Jefferson City, Mo (May 8, 2013) – Tonight, the Missouri State House voted to send Governor Jay Nixon what could arguably be the strongest defense against federal gun control measures in American history. The vote was 116-38.
HB436, introduced by Representative Doug Funderburk in February, was initially passed by the House in April by a vote of 115-42. Last week, the State Senate approved the bill with an amendment which did not change any of its nullification aspects. The vote there was 26-6. The bill then needed one final vote in the house which happened just before 10pm local time this evening.
The votes in both the House and Senate are by a strong veto-proof majority. Local activist Matt Radcliffe acknowledged as much when he said, “Governor Nixon can do nothing and it will automatically become law July 1st. Or he can sign it into law. Or he can veto it then his veto will be overridden in the house and it will become law anyway!”
As law, HB436 would nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books – or planned for the future. It reads, in part:
All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.
(2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:
(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;
(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;
(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
The legislation also includes misdemeanor criminal penalties if agents of the federal government attempt to enact gun control measures that violate the Constitution of the United States and State Constitution of Missouri.
The immediate effect of the law would be as follows:
1. All state and local law enforcement would be required to stop enforcing, or even providing any assistance in enforcing, federal gun control measures – all of them.
2. Grassroots activists should immediately start pressing local governments – county, city and town – to pass an ordinance which a) states an unwavering dedication to the new law passed, and b) requires all local law enforcement and all government assets to immediately cease in the enforcement of federal gun control measures.
The NRA made a good point in their TV commercial that comrade Obama’s family is protected by guards but Obama does not want America’s children protected. Governor “Brown Noser” Christie did not like the ad whatsoever saying, “It’s awful to bring public figures’ children into the political debate.” I guess he forgot about the children at Sandy Hook and the living children who need to be guarded. He also forgot that Obama used children himself to promote gun control while killing more children with drones. What did the majority of Americans do? Support Obama or buy more guns? Their efforts and conclusions vary but they continually missed the target.
The NRA is right, Obama is an “Elitist Hypocrite” but he is actually worse than that. He is a liar and a murderer causing chaos in America and the world. Obama’s sins multiply more than Dorian Gray’s but people still think he looks good. Looking good is all that matters in America, right? The list goes on: he raised taxes on everyone when he said he would not; killing innocent people with drones; executive privilege in “Fast and Furious“; the so called “Arab Spring“; promoting abortions; lying to Russia and pointing missiles at us; paying off his communist buddies to hire Russians to protest against Putin; no effort to lower the US debt by even one penny, etc.. Yet, most people still love him in the US. Those against him stand firm. Obama and those who own him cannot force Americans to give up their guns now, but he will eventually.
Kill one and the herd will stampede in the direction you want them to go. The US government may have massacred its own people killing their own citizens like in the ex-Soviet Union. However, they cannot just simply take away all the guns today. If they did all Americans would sober up and fight. Instead, according to the Communist plan, the government needs to persuade and establish laws to destroy the 2nd amendment year by year. Sandy Hook was a hoax per citizen journalist Brendan Hunt. I tend to listen to a citizen journalist rather than the mainstream media. Hoax or tragedy as other past shootings were, they seemed senseless but had a diabolical purpose. Massacres to herd the masses to accept gun control. It is just the beginning. The massacre of the innocents. Real or not they have their purpose.
What did most Americans do? I saw people on TV who felt guns were the evil culprit. Perhaps they preferred murder in another way like being pushed out of windows. Those people might prefer murder by knives or drugs since it is quieter and maybe more popular. It certainly is cheaper. Some felt guns promoted violence as though throughout history men have always had guns. Yes, that’s why the Romans had wars. Caesar had an AK47 with him always. You know, if Genghis Khan didn’t have that AR15, so many people would not have been killed. Tell old Joe Biden if there had been gun laws in the old West the Civil War never would have happened and the Native Americans never would have fought with each other before the Europeans came. It’s so true because a movie star said so.
I heard useless laws by a useless president and people buying more guns. I can understand why people bought more guns as they can clearly see Obama’s intention. I agree they need to protect themselves. Obama obviously does not want to guard children in schools. It’s too expensive. He feels it’s cheaper to have more kids than to prevent their deaths. He’s just trying to reduce America’s debt. He feels the coffins are smaller and therefore economical. All Americans should be against him because of that. There were no major protests in Washington last week and I definitely did not see a major movement to restore America’s soul.
“Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths” are words we should live by daily. However, prayer, penance and fasting are not the norm in a country in dire straits. America was a country of religious freedom. “In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” – Benjamin Franklin. In today’s America, an atheist or the ACLU would have sued Franklin.
Yeah, this makes sense: A 10-year-old suggests a bully should be shot with a water pistol, so the police confiscate his father’s firearms and the State revokes his concealed-carry permit.
It happened in New York, a State that is notorious for the difficulty it causes its residents who want to legally carry a gun and that recently suspended the U.S. Constitution and passed draconian gun restrictions. The father posted news of his plight April 1 on the Longislandfirearms.com forum.
Submitted to Family Survival Protocol by Invisible Mikey
Latest example of anti-Second Amendment hysteria reaches new level of absurdity
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 9, 2013
In the latest example of anti-gun hysteria, police in New York State confiscated a man’s firearms and revoked his pistol license after his son threatened to use a water pistol against bullies who had taunted his friends at school.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Commack resident John Mayer is now pursuing legal action after Suffolk County Police visited his home and threatened to embarrass him in front of his neighbors before confiscating Mayer’s handguns and rifles, firearms worth around $6,500 dollars.
Mayer also had his pistol license revoked and was told it would only be restored when his son reaches 18 years of age and moves out of the home.
The police visit stemmed from a March 1 incident at Pines Elementary school in Hauppauge. Mayer’s 10-year-old son discovered that some of his friends had been bullied by other boys and there had been a scuffle on the schoolyard. Mayer’s son discussed a plan with two other boys to bring a water pistol, a paintball gun and a BB gun to the home of the bullies involved in the incident.
Despite the fact that the boys involved do not even own any of the guns mentioned, when the school principle found out about the conversation he suspended Mayer’s son for two days and filed a police report.
“What the school did was atrocious,” Mayer’s lawyer, James Murtha told the Hauppauge Patch. “He’s a good kid, who has been discriminated against severely by the school district.”
A few days later, Mayer received a call from the pistol licensing office informing him that his pistol license had been revoked and that police would visit his home to confiscate his weapons.
“I attempted to explain that this must be a mistake, no wrong doing occurred on my part. My son has no access to any of my guns. The officer that came to my residence saw that all my guns were secured. Pistol Licensing was not interested in my side of the story. They were only interested in what happened with my 10-year-old son in school,” said Mayer.
According to Mayer, he was harassed by police who also threatened to interrogate his 10-year-old son without Mayer’s permission.
Suffolk County Police and the Hauppauge Public School District have refused to comment on the matter besides releasing glib statements.
Mayer is now pressing charges against both Suffolk County Police and Hauppauge School District in federal court.
This is merely the latest of a long list of incidents involving hysterical reactions to so-called gun “threats” made by children in schools since the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in December.
A growing number of senators are trying to quash gun legislation before it even hits the chamber floor as Democrats hold out hope for a compromise and the White House gears up for a weeklong offensive to pressure Congress to act.
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said as many as 13 senators now publicly support a filibuster on the motion to proceed on pending gun legislation, which effectively would block debate on the bill.
“When you’re in a snake pit, you kill a snake any time and chance that you get,” Mr. Pratt said on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” that aired Sunday. “When you’re dealing with legislation, you take your best shot as soon as you can.”
Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week saying they intend to delay Mr. Reid’s efforts to move a legislative package that currently includes measures to require background checks on all gun sales. Politico also reported that another letter with Monday’s date now has 13 signatures on it.
Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, said Sunday that whether he can support requiring background checks at gun shows depends on precisely how they’re carried out — but that there should be a debate on the issue.
“What are we afraid of?” Mr. McCain said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “Everybody wants the same goal, and that is to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and people who are mentally disabled.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, also has said he would not support a filibuster.
Federally licensed firearms dealers are required to conduct background checks on gun purchasers, but the so-called “gun show loophole” exempts private sellers from the requirement.
Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, would need 60 votes to shut down a filibuster.
Larry Pratt has been Executive Director of Gun Owners of America for over 30 years. GOA is a national membership organization of 300,000 Americans dedicated to promoting their Second Amendment freedom to keep and bear arms.
GOA lobbies for the pro-gun position in Washington, D.C. and is involved in firearm issues in the states. GOA’s work includes providing legal assistance to those involved in lawsuits with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the federal firearms law enforcement agency.
Pratt has appeared on numerous national radio and TV programs such as NBC’s Today Show, CBS’ Good Morning America, CNN’s Crossfire and Larry King Live, Fox’s Hannity and Colmes and many others. He has debated Congressman James Traficant, Jr. (D-OH), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Vice President Al Gore, among others. His columns have appeared in newspapers across the country.
He published a book, Armed People Victorious, in 1990 and was editor of a book, Safeguarding Liberty: The Constitution & Militias, 1995. His latest book, On the Firing Line: Essays in the Defense of Liberty was published in 2001.
Pratt has held elective office in the state legislature of Virginia, serving in the House of Delegates. Pratt directs a number of other public interest organizations and serves as the Vice-Chairman of the American Institute for Cancer Research.
Wednesday, 28 November 2012 22:22 posted by JamesR Smiley
PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE, listen up Americans! The United States Supreme Court has already answered this issue in 1957 LANDMARK PRECEDENT case, “Reid v Covert”. In a 6-2 decision with Justices Hugo Black, John Harlan, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, William J. Brennan Jr. and William O. Douglas all voted AFFIRMATIVE and stated in majority opinion: “The United States IS ENTIRELY A CREATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION. It’s POWER AND AUTHORITY HAVE NO OTHER SOURCE. It can ONLY act in accordance with all the LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION…NO agreement with a FOREIGN nation CAN CONFER POWER ON THE CONGRESS OR ON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS FREE FROM THE RESTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.” The Court went on to add: “an international agreement that is INCONSISTENT WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS VOID UNDER U.S. DOMESTIC LAW, the same as ANY OTHER FEDERAL LAW IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION.”—- ALL AMERICANS SHOULD UNDERSTAND—Presidents, Congress and federal officials ARE EMPLOYEES OF WE THE PEOPLE–their EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. NO ACT OF CONGRESS OR TREATY SIGNED BY SAME CAN OVERRIDE BILL OF RIGHTS IN OUR CONSTITUTION!! IT’S TIME TO LET THEM KNOW THAT WE THE PEOPLE KNOW!!
Joe Wolverton, a writer for The New American, is at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, covering the Arms Trade Treaty that has been worked on this week by various parties.
This war on the 2nd amendment has been going on for over a decade. So don’t let the BS fool you , it isnt just Obama who has been conspiring to destroy the 2ndamendment. Just remember what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. That was not Obama. So open your eyes and step lively. You need to be able to look beyond the Right/Left Paradigm or you will be lost in the shuffle.
While President Obama lost a round this week on his gun-control agenda in Congress, he’s making up for lost ground by pursuing a broader gun grab at the United Nations.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said there was not enough support to give Sen. Dianne Feinstein the stand-alone vote she demands on the “assault weapon” ban, but the upper chamber may soon be the deciding factor in whether the United States ratifies an international treaty that could strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights.
On Monday, the United States joined in the nine day conference in New York to finalize negotiations of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty is intended to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons, but depending how the final document is worded, it could put at risk Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.
The countries were negotiating the draft last July, but stopped when the U.S. asked for a delay. Many believe Mr. Obama pushed the issue past Election Day in order not to further alienate gun owners. Now that he has more “flexibility” in his second term, the U.S. is back at the table.
Secretary of State John Kerry has encouraged reaching consensus by March 28. “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” he wrote in a statement Friday.
Mr. Kerry only modified his enthusiasm with a nod to public disapproval by stating that, “We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.”
The National Rifle Association (NRA) strongly opposes the treaty because the draft includes civilian firearms under what is called the “scope” provision of the draft. NRA representatives in New York are finding strong resistance from non-government organizations and leftist states to removing the civilian firearm provision.
Enlarge PhotoDavid Gregory holding a 30-round magazine at NBC’s Washington bureau (NBC/Meet the … more >
Gun grabbers have been exploiting the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., to pursue their long-standing agenda of disarming America. Law-abiding and responsible gun owners are fighting back against the onslaught.
NBC anchor David Gregory acted on Sunday as if D.C. firearms laws didn’t apply to him. He brandished a 30-round rifle magazine on “Meet the Press” during an interview with National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “Isn’t it just possible that we could reduce the carnage in a situation like Newtown?” Mr. Gregory asked while waving the prohibited object.
A ruthlessly enforced city ordinance makes it unlawful to possess magazines with greater than a 10-round capacity. NBC staff had contacted the Metropolitan Police Department in advance seeking permission to violate the city’s rules for the stunt. According to a spokesman for Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, the request was denied. Mr. Gregory went ahead anyway.
So far, Chief Lanier’s office will only say it has “launched an investigation” into the matter. Several law enforcement sources say that if anyone other than a network news anchor had done this, a warrant already would have been drafted for the perpetrator’s arrest for a crime that carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and one year in jail.
“This is the problem when you have anti-law-enforcement liberals running the city,” said Kristopher Baumann, head of the D.C. police union. “The laws they create are for the little people, and they don’t ever expect those laws to apply to them.”
Thousands of Americans have grown so tired of the hypocrisy that they’ve started a petition on the White House website seeking the deportation of Piers Morgan, the British host of CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” who has lectured the nation about how only the police and military can be trusted to possess scary-looking rifles and “high-capacity magazines.”
Guests on the program who stand up for the Second Amendment are lambasted. For instance, Mr. Morgan recently asked Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt, “You are an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?” It’s not surprising the petition to send the anchor back to his homeland has received more than 84,000 signatures.
China, the United Kingdom, and Germany all voted to move the historic measure toward passage.
As we have reported, when the treaty was being deliberated in July, the United States was the only obstacle preventing the global arms control regulations from being imposed on the world.
Miraculously, however, all the points of the agreement Secretary Clinton found so distasteful in the summer were made so much more palatable after President Obama’s reelection, and every single attack on the right to bear arms remains in the version of the treaty approved on November 7.
Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11.
As soon as news of the U.S. policy 180 was confirmed, a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.
That was immediately followed by a press release sent out early the next morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference.
Also kindling discussion among delegations was a draft resolution aimed at building on the progress made toward the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective arms trade treaty. That text would decide to convene the “Final United Nations Conference” for the creation of such a treaty in March 2013.
Also by that resolution, the draft text of the treaty submitted by the conference’s president on July 26 would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text.
The U.S. government was now placing its full weight behind convening a “Final United Nations Conference” for the proposal of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.
In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging them to “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”
The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.
Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:
After today’s resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we’re only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.
The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.
In the pre-dawn hours Saturday, the Senate approved a measure “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”
By a vote of 53-46, the Senate passed the amendment to the budget bill sponsored by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).
This reporter is in New York covering the negotiations at the UN aimed at drafting a treaty calling for the eradication of small arms trade, sale, and transfer by anyone other than UN-approved governments.
“We’re negotiating a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms,” Inhofe before the vote on his amendment. “This is probably the last time this year that you’ll be able to vote for your Second Amendment rights.”
According to a story in The Hill, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) proposed his own amendment “that clarified that under current U.S. law, treaties don’t trump the Constitution and that the United States should not agree to any arms treaty that violates the Second Amendment rights.” Leahy’s amendment also passed.
Moran’s measure declares that it is the sense of Congress that:
the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and that, if he transmits the treaty with his signature to the Senate, the Senate should not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty; and
until the Arms Trade Treaty has been signed by the President, received the advice and consent of the Senate, and has been the subject of implementing legislation by Congress, no Federal funds should be appropriated or authorized to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement, or to conduct activities relevant to the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement.
Both the Moran and Kelly resolutions declare that the Arms Trade Treaty “poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty.”
The measures also points out that UN gun grab “fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related materials, and thus risks infringing on freedoms protected by the Second Amendment.”
US demands vote on United Nations arms trade treaty next week
By Julian Pecquet – 03/29/13 06:00 AM ET
The Hill
The Obama administration is demanding that the U.N. General Assembly vote on an arms trade treaty opposed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) next week, abandoning its earlier insistence on consensus.
The conference drafting the text broke up Thursday afternoon without reaching a deal after North Korea (DPRK), Syria and Iran objected. The United States immediately joined 11 other countries demanding a vote in the General Assembly after the president of the conference delivers his report on Tuesday.
“The U.S. regrets that it was not possible today to reach consensus at this conference on an arms trade treaty,” said Tom Countryman, the assistant secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation and head of the U.S. delegation to the Arms Trade Treaty Conference. “Such a treaty would promote global security, would advance important humanitarian objectives, and it would affirm the legitimacy of the international trade in conventional arms.”
He said the text that failed to reach consensus Thursday was “meaningful,” “implementable,” and “did not touch in any way upon the constitutional rights of American citizens.”
“We look forward to this text being adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in the very near future,” Countryman told reporters in a conference call Thursday night. “It’s important to the United States and the defense of our interests to insist on consensus. But every state in this process has always been conscious of the fact that, if consensus is not reached in this process, that there are other ways to adopt this treaty, including via a vote of the General Assembly.”
Countryman said a vote is expected as early as next week. That could be delayed if states reopen the treaty for further changes, however.
“The United States will vote in favor,” Countryman said. “We think an overwhelming majority of states will vote in favor. I’m happy to vote the opposite direction of such states as Iran, North Korea and Syria on this text.”
The treaty would require that states institute internal mechanisms for ensuring that their exports of conventional weapons aren’t likely to be used to violate humanitarian law. The treaty is opposed by the National Rifle Association and a majority of U.S. senators, but the administration says it would have no impact on domestic Second Amendment rights.
Attempts by the United Nations to negotiate the world’s first global arms treaty have been blocked by Iran, North Korea, and Syria. The treaty has been in the works for nearly a decade, but negotiators could not convince the three countries to approve the draft. Al Jazeera’s diplomatic editor James Bays reports from United Nations headquarters in New York.
A Republican lawmaker in Idaho has proposed an amendment to the state Constitution that would require all adults to be militia members.
A proposed disaster emergency ordinance in Guntersville, Ala., would give police overreaching power to disarm individuals in the event of an Emergency. Shotguns could be banned under Colorado Bill. Opponents of New York’s new gun control law plan to lobby lawmakers and rally at the Capitol.
Gun rights supporters want the public to become more aware of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
They gathered on Friday at Duke’s Sport Shop in New Castle to learn about the issue, which some believe could alter the country’s Second Amendment.
U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pennsylvania, explained that ATT is a set of global rules to help government regulate arms transfers.
He believes it could harm the country’s gun policy and some gun shop owners agree.
Kelly said people opposed to the ATT can sign an online petition.
“I think a lot of people don’t really know that’s actually going on right now,” said Duke’s Sports Shop Manager Mike Fotia. “It could impact everyone in the U.S. who owns a gun. It could impact the Second Amendment.”
Gun rights supporters want the public to become more aware of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
UNITED NATIONS (TRNS) — A proposed U.N. treaty to regulate international arms sales would likely have no impact on U.S. domestic gun laws, according to a white paper released by the American Bar Association earlier this week.
The report by the ABA’s Center for Human Rights, which comes less than three weeks before U.N. members states are set to resume negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), seemingly weakens claims by the National Rifle Association and other groups that the treaty poses a great risk to Second Amendment rights.
The Obama administration backed away from the ATT negotiation conference last summer after the American gun lobby and members of the US Senate and Congress alleged the deal threatened private ownership of firearms for American citizens.
But the American Bar Association’s latest analysis of the ATT concludes that while the treaty would impose obligations on the U.S. government to block international arm transfers to suspected human rights abusers, war criminals, and terrorists, it “would not require new domestic regulations of firearms.”
“If the United States signs and ratifies the ATT, in its most recent iteration in the President’s text of 26 July 2012, the United States retains the discretion to regulate the flow of weapons into and out of the United States in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment,” reads the white paper.
The ABA report also found that the majority of weapons covered by the Arms Trade Treaty do not enjoy Second Amendment protections, citing the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, that “the Second Amendment applies only to firearms that are ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,’ but not to ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.”
It says the current version of the agreement would cover the international transfers of all conventional weapons, including tanks, armored vehicles, attack helicopters, combat aircrafts, artillery systems, and missile launchers, as well as small arms and light weapons.
The National Riffle Association has energetically lobbied against the inclusion of small arms and light weapons in the ATT, blasting treaty negotiators for targeting “civilians weapons” it says are protected by the U.S. constitution.
However, the ABA white paper notes that District of Columbia v. Heller does not extend Second Amendment protections to “small arms and light weapons” such as short barreled shotguns, machine-guns, and automatic M-16 rifles.
It says that even though constitutional protections apply to some weapons classified as “small arms and light weapons,” the Second Amendment does not cover activities like importing and exporting arms.
“The Second Amendment is generally inapplicable to arms exports. Though the amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” it does not protect the right to supply arms to persons who are not themselves among “the people” of the United States,” says the ABA report.
But conservative groups and gun rights activists remain unconvinced, and maintain that possible future amendments to the ATT might eventually infringe on American gun laws.
The Arms Trade Treaty negotiations conference is set to resume at the U.N. headquarters in New York March 18-28th. http://tinyurl.com/d3b2tsh
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama put the spotlight back on gun violence on Saturday, praising senators for taking “big steps” to advance gun bills but pressing lawmakers to finish the job and deliver legislation to his desk in the coming weeks.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said the nation has changed in the three months since the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that took the lives of 20 children and six adults. There is “still genuine disagreement” about how to reduce gun violence, he said, but everyone now agrees that it is time to do something.
“Senators here in Washington have listened and taken some big steps forward,” Obama said, pointing to the mix of gun control legislation headed to the Senate floor next month. Provisions on the table include tighter background checks, a new gun trafficking statute, an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity gun magazines.
“These ideas shouldn’t be controversial — they’re common sense,” Obama said. “I urge the Senate and the House to give each of them a vote.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is expected to hold votes in early April on a mix of gun proposals, all of which make up the core of Obama’s gun violence package. The bills with broader support will be lumped together into one package, while the more controversial pieces — including the assault weapons ban — will be taken up as individual amendments to the package.
File photo of guns. (credit: KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)
Gun control fails in Washington state
Rick Moran
American Thinker
A bit of cheery news this morning; the state of Washington’s lower house has beaten back a gun control bill that would have expanded background checks for gun sales.
A contentious proposal to expand background checks on Washington state gun sales failed Tuesday in the state House, where supporters said they were just a handful of votes short.
In a final effort to pick up a few extra votes, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, had proposed a referendum clause that would have allowed the public to vote on the measure. He initially believed that would draw enough support to corral the 50 votes needed to pass the bill but conceded Tuesday night that others had dropped their backing because of that shift.
“It was too big of a stretch for this year,” Pedersen said.
Pedersen said he was disappointed by the result, and several Democrats departing for the night were emotional about the collapse of a bill they’d spent two days intensely working to finalize. The week had included lobbying from former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona Democrat who was wounded in a January 2011 mass shooting, and Gov. Jay Inslee.
(Reuters) – Both chambers of the majority Democratic Colorado legislature approved a package of four gun-control measures on Wednesday, capping months of debate in a state that has experienced two of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history.
The most controversial of the bills that are now headed to the desk of Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper is a ban on ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds, which the governor said he will sign into law.
The passage of the bills could push Colorado to the forefront of a national gun control debate reignited by several mass shootings last year, including the December massacre of 20 children and six adults at a school in Newtown, Connecticut.
The sponsor of the Colorado magazine-limit bills, state House Representative Rhonda Fields, told fellow lawmakers in a floor debate on Wednesday the proposal was about “saving lives.”
“These are weapons that should be used in a theater of war and not in our local theaters,” said Fields, a Democrat whose district includes the suburban Denver movie theater where a gunman killed 12 people in a shooting rampage last July.
Colorado was also the site of the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, where two teenagers shot dead a teacher and 12 other students before committing suicide.
Other bills included in the package of gun-control laws approved by Colorado lawmakers included a measure to make firearm buyers pay for their own background checks and a ban on online certification for concealed-carry permits, both of which Hickenlooper has said he supports.
Another measure would bar gun purchases by people convicted of domestic violence crimes. Hickenlooper had previously said he was undecided about that until he could see the final version.
One remaining gun-control measure to require background checks for all firearms transfers was sent to a conference committee on Wednesday, so that both chambers could hash out differences between the Senate and House versions.
The proposals that won final approval on Wednesday had received little Republican support.
Republican House minority leader Mark Waller issued a statement after the bills’ passage, calling Democrats “out of touch” with their constituents.
“More than 200,000 Coloradans are out of work but Democrats are more concerned with passing legislation that will send hundreds of jobs out of our state without any increase in public safety to show for it,” Waller said in a statement.
Waller was referring to Magpul, a Colorado-based manufacturer of ammunition magazines that has vowed to leave the state and take away its hundreds of jobs if the magazine-limits bill becomes law.
The Colorado legislature’s action follows the passage in New York state in January of a sweeping gun-control law that bans assault weapons and magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition, requires gun owners to register most guns with the states and requires universal background checks.
President Barack Obama has put forward a number of federal gun-control proposals in the wake of the Newtown killings.
On Tuesday, a divided U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee advanced to the full Senate a measure endorsed by Obama that would require criminal background checks for all gun buyers.
The eyes of the world are on the innovation of 3D printing. Naturally, whenever a new technology is created that offers open source DIY opportunities to the average individual, it is going to make governments and their protected corporate interests very nervous.
Such is the case with 3D weapons manufacturing. Defense Distributed has been offering sets of computer files for free through their DEFCAD online library.
New York Congressman, Steve Israel, has sought to criminalize 3D weapons, and the media attention resulted in Wikiweapon company Stratasys, Inc. seizing Defense Distributed’s equipment and taking issue with their decentralized methods. But the genie is already out of the bottle. After some initial stutter-stepping with structural failures, the latest incarnation heralds the arrival of 3D printed semi-automatic and automatic weapons.
Ars Technica explains the short history of Cody Wilson’s non-profit gun manufacturing program:
Last year, his group famously demonstrated that it could use a 3D-printed “lower” for an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle—but the gun failed after six rounds. Now, after some re-tooling, Defense Distributed has shown that it has fixed the design flaws and a gun using its lower can seemingly fire for quite a while. (The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military M16 rifle.) [Source]
The results can be seen in part 3 of their ongoing video series chronicling their development and improvement. Over 600 rounds of .223 ammunition are fired without fail using a 3D-printed “lower” for an AR-15, with Wilson stating that it likely could have gone to 1,000.
The ability for anyone to print a weapon could be one of the cornerstones for widespread freedom and resistance to top-down tyranny. Lawmakers such as Steve Israel have stated that any restrictions on 3D printing of weapons will be very difficult if not impossible to enforce, and the Justice Department has so far backed up their legality. As Tony Cartalucci has stated, it renders gun control moot; one would have to basically ban any personal use of 3D printers.
Preventing people from manufacturing guns, or worse yet, from possessing or using tools that can be used to create guns, is both ludicrous and impossible. Like with cars or anything else, laws are there to ensure we don’t harm others by abusing any given right or implement – not preventing us from having those rights or implements responsibly in the first place.
The following is an interview done by Doug Hagman of Canadian Free Press The first published article in August of 2012 Part I is here. Part II published in December of 2012 is here.
The information brought forth in these two article are bone chilling and very accurate in the case of the events we now see unfolding before us. I am making this available in hopes that it will wake those who are asleep and will fortify those who have known all along that something was horribly wrong. May it not be too late for us as a Nation. Becase if what is being revealed in this interview is fact,we are in for the fight of our lives. Or at least those of us who want to remain free……… Wherever possible I have added the videos or articles that pertain to the specific information being brought forth in the interview.
The following information was provided to me by my DHS contact on two different occasions. Information from my first contact was previously published in two parts . I was asked to withhold the final portion of the information that was provided to me at that time until after the inauguration. The following resumes where part II left off. At the request of this source and for the sake of continuity, the following combines the information withheld and the information from our most recent contact on 4 February 2013.
DH: Do I have your permission to record this conversation?
RB: Please do.
DH: We’ve spoken at different times since the information you gave me was published. You have since given me additional information on top of the information you asked me to withhold until after the inauguration. First, what was the reason for asking me to wait to publish the remainder of our discussion until after the inauguration?
RB: This bunch, top level DHS brass, is clamping down on leaks. One way they are finding leakers is to put out false information specific to certain individuals. They can trace the information directly to the leaker due to the nature and specificity of the information. It was part self-preservation, part vetting one of my closest and most important contacts. It was a test to assure that I am not being used for disinformation purposes or being targeted as a leaker. It was something I felt I had to do, and I’m glad I did. I feel more comfortable now about my sources.
DH: So, if I understand you correctly, your sources “passed” whatever test you were performing?
RB: Yes.
DH: And you still have access to information, I mean, whistleblower type information?
RB: I know what you mean, so I guess that’s one way to put it. Okay.
DH: For continuity and to refresh your memory, I’m going to play the remainder of our recorded interview from our contact last month.
[At this point, we listened to the dialogue previously recorded. After the recording concluded, this DHS source suggested that we combine new information with the previously recorded information to avoid unnecessary repetition. It was agreed and the recorder was turned back on with his consent].
DH: Just to be clear, let me hit this again. The main reason you asked me to wait to publish your previous statements had more to do with you, your sources and well, your own self preservation than the content of our discussion.
RB: I guess you could say that. But the information is still valid and becomes even more important when combined with the latest information I have for you.
DH: Okay, we can get on with it, then.
RB: First of all, two days after the inauguration, at exactly 7:00 a.m. on January 23, something called “the Cyber-Warriors for Obama Project” was activated. I heard about this the week after the election, but only saw a hardcopy draft in late December. From what I was told, I believe this is a project that is being paid for through funds from Obama’s political corporation, the 501(c)4 Organizing for Obama, I believe it’s called. I can’t be sure, but that’s what I was told.
At that time, I was shown a white, three-ring binder with Obama’s circular campaign logo imprinted on the outside of the binder with the name “Cyber-Warriors for Obama” printed in blue across the top. Inside were the names and e-mail addresses of 3,575 “cyber assets,” or “warriors,” listed in alphabetical order under about a dozen or so “team leaders.” From a separate sheet I was shown, most of these “assets” are being paid just over minimum wage, but as I understand it, they work from home and have no overhead. I believe there are about two dozen supervisors who make substantially more.
Now I only had the binder for a minute, and could not take it from the room I was in, so this is strictly from memory.
It was tabbed, and one section with the word “targets” had a list of religious web sites, web sites I recognized as Christian. Another section was a listing of conservative Internet sites. There was another tab with the label “problem sites” that seemed quite extensive. I looked at that section, and it was broken down further into “birther” sites, “pro-gun” sites, “anti-abortion” sites, just to name a few.
There was also a section of the usual news sites, like CNN, ABC, you know. Numerous e-mail addresses were conspicuous under each news organization, which also included Fox… [unintelligible]. I figured you were going to ask.
The first page of the binder had bullet points labeled “objectives” and instructions for the cyber-assets. There was also a very detailed non-disclosure agreement with the word “DRAFT” typed in big, light grey letters across the body of the two-page agreement. The agreement and the instructions were typed on white paper with a warning, printed in red on each page, that the document was not to be copied or disseminated.
DH: Where did you see this? I mean, was it at DHS?
RB: Yes, and that’s as much as I can say on the location.
DH: What’s the magic behind the number 3,575?
RB: I asked the person showing me [the binder] that question. Supposedly, it has to do with their budget, or the project funding.
DH: Go on.
RB: The instructions seemed very specific. Infiltrate web forums, collect screen names, avatars, and posters’ tag lines, and attempt to resolve these to their actual identities. I read one paragraph that listed circumstances when the “asset” was only to monitor but do not disrupt without authorization. There was another section titled “Divert, Disrupt and Destroy,” listing “how to’s” in certain cases.
There was also a section on maintaining a social media presence, and another on the most effective use of Twitter.
Lastly, there was a “reference section,” which included statistics, specific language to use to marginalize different posters, and effective methods to discredit people while maintaining a sense of legitimacy.
It was surreal, to say the least.
Oh, one more thing that’s important. As I said, these “kids,” or young people I believe, are known collectively as “Cyber-Warriors for Obama.” The subheading was “And the truth shall set you free.” Truth? Really? They were hired on their hacking abilities, or more precisely on their abilities to make postings through proxy servers and effectively use alternate identities and multiple e-mail addresses. Their purpose is to spread disinformation, not truth.
There were also motivational statements on various pages, including one that referred to Obama as the “Pharaoh of the Internet,” which I thought was an odd characterization.
But what’s important is that suddenly, through the use of Internet aliases, multiple e-mail addresses, and screen names, a project that employs 3,575 people will have the appearance and effectiveness of maybe 10,000 or more different people.
*************************************************************************************
DH: Do you know if these “team members” have their own copies of the binder you saw?
RB: No. I was told that these people were hired through the campaign offices located throughout the country, and that training meetings were held at various locations. The binders were for instructional purposes, not to hand out. Although I think the people have, or were given, a list of web sites.
I don’t know any more on the actual mechanics of the project.
DH: During our previous contact, you said that we should listen to Obama’s comments about the economy, I mean during the inaugural speech. What’s so significant about that?
RB: Well, this is perhaps the most important issue people need to understand. There will be, and was, talk of a recovery and a stronger economy, but it’s all propaganda. As you heard me say in the recording you just played, the complete inaugural address will be a “Baghdad Bob” moment, and it was. Many economists will use false figures and statistics to deceive the American people. People must not downplay the importance of the economic aspect of this address. The sudden collapse of the U.S. dollar (however it actually plays out) and everything that goes with it (such as social chaos and riots) will be one part of a plan that was set in motion a long time ago.
DH: During our previous contact, you said that we should listen to Obama’s comments about the economy, I mean during the inaugural speech. What’s so significant about that?
RB: Well, this is perhaps the most important issue people need to understand. There will be, and was, talk of a recovery and a stronger economy, but it’s all propaganda. As you heard me say in the recording you just played, the complete inaugural address will be a “Baghdad Bob” moment, and it was. Many economists will use false figures and statistics to deceive the American people. People must not downplay the importance of the economic aspect of this address. The sudden collapse of the U.S. dollar (however it actually plays out) and everything that goes with it (such as social chaos and riots) will be one part of a plan that was set in motion a long time ago.
DH: And you are getting this from your current intelligence sources? Frankly, I’m not sure I completely understand the connection between DHS and what’s going on with the economy. Seems like it should be separate.
RB: What’s not to understand? The economic devastation that will take place is an attack, a planned attack on the U.S. Just look at it that way. This “regime” already knows the outcome, which is the debasement of our national currency. Like I said, it’s been in the works most recently since the 1990s. A collapse does not happen without a lot of pain -people losing everything in their retirement accounts, savings and so on. Don’t you think that will cause one hell of a national security problem? And who is running our national or domestic security? DHS.
Oh, and one of the reasons I wanted to include more recent information into our discussion relates to something you did last month, after our talk. I know you said you did not want to source your own work, but there was one important radio program you did that caused a very angry response inside DHS.
DH: How so?
RB: You had a financial insider on your program who went by some letter, like the first or last letter of his name.
DH: Yes, that was “V” who is a source for Steve Quayle. We did a program at the beginning of January, I think – I’d have to look. [Edited to add that the actual program was 11 January 2013.]
RB: Yeah, that was it. If you ask your network, I think you’ll find a request was made for the transcript of that program by DHS. The information given by that source was protected, or confidential, especially regarding the actions of big bankers here in the U.S. and the foreign markets. These international bankers are playing a big role in killing the U.S., and although they’re bold, they still don’t want certain things disclosed before their time.
DH: But that information had nothing to do with national security. I mean, how would this relate to DHS?
RB: Now you’re giving me a headache [laughter]. Let me spell it out for you, and this is the crux of everything. We have Obama (or whatever his real name is) in the Oval Office. You’ve said it before, that America is a “captured operation.” Well, it is, and every top level operative at DHS and Justice knows it. They have his dossier.
Think about Obama’s mother working in microfinance with Timothy Geithner’s father. What are the odds? And that’s just one “coincidence.”
A lot of people won’t get this until it’s too late, or maybe never get it. But take a good look at Obama and the people who surround him. Look at the 2008 economic crisis under Bush. Look at the run up to where we’re at today. The orchestrated boom of the 1990s. The GLB Act signed into law under Clinton that changed the complexion of our domestic economy. Look at the people who are still around, the architects of this. It’s a big lie! It’s all been rigged, and the insiders know this! Look at the continuity of agenda since “Bush senior.”
Now listen to what I am telling you. This is a continuing operation that involves many of the same people on both sides of the aisle in Washington. This is one of the reasons why no one wants to talk about Obama’s past. He is the product of a continuing intelligence operation, put in power to oversee the dismantling of the U.S., with the economy being the lynchpin of our destruction. Obama, Jarrett, and the Clintons are in constant contact with all high level operatives inside the DHS. Perhaps not directly in all cases but through their contacts. They are working together to see to it that the U.S. economy is brought down, robbing the people of their wealth and then blaming partisan politics for the crash.
For the first time in recent history, you’re going to see people hungry and out in the streets. Those unprepared or those thinking this is all [expletive deleted], desperate and begging for food. Think Katrina, but on a national scale. That’s what is being planned for Americans, and few people are willing to see what’s happening, or willing to believe it. Now here’s where DHS, my sources and information comes in.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama did some cherry-picking Tuesday night in defense of his record on jobs and laid out a conditional path to citizenship for illegal immigrants that may be less onerous than he made it sound.
A look at some of the claims in his State of the Union speech, a glance at the Republican counterargument and how they fit with the facts:
OBAMA: “After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs.”
THE FACTS: That’s in the ballpark, as far as it goes. But Obama starts his count not when he took office, but from the point in his first term when job losses were the highest. In doing so, he ignores the 5 million or so jobs that were lost on his watch, up to that point.
Private sector jobs have grown by 6.1 million since February 2010. But since he became president, the gain is a more modest 1.9 million.
And when losses in public sector employment are added to the mix, his overall jobs record is a gain of 1.2 million.
OBAMA: “We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas.”
Everybody is looking at the gun “problem” in America. Fights over the Second Amendment. State laws that go against the Constitution. Blame it on Sandy Hook or Colorado. Tell people we need to be disarmed because it’s for the children. It’s all [expletive deleted]. Most people know it’s all [expletive deleted], but that’s where their rational assessment stops. Why do you think the people in power want to -no – need to disarm the public? It’s because they are planning an economic collapse, and an armed and informed populace is a danger to their plan.
In the aftermath of a deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Conn., President Obama addresses the nation on gun control and also talks about ongoing fiscal negotiations.
Caught on Camera: Joe Biden admits gun control will not stop mass shootings or save lives
Published on Feb 3, 2013
Joe Biden was caught on camera in Washington saying that new gun control laws will notprevent another mass shooting or lower the number of gun deaths. Yet the President and Biden are telling us that we MUST pass gun control even if it saves just one life.
Gun Control — No matter what your opinion, you need to see this
Published on Feb 6, 2013
Gun Control — No matter what your opinion, you need to see this
The Constitutional government of the United States has been overthrown, and the American people have been captured. The only question now is what are we, as true Americans believing that our Constitution is the one and only law of the land, going to do about it? It’s now simply a matter of what the blowback from the tyranny being thrust upon us will look like, how or even if it will play out.
If you are looking for normal political solutions out of this legal, financial, moral and spiritual mess of a country, I believe that time has long passed. If your hope rests in a change with the midterm elections, go back to sleep or better yet, increase the dosage of your medication. It is clearly evident by the actions and inaction of the spineless or compromised leaders in whom you’ve placed your hope and future, and the future of your children and grandchildren, that doing so again will change nothing. We are a captured operation, and partisan politics is nothing more than theater to divert your attention from the iron fist of tyranny that is about to change life as you know it.
You must understand that our nation today is ruled not by democrats or republicans, but by the party of royalty with a European mindset and a Globalist agenda. The morphing from a two-party system into one of elite royalty did not happen overnight, but incrementally and under the proverbial radar of a deliberately distracted public.
Much of what you see, hear and read is a lie so big that you don’t recognize it as a lie, and so bold that it operates without question or impediment right in front of us. There are plenty of writers and talkers who will sugar-coat the lie or participate in political theater for air time, print space or a paycheck, but I refuse to be one of them. Allow me to walk you through my investigative findings into the “Obama conspiracy” to show you just how deep the lie goes. By the end of this summary report, I hope that you will better understand the lie, the objectives of those involved, and the fate intended for us all.
They are not coming for our guns
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Would you believe me if I wrote that the government is not after our guns? Probably not, as it certainly looks that way with the pending executive orders and new gun legislation. Well, the guns are secondary. I urge you to think bigger, “think outside of the box.” Make no mistake about this, they will come after our guns, but they are coming after us.
DH: Wait, wouldn’t it make sense to let the guns stay in the hands of the people and have the people shoot it out among themselves? Wouldn’t this fit in with their desire for chaos, and make it easier for Martial Law to be implemented?
RB: In a way, but you’re still not thinking big enough. The way this is being planned includes that scenario, but they are very afraid that once total chaos breaks out, they will become the targets. So to a point you’re right, but then a crackdown must take place.
DH: But the elected ones are well protected.
RB: Yeah, but you are not thinking like them. There are several scenarios or models they have commissioned. They exist in printed form and have been given to Obama and Jarrett specifically. It’s war gaming with the American people. That caused some mid-level military people with a conscience to ask what the hell is going on, and some even refused to take part in these exercises. By the way, Napolitano is the go-to person for these models.
Anyway, there is a fear that their own people won’t be loyal to them when everything begins to implode. You’ve been seeing purges lately. Remember what Jarrett supposedly said about being “hell to pay” after the re-election? That process has started.
These are just three of the many that have taken place in the last 6 years. There are so many more ranging from the Gay members of Reverend Wrights church of which Obama was a member and had been tied to Obama in intimate ways. Just as you will find the mysterious deaths of 0/11 witnesses. This is more than just Obama this has to do with those who are truly in control and are tightening the noose. Dont believe me do your own research look up all the mysterious deaths and see what you find for yourself.
~Desert Rose~~
…
Bizarre last Days of Top White House Aide Found Murdered and Dumped in Landfill – Alex Jones Tv
Uploaded on Jan 5, 2011
Disorientated and wearing just one shoe’: Bizarre last sighting of top White House aide found murdered and dumped in landfill
John Wheeler III DC Murder Mystery: Parking Lot Footage
Whistleblower Andrew Breitbarts Convenient Death
Published on Oct 14, 2012
Radio host Alex Jones talked about the death of Andrew Breitbart. He was suspicious of the circumstances surrounding the conservative blogger’s demise, since it fell on the very day that Breitbart had previously announced plans to release damning videos of Barack Obama. Additionally, Jones contended that the swift media reports claiming that Breitbart died of “natural causes,” despite subsequent news releases saying it would take weeks before that could be determined, was “a big sign that this was some type of staged event.” While he washopeful that Breitbart’s death was not the result of a nefarious plot, Jones declared that “we would be fools” not to consider the quizzical timing of the journalist’s passing.
Andrew Breitbart (/ˈbraɪtbɑrt/; February 1, 1969 — March 1, 2012) was a conservative American publisher, commentator for The Washington Times, author, and occasional guest commentator on various news programs, who served as an editor for the Drudge Report website. He was a researcher for Arianna Huffington, and helped launch her web publication The Huffington Post.
He owned the news aggregation site, Breitbart.com, and five other websites: Breitbart.tv, Big Hollywood, Big Government, Big Journalism, and Big Peace. He played key roles in the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal, the resignation of Shirley Sherrod, and the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.
Death
On March 1, 2012, Breitbart collapsed while walking in Brentwood. He was rushed to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, where he later died. He was 43 years old. An autopsy by the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office showed that he had cardiomegaly and died of heart failure. The toxicology report showed “No prescription or illicit drugs were detected. The blood alcohol was .04%. No significant trauma was present and foul play is not suspected.” Personal friend of Breitbart, Bill Whittle, had said that Breitbart had a “serious heart attack” just months before his passing.
In remembrance, Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich praised Breitbart. Santorum called Breitbart’s passing “a huge loss” that strongly affected him, while Romney said Breitbart was a “fearless conservative”, and Gingrich called him “the most innovative pioneer in conservative activist social media in America….”
His funeral was held March 6, 2012, at a Jewish cemetery in West Los Angeles. Attendees included his father-in-law Orson Bean, Matt Drudge, Herman Cain, Thaddeus McCotter, Greg Gutfeld, Ed Morrissey, Guy Benson, and Rob Long.
Andrew Breibart’s LA Coroner Dies!
Published on Apr 29, 2012
Medical examiners in Los Angeles are investigating the possible poisoning death of one of their own officials who may have worked on the case of Andrew Breitbart, the conservative firebrand who died March 1, the same day Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced probable cause for forgery in President Obama’s birth certificate.
Michael Cormier, a respected forensic technician for the Los Angeles County Coroner died under suspicious circumstances at his North Hollywood home April 20, the same day Breitbart’s cause of death was finally made public.
“There are mysterious circumstances surrounding his death,” said Elizabeth Espinosa, a news reporter for KTLA-TV. “We’re told detectives are looking into the possibility that he was poisoned by arsenic.”
Cormier, 61, had been rushed to Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank after complaining of pain and vomiting.
Andrew Breitbart’s Assigned Coroner Dead? Poison Suspected
Published on May 2, 2012
Medical examiners in Los Angeles are investigating the possible poisoning death of one of their own officials who may have worked on the case of Andrew Breitbart, the conservative firebrand who died March 1, the same day Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced probable cause for forgery in President Obama’s birth certificate.
Michael Cormier, a respected forensic technician for the Los Angeles County Coroner died under suspicious circumstances at his North Hollywood home April 20, the same day Breitbart’s cause of death was finally made public.
“There are mysterious circumstances surrounding his death,” said Elizabeth Espinosa, a news reporter for KTLA-TV. “We’re told detectives are looking into the possibility that he was poisoned by arsenic.”
Help Sheriff Joe blow the lid off Obama’s fraud. Join the Cold Case Posse right now!
Cormier, 61, had been rushed to Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank after complaining of pain and vomiting.
“He was transported there early in the morning, and passed away late at night,” Ed Winter, assistant chief of operations and Cormier’s colleague at the Los Angeles County Department of Coroner, told KTLA. “It affects everybody when you lose a co-worker, but we’ll proceed and do our job and try to figure out why Michael died.”
The hospital then notified Los Angeles Police about Cormier’s death.
“At this point we haven’t ruled out foul play,” police Lt. Alan Hamilton told the Los Angeles Times. “It is one of the things being considered. We are waiting for the coroner’s results.”
Toxicology results are not expected for five to six weeks.
Sources told the Times several hazardous materials experts and officers searched Cormier’s home in search of what may have caused his sudden demise.
Michael Cormier
“The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that finding the presence of poison does not necessarily mean the death was a homicide, because the substance could have accidentally entered his system,” the Times reported.
Hamilton also noted investigations are standard procedure when there’s a suggestion of anything other than natural causes in someone’s death.
It’s still unclear if Cormier personally worked on the probe into Breitbart’s death, and WND has left messages with the coroner’s office seeking comment.
On April 20, the same day Cormier died, the coroner’s office released its findings into the death of Breitbart, stating the 43-year-old conservative media powerhouse died of natural causes, listing cause of death as heart failure.
“No prescription or illicit drugs were detected. The blood alcohol was .04%,” the official report said. “No significant trauma was present and foul play is not suspected.”
Breitbart was founder of BigGovernment.com among other websites.
The night before Breitbart died, WND senior staff reporter Jerome Corsi arranged for Breitbart to interview Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who the very next day held a news conference to announce there was probable cause to believe President Obama’s birth certificate released on April 27, 2011, was a forgery, as well as Obama’s Selective Service Card.
“I have known Andrew for nearly 15 years and considered him a friend. His passion and energy for seeking the truth will be greatly missed by the nation
“What or Who killed Andrew Breitbart? Now the Coroner is dead! What did he know?” by Fred Brownbill
“What or Who killed Andrew Breitbart? Now the Coroner is dead! What did he know?” by Fred Brownbill http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/…
DH: Okay, but wouldn’t they be safer by speaking out, by telling everything they know? Some ordinary people might call them cowards. Why not just go public[interrupted/over talk]
RB: Yeah, how’d that work out so far? And go public to who? CNN? They are in real danger, and so are their families. Anyone close to them. Even if one or two would go public, how do you think that would work out for them? I’ll tell you how. They would make [Senator] McCarthy look like an American hero, which he was, but that’s… They’ve made it so that no one will be able to make any real difference to their agenda. They know that.
DH: So no one is going to say anything – ever?
RB: That’s not what I said. Some will talk when the time is right. Some have “insurance policies” that will be used at the right time, when they will make the most difference.
DH: I feel like we’re getting off point. So, what is being planned?
RB: The DHS will oversee the domestic crackdown that will happen when the perfect storm bears down on us. And the perfect storm is the economy, meaning the U.S. dollar collapse and hyperinflation, racial or class riots sparked by a high-profile incident, and another mass causality event involving guns. Watch for these three things to happen all at once, or in close succession.
The polarization caused by these events will be sufficient to cause a second civil war.
DH: When? How soon will all of this happen?
RB: I don’t have a crystal ball, but I have seen various reports referencing unprecedented “drills” to take place in later March and April. I’ll mention this because I know a lot of people on the inside at DHS have seen this. A document called “Operation Thunderdome.” It’s maybe 50 or 60 pages, I’m not certain. It describes an economic collapse in the U.S., followed by an attack on the government by “a made-up patriotic group.” It combines gun owners, Constitutionalists, and even Christians into an enemy group that pulls off an attack in Washington.
But don’t fall into the trap of trying to pick the time of these events. Their plans are flexible, but their objectives are carved in stone.
DH: Sounds like a Reichstag type event- sometime.
RB: Exactly. Maybe not just one. They have plans and back-up plans and back-ups for the back-ups. And in spite of the warnings, and history, enough people will be outraged and side with the government. This brings me to my final point. What do you think all of the prepositioning of paramilitary assets, caches of ammunition, and the opening of non-descript buildings owned or leased by the federal government are for?
It’s for you and people like you. It’s for those who are turned in by their neighbors, friends, co-workers, and others who are hungry, broke and broken. What we are about to experience will be like it was during the Civil War, only worse. People will be outgunned, surveillance will be everywhere, and it will be much more difficult to hide and fight back. Not impossible, but more difficult.
DH: So you’re painting a picture of a Mad Max scenario, hence the reference to Thunderdome?
RB: Believe it or not, part of the model, or at least one of them, includes the depiction of a somewhat “normal” society, at least after the initial “hostilities.” People will be controlled by the national government, centralized – in order to escape the chaos. Think of it this way. You want food and medical care? You will not be able to own a gun, period. The current federal legislation is all window dressing – a distraction. No one expects anything meaningful to pass. It won’t have to. States, yes, but those states are lining up for federal money. The elected leaders are of the same ideology as Obama, but aside from those, we’ll see many people turning in their weapons for food, shelter, medical care, and false guarantees of safety. That’s what the new normal will look like.
As I said, you’ve got to think bigger – much bigger. The lies are bigger than most people can imagine. The people at the top are laughing at us. Think about that. They are laughing at us because it’s right in front of our noses. And you know, the bigger the lie…
DH: Yes, the more people will fall for it.
RB: Right. I think we’re done here for now. I’ve given you as much information as I know, as I have seen. Watch the economy – the indicators. Watch for a false flag. We are being baited. Let people pooh-pooh this information, seek information through FOI requests. Not gonna happen. We’re talking about an operation so black and so big, and one that has to be done in the next few years, under Obama.
This is something that is international in scope. The plan is international, and is dedicated to the dismantling or destruction of America. It’s happening right in front of us, but too few can actually see it.
DH: I’m sure you, well… We’ll be accused of scaring people without citable evidence.
RB: People need to wake up. Believe me or don’t. It’s their choice.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
This work may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, health and social justice issues, etc. As this information is being presented in a way not made available by the copyright holder for furthering the delivery of said information to a public that would otherwise not be made aware of its content and message. Thereby extending their reach and furthering their message we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
The following information was provided to me by my DHS contact on two different occasions. Information from my first contact was previously published in two parts . I was asked to withhold the final portion of the information that was provided to me at that time until after the inauguration. The following resumes where 
