the Judiciary, the Criminal Justice, and the Rules committees.
In the Judiciary committee the vote in favor of the bill was . . . well, they never even got it to a vote.
CONTINUE READING HERE
Police state.



April 30, 2014



Please watch and share. 




From Foxnews.com

The White House found itself on defense Wednesday following the release of emails tying a top aide to former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's controversial Sunday show statements after the Benghazi terror attack. 
During those interviews, Rice erroneously blamed the attack on protests over an anti-Islam film. New emails indicate a White House adviser helped prep her for those appearances and pushed the "video" explanation -- and now, the White House is facing credibility questions after having downplayed their role in Rice's "talking points." 
During a heated briefing with reporters Wednesday afternoon, Press Secretary Jay Carney repeatedly tried to claim that the so-called "prep call" with Rice -- as it was described in one email -- was not about Benghazi. The prep session, he said, was just about the demonstrations elsewhere in the Muslim world that week.   
"It is not about Benghazi -- it is about the protests around the Muslim world," Carney claimed. 
The White House has said all along that Rice relied on the best available intelligence, from the intelligence community, when she discussed the Benghazi attack. 
But the documents obtained and released by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, included a Sept. 14, 2012, email from White House aide Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. 
The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Carney. 
In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere. 
The email lists the following two goals, among others: 
"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." 
"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges." 
Republican critics, who have long claimed the administration's narrative was politically motivated, pointed to that email as a "smoking gun." 
But Carney insisted that the Rhodes email was distinct from the intelligence community talking points in that it referred to preparing Rice for questions about the protests elsewhere. 
"They were about the general situation in the Muslim world," Carney said, going so far as to read headlines from stories at the time that highlighted those protests -- underscoring that they were a big news story at the time. 
He declined to answer directly when asked if the White House would correct the record regarding statements downplaying its role in the talking points. He did acknowledge what was evident from the Rhodes email -- that "the White House had a role in that document, obviously." 
During the week of the Benghazi attack, protests had broken out by U.S. embassies in several countries in Africa and the Middle East, including intense demonstrations in Cairo. But by the time of Rice's Sunday show appearances, the death of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi was the dominant story -- Carney faced skepticism in the briefing room in claiming that the Rhodes email was not referring, at least in large part, to that. 
Further, the document sent to Judicial Watch was released in response to a request for records pertaining to Benghazi. 
And the same memo was sent to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, likewise, following a subpoena seeking Benghazi documents. 
"If this is not a smoking gun, proving beyond any doubt, the story told by the administration about Benghazi was politically motivated and fabricated, nothing will ever prove that," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said. 
On the heels of the email release, Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., renewed his call for a select committee to be established to investigate. He wrote House Speaker John Boehner a letter saying "it is now abundantly clear that senior White House staff were directly involved in coordinating the messaging in response to the Benghazi attacks and were actively working to tie the reason to the infamous Internet video." 
The "video" explanation, though, was not only coming from the White House. Late on Sept. 11, 2012, when the attack was still going on, Hillary Clinton's State Department issued a statement that read: "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to an inflammatory material posted on the internet. ... let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind." 


Rumors are floating about suggesting that Attorney General Eric Holder has officially given the O.K. for a drone strike on the Bundy ranch. Although any such action has yet to occur, a source within the Department of Defense felt obligated to come forward as he expresses the legitimacy in such concerns.

The information comes from John Jacob Schmidt of Radio Free Redoubt, who says he was able to obtain information from a source that reports to the Oath Keepers. According to the report, Holder has given the go ahead on a, “hot drone strike,” that would certainly wipe out anyone and everyone in the immediate area.

Schmidt also explained in his report that no such action has thus far been made and expressed his hope that the government could come to some other form of resolution.
The national administrator of Oath Keepers, Leslie Bishop Paul, also wrote on his Facebook wall that the claims, “may, or may not,” be true, but expressed his optimism that, “sunlight,” would bring about another solution..... Read More Here
For the past several months, the U.S. Department of Justice has been pressuring banks to refuse service to businesses the DOJ is targeting politically, such as gun stores, in a program entitled Operation Choke Point.
Corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder has been involved in no less than 16 scandals.
Corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder has been involved in no less than 16 scandals.
Under the program, the DOJ, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, is attempting to shut down various legal businesses, including firearm dealers, dating services, purveyors of drug paraphernalia and pornography distributors, by coercing financial institutions to close the bank and merchant accounts associated with these businesses.
Back in March, a Florida couple who own a gun store received a letter from BankUnited informing them that the bank was closing their business account, which they opened seven years prior, and gave them three days to transfer their money elsewhere.
“I was very angry,” Elizabeth Liberti told the Miami New Times. “They were very inconsiderate. We had all our credit cards going through that bank.”
“All of a sudden, we had to run and find another bank to keep our business going. We shut down for two weeks, and they wouldn’t even tell us why.”
BankUnited finally gave them a reason some time later.
“This letter in no way reflects any derogatory reasons for such action on your behalf, but rather one of industry,” wrote branch manager Ricardo Garcia. “Unfortunately your company’s line of business is not commensurate with the industries we work with.”
And it isn’t just gun stores that the Justice Dept. is targeting.....Read More here

April 27, 2014

Army Soldier standing guard at intersection along the marathon route

Every time some wacko decides to do something stupid and kill innocent people, we the people lose more of our rights. Case in point, The Boston Bombing. Yes, it was a horrible and cowardly attack and people died but what about the MILLIONS of men and women who died fighting for our freedoms that we have lost already?

I don't care if it's one or million people who die, our freedom and rights should not be given up in the name of "security". Do we really think someone would attack the same event with the same means to do so? No!

Please watch the video below and see how the police respond to a man who rejects the authority the police state tries to force on him.

Rights only exist when you DEMAND them.

April 23, 2014



A Surplus store in New York was visited by a State Trooper and was instructed to report anyone buying bulk food, night vision and bulk ammo. Which all items are LEGAL.


Subscribe to RSS Feed Follow me on Twitter!