Friday, June 12, 2009

FEMA to Hold Regional “Anti-Terrorism” Drill in July

According to a page on FEMA’s own website, they will be holding a “National Level Exercise” from July 27th through July 31st, 2009.

What is significant about this “exercise” is that it will be the first that is regional in scope, encompassing all of FEMA Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexcio, Oklahoma and Texas), and, even more significant is that it will also be the first time in our history that troops from foreign countries will be involved in policing American citizens on U.S. soil. Those countries participating will be Australia, Canada, Mexico and the UK. This will be the first time since 1814 (the end of the War of 1812) that armed British troops have been on American soil menacing Americans. The last time the bastards were here, they burned our national capitol building.

The stated objectives of this exercise are, as is typical of our government in recent years, vaguely worded:

* Intelligence/Information Sharing and Dissemination

* Counter-Terrorism Investigation and Law Enforcement

* Air, Border and Maritime Security

* Critical Infrastructure Protection

* Public and Private Sector Alert/Notification and Security Advisories

* International Coordination

So, in other words, they will be spying on us, imposing illegal and unconstitutional “law enforcement” upon us, shutting down access to air, sea and land travel, closing down access to bridges, roads and highways, enlisting the aid of the Infraguard private sector Stazi force against us, and “coordinating” all this with assistance from other nations that have no business being involved in U.S. internal affairs.

FEMA states that this drill will be “White House directed” and “congressionally mandated.” Of course, as many of us know, that really means it’s being mandated by Bilderberg, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the international banking cartel that is behind all of these organizations.

Of course, all of this is being done in the name of “fighting terrorism,” and the drill will supposedly begin somewhere outside the U.S. (I’m guessing Mexico), then move into the U.S. It will involve supposed “terrorist attacks” that will then become a threat to the U.S.

On September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense was running military “drills” concurrently with the “attacks” on New York and Washington, D.C. and, as many researchers have pointed out, these drills were used to achieve two things: first, to mask the real attacks that the drills were simulating and, secondly, to send our fighter jets to locations far away from the areas being attacked, thus facilitating the attacks.

I believe this FEMA drill may be something similar. Actually, I believe it may be one of three things:

1. The beginning of a martial law take-over, focusing on the region where they have determined they will have the most resistance first.

2. A drill/exercise, as FEMA claims, to test the waters for a full blown nationwide martial law take-over and to acclimate the public to the next phase of conditioning: i.e., having armed foreign troops blatantly on U.S. soil, violating U.S. citizens’ rights.

3. A drill/exercise designed to see if they can get us to revolt, in which case, they will go from drill mode to the real thing immediately.

As a life-long resident of Oklahoma, I am debating whether to go somewhere outside of FEMA Region VI for the four days of this drill, or to stay put and make sure my shotgun is locked and loaded. Given possibility number three, I’m thinking maybe a short vacation might be in order.

For’s take on this FEMA exercise, see their article on the subject.

Applied DNA Sciences Collaborates with Government to Create DNA-Based Real ID

Forget about RFID. Oh, it will probably be used, also, but the Real ID cards the government is intent upon forcing us to have in order to drive a car, board a plane or enter a building paid for with our tax dollars may very well not even need RFID in order to positively identify each of us.

A company called Applied DNA Sciences, located in Stony Brook, New York, announced on June 9, 2009 that it has, in collaboration with “a world leader in security laminated materials,” validated its proprietary SigNature DNA into “laminates typically used in travel documents, credit cards, drivers licenses and other government issued identification cards.”

So, the bottom line is that all they will need is a sample of your DNA and this can be laminated right into the Real ID card in such a way that your unique DNA sequence can be read by any card reader.

This raises the question, of course, of how they propose to get everyone’s DNA data, in the first place, but this may be easier than you think. Aside from the possibility of DNA being extracted from a blood or tissue sample when you visit your doctor, there are millions of people who have had DNA testing of various kinds done voluntarily, for seemingly innocuous purposes.

For example, there is a growing industry built up around the use of DNA by amateur and professional genealogists. I am among these genealogists, myself, in fact, which is how I know about it. In 2002, I founded the Rea Surname DNA Project, devoted to tracking the lineages of Reas (and all alternate spellings of the name) all over the world. The idea is to provide an extended means of finding one’s ancestry by matching with others who share the same common ancestors. Today, the project has some 100 or more members in the U.S., Canada, the UK and Australia. This is only one of literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of DNA surname projects that exist today, and is hardly one of the larger projects out there. The largest company that is used by these projects for DNA testing services is Family Tree DNA of Houston, Texas. The actual testing is done by the University of Arizona. FTDNA just handles the business end.

In genetic genealogy, as it called, there are various tests used, but the primary test, used in all surname projects to trace direct line descent from a common ancestor of the same surname, is the Y-DNA test. This isolates only the male Y chromosome and is expressed by a sequence of up to 67 “markers,” though the basic test uses only the first 12 of these markers. It is not, by any means, a complete genetic “picture” of the individual from whom the sample is taken. However, that’s assuming that only the extracted Y-DNA sequence necessary to genetic genealogists is extracted and the remaining DNA discarded or, at least, not used, which FTDNA assures its customers it is doing.

However, I have had some very disturbing doubts, not only about FTDNA’s true agenda, but that of all the other DNA testing services performing similar services. What if they are, contrary to the claims they’ve made to their customers, supplying the full DNA sequences of the people in their databases to the government or some agency of the government? What if, in fact, they are all actually fronts for the intelligence community? They will deny this charge, I am sure, but there are some additionally disturbing facts about Family Tree DNA that you should know about.

First off is the fact that FTDNA was founded by Bennett Greenspan and everyone on the FTDNA corporate staff is either an American Jew or an Israeli. Now, I’m not an anti-semite. That would involve being opposed to actual racial Jews. But the fact is that 99.9% of the people in the world who call themselves “Jews” are actually descendants of the Khazars, not the Israelites. In other words, the Khazars adopted the Judaic faith, over a thousand years ago, and are “Jews” in name only. Their descendants make up the vast majority of those calling themselves “Jews” today. In fact, it would not be at all incorrect to say that the Khazarian Jews have completely co-opted the faith of Judaism, centuries ago.

Another aspect of the Khazarian Jews, also known as Ashkenazi Jews (literally translated as “German Jews”), is that they are the dominant force at work behind the New World Order. The Rothschilds were Ashkenazi Jews and it was through the efforts of the Rothschilds that the state of Israel was founded after WWII.

Getting back to FTDNA and its Ashkenazi Jewish corporate staff, until very recently, one of the key staff members listed on the firm’s website was Max Rothschild, a geneticist by training and expertise. When I began to publicize this fact, just months ago, however, his photo and all mention of him quickly and mysteriously disappeared from the site without any mention or explanation. Infer what you will from that. Note that the page linked to Max Rothschild’s name above resides on a server that is owned by Ames Laboratory, which is run by the U.S. Department of Energy (the same folks who brought you such nice things as nuclear weapons).

Now, I don’t mean to single out FTDNA, though they are the largest, oldest and most popular provider of genetic testing services and, thus, the most influential, as well (they hold an annual conference for genetic genealogy in Houston, for example). There are others, as I have mentioned, and these companies are now quite numerous.

Among them is one that has been founded by, Anne Wojcicki, the wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin and is called This enterprise is far more suspect, in my view, than FTDNA. It provides a range of services that extend well beyond FTDNA’s focus upon using DNA testing for genealogy purposes. Among 23andme’s services is the creation of a social networking scheme in which one can seek out others who match their DNA. The presumption is that seeking a genetically matched or genetically compatible mate is somehow superior to seeking one who possesses the character traits that one would find ideal in a spouse or partner. Note that the world’s elite have long been known for having an inordinate fixation upon genealogy, genetics, breeding and intermarriage between their elite family lines. In fact, this is precisely how Anne Wojcicki and Sergey Brin met. They deliberately selected each other as mates via a simliar genetic testing service, having never met each other before. Note, also, that both are Ashkenazi Jews and that Brin was born in the Soviet Union.

It is this social networking aspect of Wojcicki’s company that is most chilling, as it builds upon the existing trend toward social networking sites on the internet. Millions of people worldwide already belong to these sites (Facebook, MySpace and others being the largest and most visible) and there are now social networking sites for every imaginable interest group, as well as sites specific to various industries or professions or personal interests (even online gaming) that incorporate such social networking into their sites. This phenomenon is fast replacing the old internet message board paradigm. So, why not add genetic testing services to the mix? The trouble is, the genetic testing being done by 23andme doesn’t stop at the narrow band of markers used in genetic genealogy. In their efforts to find their members mates, 23andme uses the entire DNA sequence of its members. This is what is so chilling, because, that data, which is expressable by a simple string of numbers, can be encoded into anything – including Applied DNA Sciences’ SigNature identifcation coding, which, in turn can be laminated into any drivers license or the Real ID card.

These companies are now numerous and there seems to be no end to the growth of this “industry” that has sprung up around such genetic testing services. Each year, more and more people are having their DNA tested, for various reasons and purposes, and the common denominator in each case is that it requires a phyiscal sample of the individual’s genetic material, whether provided in the form of a blood or tissue sample.

In addition to these multiple voluntary means of gathering human DNA are those multiple compulsory means of doing so, such as requiring the DNA of newborn infants at all hospitals, or the requiring of DNA of convicted criminals, or the requiring of DNA samples from anyone stopped for a minor traffic violation. The number of ways your DNA can make it into some database somewhere has multiplied astronomically in the last decade and much of it, as I have shown, has been hidden and been made to look totally benign. But the fact is, if the government is to succeed in getting your DNA sequence laminated into the Real ID card, they will have to gather the DNA of everyone in the country. Period. They have to acheive this somehow, and these growing DNA databases, which have never been investigated or audited by anyone, may be the way.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Sotomayor: States Do Not Have to Obey the Second Amendment

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has ruled, in a lower court decision, that the states are somehow not subject to the Second Amendment. Nothing could be more obviously incorrect.

The Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution. The Constitution is the law of the land, overriding all other laws. It is the document from which not only the federal government, but the states derive their powers of governance and it is the binding document that defines the limitations of powers of both the federal and state governments.

This means that the Second Amendment, which itself says that it "...shall not be infringed," is one of the several limitations over the powers of both the federal and the state governments. If the federal government, or any of the states violates the Second Amendment, they are in violation of the Constitution. It cannot be otherwise.

Of course, the dumbed down public, who barely understand what the Constitution is, let alone what it means and what purpose it serves, will stupidly go along with whatever any government official tells them because they have been brainwashed into believing, since early childhood, that their government is the source of their freedoms, when, in fact, it poses the greatest danger to them. That is why the first ten amendments to the Constitution were written and included in the Constitution, in the first place, along with the Bill of Rights.

But, the average American has absolutely no knowledge of the true history of the founding of this republic. They have been taught, since kindergarten, that the Constitution is our founding document. It is not. It never was. In fact, the Constitution was written, quite deliberately, to eradicate the founding document of this republic. That founding document was titled the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, or Articles of Confederation, for short.

The Articles of Confederation was, for the better part of a decade, our constitution, until it was replaced, in 1787, by the Constitution. Most Americans are completely ignorant of the fact that our forefathers fought a bitter battle over this. If anyone, these days, is taught anything at all about the Articles of Confederation in school, they are told that the Articles were somehow flawed and in need of replacement, so the Constitution was created. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The two factions who fought each other tooth and nail over the writing and ratification of the Constitution were the Federalists, on the one hand, and the Anti-Federalists on the other. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, were paid agents of the Rothschilds of London. It was their mission to replace the original constitution of this republic (the Articles of Confederation) with a new constitution that would do, basically, two things: first, enable the eventual growth of a large and powerful central government with its powers concentrated in the executive branch and, secondly - but most important of all for the Rothschilds - the creation of a centralized monetary system that could be infiltrated and manipulated by the Rothschilds' agents, for the profit of and, ultimately, full control of our government by the Rothschilds and their minions.

Opposing the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists were the true founders of our nation, led by future president Andrew Jackson. Jackson's role will be fully appreciated when one considers that he was the chief opponent of the Second Bank of the United States, which was the second of three central banks established in America by the Rothschilds' agents within our government. The First bank of the United States had a twenty year charter that had expired. During his term as President, Jackson was quoted as having said of the international bankers behind the Second Bank of the United States, "You are a den of vipers and thieves! I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, I will rout you out!" On his death bed, when asked what his greatest achievement had been, Jackson said, "I killed the bank."

So, you see, the Constitution, far from being that great founding document we were taught about in school, was actually a tool of international criminals set upon crushing our free republic and returning it to the rule of England once again. In fact, worse than that, it was a tool to establish a foothold for eventual global domination - a plan which we are witnessing the final phases of today.

The Federalists couldn't risk being exposed for what they truly were, or for whose interests they truly served. So, even though it put somewhat of a brake on their plans, they had to accept the Constitution with some additions and revisions made by the Anti-Federalists, who had lost their bid to keep the Constitution from replacing the Articles of Confederation. To their credit, the Anti-Federalists just managed to get the Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments included and it is to them - not the Federalists - that we owe our freedom, what little of it there is remaining.

To fully grasp what was at stake and why the Constitution is not what we've been told it is, one has to study the Articles of Confederation, our original founding document. It was the Articles that established our constitutional republic, to begin with, and the Articles had some superior features, in comparison with the Constitution.

First of all, there was no President. No president, no concentration of power in one individual and, thus, no chance of a dictator arising. The executive powers were very limited and were placed within a unicameral Congress in which each state had a single vote. Thus, the Congress, which was elected by the people, was directly answerable to the people of the several states, which created the Union, in the first place.

Secondly, and most important of all, the Articles of Confederation provided that each of the several states coin its own money. This prevented a centralized monetary system that could be exploited by "moneychangers" like the Rothschilds. This was the main feature of the Articles of Confederation that the Rothschilds had to destroy if they were to succeed in gaining control of our young republic. Without a central monetary system, a central bank, they could not gain a foothold from which to establish their power in America.

It was the Constitution, with its creation of a President of the United States, a bi-cameral Congress and shifting the creation of money from each of the states to Congress that enabled the Rothschilds and their minions within our government to begin slowly dismantling our republic. Now there was a central government with a powerful executive (who would grow in his powers over time), a Congress divided, rather than unified as one body representing the people of the states, and a monetary system that now consisted of one currency under the control of a new central government. This was the springboard to the First and Second Banks of the United States and to their ultimate successor, the Federal Reserve.

Now, getting back to Sonia Sotomayor, why would she rule that the states are not subject to the Second Amendment to the Constitution? The answer is quite simple, really. If the states are granted the authority to ignore the Second Amendment (and, effectively, they, along with the federal government, have already been doing so for seventy-five years, since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934) and this is made "official" by a court ruling, then the states are free to write whatever draconian gun control laws they want to. As I have said before, a police state cannot be built in America without the full cooperation and coordination of every one of the fifty states, plus all of the local governments beneath them. While a totalitarian government usually comes into being from the top down, in the United States of America, this isn't possible, due to the structure of our government. So, it can only be brought about from both the top down and from the bottom up simultaneously. This calls for all fifty states to be on board for it at once, with no exceptions and that is why I have written that the current so-called "sovereignty movement" is a farce, a smokescreen designed to conceal the fact that every one of the states is cooperating fully in the creation of the police state.

Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court is simply another step in the plan to fully integrate the states with the federal government. The tragedy is that the media and the Supreme Court will try to portray this as a "states' rights" issue and suggest that eliminating the Second Amendment's power over the states is somehow aligned with the so-called "declaration of sovereignty" by the states. In fact, what it will really do is allow the states to remove the obstacle of an armed citizenry by revoking our inalienable right to self-defense at the state level. This is already in the works, with the several new state laws I've written about which pretend to lift or remove restrictions on the possession of guns, but which actually impose more restrictions and enable the confiscation of guns during martial law. If Sotomayor is appointed to the Supreme Court (and she will be), I predict that the result will be that her lower court ruling exempting the states from the Second Amendment will become a Supreme Court decision, as well. If this happens, it will then give the states the power to write new laws in violation of the Second Amendment and to do so with impunity.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Cybersecurity Act of 2009: End of the Internet as We Know It?

S.B. 773 and 778, introduced last week by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and Sen Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and collectively referred to as the “Cybersecurity Act of 2009” appears to be the “legal” last nail in the coffin of the internet.

The language of the act appears to be focused upon protecting the corporate elite’s use of the internet exclusively:

“To secure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the internet and intranet communications for such purposes…”

The bill also provides for “…the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.”

This act will also give the Secretary of Commerce new and sweeping powers to regulate the internet. That this power is being invested in the Secretary of Commerce only underscores the emphasis upon reserving the future of the internet for the use of corporate interests, which had been predicted last year.

But, even more chilling is that there appears to be a deliberate program being implemented to carry out false-flag “cyber attacks” to justify the passage of this bill. The bill, itself, states, in Sec. 2. Findings:

“(3) According to the 2009 Annual Threat Assessment, ‘a successful cyber attack against a major financial service provider could severely impact the national economy, while cyber attacks against physical infrastructure computer systems such as those that control power grids or oil refineries have the potential to disrupt services for hours or weeks,’ and that ‘Nation states and criminals target our government and private sector information networks to gain competitive advantage in the commercial sector.

This just so happens to coincide with a report in Computerworld’s Security section, describing alleged “cyber attacks” against “key parts of the U.S. Electrical grid,” which, strangely, isn’t substantiated in any way. There is no mention of where or when this supposed “attack” took place, nor is there any mention of who “the hackers” might be. What is stressed, though, is that “perhaps [it was done] with the intent to cripple the country’s power infrastructure,” and that these undisclosed “hackers” “most likely gained access like any other cybercriminal — by exploiting a bug in software such as Windows or Office…”

This is reiterated by mention, within the Computerworld article, of another such report from the Wall Street Journal. As in the Computerworld article, the Wall Street Journal also makes no disclosure of the identities of these cyber criminals, but says they are “cyberspies” who “…came from China, Russia and other countries…”

So, the stage has been set and the actors are in their places, ready to carry out the elite’s plan to create some sort of “cyber attack” hysteria that will be used to serve as the rationale for some sort of “solution” that will be needed to “protect” us from this sort of thing ever happening again. And, low and behold, concurrent with the supposed “attacks” comes the solution - in the form of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009. How prescient of Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe to have come up with just what we needed and just in the nick of time!

Isn’t it uncanny that these “attacks” happened to occur after months of the media’s calling for the need for “a new internet?” The New York Times has quoted Rick Wesson, the chief executive of Support Intelligence, a computer consulting firm (I wonder if he’ll be one of those among the new “cadre of information technology specialists”?) , as saying, “If you’re looking for a digital Pearl Harbor, we now have the Japanese ships streaming toward us on the horizon.” How convenient.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

The End Approaches

As a member of Warn the People, I have been apprised of some new information about the impending police state control grid. What is significant about this information is that, first of all, it comes from FEMA and, secondly, it is of a very timely nature.

The gist of it, which you can hear in its entirety in the two videos here, made by WTP members on the West coast, is that our corporate overlords are planning to "shut down all the banks" by August or September of this year - a scant five or six months from now - and there will be "roadblocks and checkpoints" installed on every major highway, freeway and interstate. The "rural areas" are to be left alone while the cities will become increasingly militarized.

My own analysis, based upon two years of research, shows this is consistent with what I've learned about the New World Order plan to take down the United States.

For example, there is the film Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, by Alex Jones, which, in the first few minutes of the film, mentions that we will be "herded into compact cities" and that the outlying rural areas will be left to decay, as part of the plan to "re-wild" the bulk of the North American continent, allowing it to return to nature. This "rewilding" has been hinted at in a recent History Channel documentary titled, Life After People, in which several commentators from various disciplines speculate on how the world would be after the "hypothetical" removal of all human life.

Monday, March 30, 2009

How to Defend Your Rights

We hear a lot of talk, these days, about defending our rights, in particular, our Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately, there seems to be a great deal of misinformation and deliberate disinformation being circulated about our rights and how to best protect them. Allow me to clear the air on this, because it is really quite simple.

In a nut shell, the way - the only way to defend our rights is first, by exercising them and not submitting to any authority that proclaims you can't, and secondly, by repealing all laws that abridge or deny our rights. The first part of this solution is easy enough for all to understand. You don't ask government's permission to exercise your fundamental rights; you just do it. If there are repercussions afterward, or if the state refuses to "allow" you to do so, then it is the state that is in the wrong, not you. They have violated your rights. I think that's fairly simple enough that a child could understand it, yet many brainwashed adults these days don't seem to comprehend their correct relationship to government. We are they masters, government is the servant. Or, at least, that's the way it's supposed to be.

The second half of the solution may not be as easy for most to comprehend, so I will spend the bulk of this piece explaining it.

The best illustration of this concept can be made by examining the Second Amendment and how it has been repeatedly violated by hundreds of laws for over seventy-five years, beginning with the original gun control law: the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Never mind the fact that, in 1934, there was record gun violence in America, chiefly from lawless gangsters using the then-favored and easily obtained Thompson submachine gun. The fact that the Thompson was readily obtainable meant that anyone, regardless of who they were, could have one and that included the average citizen - until the National Firearms Act of 1934 removed these weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving the gangsters still armed with them (because, by definition, criminals don't obey the law), as well as the police and the military. For the first time in U.S. history, then, we had a situation in which the military, the police and the criminals were better armed than the average citizen. But I digress.

The point is, the National Firearms Act was illegal. It is a clear violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which is the law of the land. The Constitution is supposed to be the yardstick by which all other laws are measured. If a law violates the Constitution, it is ruled "unconstitutional," meaning that it is not a legitimate law.

The Second Amendment is quite clear to anyone who can read (which entails the ability to not merely voice the words in your head, but to understand their meaning, as well), despite the recent propaganda to the contrary. Ignoring the disputed first clause, which mentions the militia, it is the second clause that makes the Second Amendment perfectly clear:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There is no debating the intent of that statement. It means what is says and it says what it means, which is that, no laws can be made that alter, abolish, curtail or modify our fundamental right to be armed. Period.

Now, some people these days have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to be armed. They don't see the relationship between being armed and the tyranny of a despotic government. Indeed, many fail to see that there is any relationship between the two at all. The relationship is an inverse one. In other words, the better armed we the people are, the less chance there is of a despotic government existing. The opposite is that, whenever and wherever the people have been disarmed, government has historically become despotic. The people who wrote the Second Amendment knew this all too well, having lived through it. That's why they reasoned, quite rightly, that we needed some constitutional guarantees that would protect our inalienable right to defend ourselves against all who would take our lives and property from us - including our own government.

Having said all that, it becomes clear (or it should to anyone over the age of, say ten, anyway) that the way to prevent rights from being violated is to never allow a situation to exist in which they can be violated, in the first place. To quote an old adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

However, today, the damage has been long done. Our Second Amendment has been cleverly and deliberately violated so many times that no one really knows the actual number of laws in existence that, in some way, violate the Second Amendment.

Even so, the remedy for this is quite simple and straightforward: the repeal of all laws that violate the Second Amendment. This is easy enough to understand. If you see that something wrong is being done, you take action to see to it that (1) whatever is being done is stopped and (2) you endeavor, if possible, to undo the damage done. In this case, both can be achieved in one fell swoop by the simple act of repealing all gun laws that are in existence and preventing any further from being created. Now, of course I realize that this has as much chance of happening as I do of winning the lottery. Actually, I think my odds of doing so are far greater, in fact. But, my point is that the solution is a simple one. There is nothing complex about it. The complexity resides in all the things that have to occur before it can be done, and therein lies the point I'm coming to.

For seventy-five years, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been "defending" the Second Amendment by backing law after law that violates the Second Amendment. It matters not that some of these laws seem to "lift restrictions" imposed by previous legislation. The fact is, these laws continue a systemic abridgement of the Second Amendment by deliberately skirting the central fact that all of these laws have to be removed before anyone's Second Amendment rights are truly restored. Piecemeal legislation that lifts some restrictions while allowing the greater bulk of restrictions to remain intact is not the solution to the problem and only adds to the widely held misperception that our rights are granted to us by government.

Whenever you hear some legislator say a law will "allow" you to do something you were denied doing before, this should raise a red flag in your mind. We don't have rights because government "allows" it. We have rights as a condition of our existence. The first and most fundamental of these is the right to life, which arises from the fact that we are alive. Because we are alive, we are entitled to continue living. No sane person would dispute that. Yet, there are many who dispute our right to defend our lives by use of force. Most libertarians will agree that they are against the use of force. It is a central tenet of the libertarian philosophy. However, most libertarians reserve the right of the individual to use force against force to protect one's life and property. After all, one cannot counteract forceful attempts on one's life by passive means. When our lives are in immediate danger of being snuffed out forever by some foe - whether it be a criminal or the government (I know; what's the difference?), there is no room for debating whether or not to use force to defend oneself. This is simple common sense, yet that is a commodity so sadly lacking in today's society.

Getting back to the remedy for this situation, if the answer is the repeal of all gun laws, then it should be immediately apparent to all that the people saying they are "protecting" the Second Amendment are either terribly ignorant of this simple, yet effective means of doing so - or they are lying. My observation is that it's the latter, not the former.

So-called "gun rights" organizations like the NRA have had four generations in which to get all gun laws repealed - yet they are not even demanding that this be done. Surely, the people running this organization are not so stupid as to fail to see this simple solution. They know very well what the problem is and they also know what the solution is. Yet, they will not act upon it. Why? This is a question every gun owner should be demanding the NRA to answer.

In light of this simple observation of the facts, it should be readily apparent to anyone with a mind that the NRA is not truly interested in protecting your Second Amendment rights - and never has been. To be fair, I am not singling out the NRA, here. There are other such organizations that are doing exactly the same thing. In fact, all of them are. They are all making the pretense of "defending the Second Amendment" while not doing anything to remove the mountain of laws that is the only impediment to the free exercise of the Second Amendment, in the first place. Again, why?

The answer is that all of these so-called "gun rights" organizations are simply another part of the false left-right paradigm. They are there to placate and misdirect the many people who, rightly, see the Second Amendment as an important protection of their freedoms. These organizations do so by appealing to their sense of patriotism, or to their fears about crime, and even by appealing to their fears of a despotic government - all while supporting the agenda of that same despotic government.

Some will say, "but the NRA has consistently backed concealed carry laws!" Yes, they have. But, what you have to do is examine, in detail, what these laws really do and what they really say. You also have to understand that you already have the right to carry a gun (or any other weapons) anywhere you want to, whether concealed or not. Your existing right to defend your life (which the Second Amendment was written to protect) is your "concealed carry permit." You don't require the permission of the government to carry any type of weapon anywhere, any time you want to. The only thing stopping you from doing so is your own fear of running afoul of the law. But the law, in this case, is illegitimate, in the first place, because it stands in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

The same is true of all these other laws that "allow" you to have back some of the freedoms stolen from you by the very same government that robbed you of them to begin with - and then requires you to ask permission for them and to jump through a series of bureaucratic hoops to obtain them. That is not freedom. It is tyranny, and by supporting such laws, the NRA and everyone else who supports these laws is supporting the continuance of tyranny in America.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Sovereignty Hypocrisy - Part III

In part I of this series, I exposed the several phony declarations of “state sovereignty” currently being announced in the media, lately, by pointing out the fact that several of these same states have also been concurrently passing new laws that further violate the Second Amendment, under the pretense of lifting Second Amendment restrictions and “protecting” gun owners from gun confiscations during martial law.

In part II, I went a step farther and pointed out the fact that all of the states “declaring sovereignty” also happen to have FEMA camp locations within their boundaries and that some of them have also played host to martial law training drills for soldiers, police, firefighters and other “first responders” to “emergency” situations like biological and nuclear attacks.

In this part of the series, I shall point out that some of the same states are also either complying with the federal government’s illegal mandate for Real ID, or are currently making preparations to do so.

First, there is Nevada, which has has introduced legislation (SB52) that will bring Nevada into full compliance with Real ID standards. This bill has been introduced by the Nevada State Senate’s Finance Committee.

Then there is Arkansas, which has passed a similar bill (HB 1978), introduced in the Arkansas House of Representatives by Rep. John Edwards (D-Little Rock).

As for the state of Washington, also declaring its “sovereignty,” there seems to be some question as to whether or not its governor’s assurance it would not comply with Real ID are genuine, given the state’s previous apparent acceptance of Real ID.

The same sort of backsliding seems to be occurring in New Hampshire (the state whose motto is “Live free or die”), where there was first an “overwhelming” majority voting to reject Real ID, back in 2006, but in 2008, Governor John Lynch reportedly drafted a letter to ask Homeland Security to merely delay the enforcement of Real ID in New Hampshire. What a difference two years makes.

In Michigan, which also initially said it would reject Real ID, in 2007, the tune has also changed for the worse.

While Missouri has recently announced it will reject Real ID, after all, it had originally approved funding to put into place a “verification hub” to accommodate Real ID, in 2008. Can they be expected to reject Real ID, or will they flip-flop again and use those funds as planned earlier? Given that it is the Missouri Information Analysis Center (directed by the governor and the Missouri State Highway Patrol) that has recently released to police officers and highway patrolmen an “alert” branding all patriots - including supporters of third party candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr - as “militia members,” to be feared as enemies of law enforcement in Missouri, it seems probable.

Oklahoma - first to “declare sovereignty,” has also taken a less than certain stance on Real ID, first approving of it, then appearing to back away from that decision. But, as I pointed out in Part II, Okahoma has several FEMA detention centers, including the main federal inmate transfer center west of the Mississippi, right here in Oklahoma City. So, again, what are we to believe about the sincerity of Oklahoma legislators’ intentions?

California, another of the states alleging to declare its “sovereignty,” has apparently caved on Real ID, first passing a law complying with it in 2006, then passing an initiative that prepares for it in 2007.

Georgia, also pretending to declare state sovereignty, has never seemed to have a problem with the contradictory approval of Real ID for its unwitting citizens, even going so far as to deny its citizens access to the Hartsfield-Atlanta Airport if they did not comply.

Indiana, another state supposedly declaring its sovereignty from the federal government, was among the first states to eagerly adopt Real ID. So much for that “sovereignty.”

As of 2007, Kansas, yet another of the several states “declaring sovereignty,” said it had no problem with Real ID, either.

Alabama, another “early adopter” of Real ID, has since also appeared to (maybe) flip-flop on the issue, making the pretense, later, of rejecting it, but, being among those states that has FEMA detention facilities while “declaring its sovereignty,” what are we to believe is the truth?

Maine, after pretending to stand against Real ID, in 2007, has, as of 2008, caved in to it. Sovereignty? Yeah, right.

As for those “sovereignty movement” states that appear to be rejecting Real ID, as I pointed out in Parts I and II, there are other concerns which make it doubtful that they will, ultimately follow through with their rejection of Real ID.

As with the so-called “sovereignty movement,” the “rebellion” against Real ID appears to be all for show - a contrivance to lull Americans into a state of false security, believing their states will protect them from the fascist federal regime, while, at the same time, those same states are preparing for the implementation of martial law in America.

If you have any further doubts of this, look into each of the “sovereign” states’ recent legislative track records and ask yourself if the blizzard of laws they are all feverishly passing lately either rejects or supports the rise of a fascist police state. If you actually bother to read those laws, I think you will find more support for it than rejection.

Ultimately, when a government tells you it will voluntarily limit its own powers, you can be sure that’s a warning that the opposite is about to occur, for no government in history has ever willingly relinquished its power - and none, once they have it - ever will.

NOTE: You can find Sovereignty Hypocrisy and Sovereignty Hypocrisy - Part II at the Proud Political Junkie's Gazette.