Archive for January, 2013

Indiana Officer, Wife Could Face Jail for Saving Wounded Deer

January 30, 2013

From ABC News by Gio Benitez, Mosheh Gains and Emily Stanitz, January 29, 2013

Should an Indiana couple go to jail for saving Bambi?

That’s the question surrounding the case of Jeff and Jennifer Counceller, who rescued an injured fawn and nursed it back to health at their Connersville, Ind., home. The couple now faces the possibility of jail time and fines after state officials charged them with a misdemeanor for harboring the animal.

 Jeff Counceller, a police officer in Connersville, and his wife were charged with unlawful possession of a deer, a misdemeanor that punished to its fullest extent could put the Councellers in jail for up to 60 days and cost them up to $2,000 in fines.

The couple rescued the deer more than two years ago after finding it on their neighbor’s porch. The Councellers said the deer had sustained injuries, and they wanted to nurse it back to health.

“I could feel all of the open wounds all along her back side and she wouldn’t stand up,” Jennifer Counceller told ABC News.

They brought the deer home and named her Little Orphan Dani.

The Councellers said an Indiana Conservation Officer stopped by their home and discovered the deer this past summer. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources wanted to euthanize Dani, saying she might be dangerous and a threat to people.

“I was devastated. I spent a year and several months nursing her into adulthood, getting to the point where she was able to go out on her own,” Counceller said.

On the day Dani was to be put down, the Councellers said she inexplicably escaped from their backyard. Even though Dani disappeared back into the wild, the Councellers’ legal problems didn’t go with the fawn.

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources said it couldn’t comment on pending litigation but that it did discourage people from taking in injured wildlife. This case could go to court next month, and if charges aren’t dropped, it will be left for a jury to decide whether the Councellers broke the law.

“No matter what the law is, we did what was right for the animal,” Counceller said.

Meanwhile, the story has caused uproar on the Internet. A Facebook support page has more than 6,400 “Likes” in support of the couple. An online petition to drop the charges already has more than 3,800 signatures.

Rick on Change.org wrote, “An act of humanity should not be rewarded with a sentence.”

Michelle on Facebook wrote, “They are being punished for having compassion and showing kindness.”

The Councellers’ case could go to court next month.

Court: Obama Appointments Are Unconstitutional

January 25, 2013

By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press, January 25, 2013

In an embarrassing setback for President Barack Obama, a federal appeals court panel ruled that he violated the Constitution in making recess appointments last year, a decision that would effectively curtail a president’s ability to bypass the Senate to fill administration vacancies.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board because the Senate was officially in session – and not in recess – at the time. If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions.

The court said the president could only fill vacancies with the recess appointment procedure if the openings arise when the Senate is in an official recess, which it defined as the break between sessions of Congress.

The ruling also threw into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made at the same time, has been challenged in a separate case.

The White House had no immediate comment, but is expected to appeal the decision. The same issue is currently before several other federal appeals courts.

“With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration’s flimsy interpretation of the law, and will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members.

Obama made the recess appointments on Jan. 4, 2012, after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called “pro forma” sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic – as Democrats had done in the past – specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions – some lasting less than a minute – were a sham.

The three-judge panel, all appointed by Republican presidents, ruled that during 1 of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the Constitution.

“Either the Senate is in session, or it is in recess,” Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. “If it has broken for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in “the Recess” described in the Constitution.”

Simply taking a break of an evening or a weekend during a regular working session cannot count, he said. Sentelle said that otherwise “the president could make appointments any time the Senate so much as broke for lunch.”

The judge rejected arguments from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.

“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” Sentelle wrote.

Sentelle was joined in the ruling by Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

If the ruling stands, it means that hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year would be invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

Obama used the recess appointment to appoint Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the NLRB, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.

Louisiana Police Officer Makes Mentally Disabled Teen’s Dream Come True

January 25, 2013

ABC News’s Barbara Schmitt reports, January 24, 2013

A Louisiana police officer has gone above and beyond the call of duty by making a mentally disabled and autistic boy’s dream come true.

  • Louisiana Police Officer Makes Mentally Disabled Teen's Dream Come True (ABC News)

    Louisiana Police Officer Makes Mentally Disabled Teen’s Dream Come True (ABC News)

Blaize Richard’s life dream has been to be a police officer, said his mother, Angie Richard, so for his 18 th birthday on July 28, 2012, she coordinated a visit from one of the Jennings, La., Police Department’s officers, who presented Blaize with his own police uniform. Several weeks later, Blaize also was able to visit to the department.

After word of Blaize’s dream spread within the department, Officer Mike Hill took the boy under his wing – visiting him often and even coming by the family home when Hill received a new squad car.

“He calls Blaize his back-up,” said Richard. “He just comes and checks on him. It really makes Blaize’s day. I think Mike enjoys it just as much as Blaize does.”

Hill has shied away from media attention.

“He’s kind of overwhelmed,” said his boss, Jennings Police Chief Todd D’Albor, who spoke with pride about Hill making Blaize feel like a part of the police department.

“Police officers sometimes get a bad rap for the things that go wrong, but people don’t generally see that they [police officers] do have compassionate hearts and they do care about making a difference, and Mike Hill exemplifies that.”

D’Albor said Hill was one of many outstanding officers in his force.

“He’s one of the highly respected officers in my department because of the things that he does, and he goes above and beyond,” D’Albor said.

That commitment earned Hill an “Officer of the Year” award last year.

The attention the story has drawn to this small town that sits 40 miles west of Lafayette, La., has taken Angie Richard by surprise. It began when Richard recently uploaded photos of Blaize and Officer Hill to her Facebook wall. From that point on, the story went viral, drawing attention from all over the world, Richard said.

“Since I posted the story, it’s been kind of crazy,” she said. “So many good things are happening.”

With the all attention Blaize is receiving, it will be hard to keep secret D’Albor’s plan to commission the 18-year-old as an honorary Jennings police officer on Feb. 2.

“My police officers embrace what it’s about, which is to serve the community, not just protect it,” D’Albor said. “When you touch a life, that’s what it’s all about.”

Richard is looking forward to the day.

“My little boy doesn’t know they are going to do that, but ever since he was a little boy he’s wanted to go to the police academy,” she said. “It’s going to be awesome.”

Hickory, NC Officer Shot During Search Warrant Execution

January 22, 2013

From http://www.wbtv.com, By Nick Needham, January 22, 2013

A Hickory, NC police officer was shot Monday night when he and his team of special operations officers stormed a house to execute a search warrant.

The incident was reported at 11:30 p.m. on the 1500 block of 31st CT SE, according to a news release from the Hickory Police Department.

The focus of the search warrant was controlled substances.

As Special Operation Team members were entering the residence, someone in the residence began shooting at the officers.

An officer was shot in the chest but the bullet was stopped by his ballistic vest and the officer was not injured.  Shots at the officers continued as the officers were taking cover and five members of the Special Operations Team returned fire.  Once the shooting stopped from inside the residence, officers were able to secure the house.

Officers ordered the occupants out of the house and discovered Michael Lee Watson, 40, that lived at the residence was shot.

Also, Kenneth Alexander Hewitt, 21, a female and two young children were in the house at the time of the shooting, according to the release. Neighbors say the shootout was terrifying

“I just heard pow, pow, pow, it sounded like 50 or 100 rounds went off. And the cops came and told us lock the doors, get away from the windows, and don’t come outside,” said Jackie James, who lives just about 100 yards from the home.

Watson was transported to Catawba Valley Medical Center where he is being treated for his injuries which appear not to be life threatening.

Hewitt who lived at the residence was charged with four counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon on a Government Official.

He was placed in Catawba County Detention Facility under a $500,000 secured bond.  Michael Watson was treated and released from the hospital and arrested. He bonded out of jail Tuesday afternoon on a $35,000 bond.

Hickory Police Department has requested the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation to conduct an officer involved shooting investigation.

The Hickory Police Department will conduct a separate administrative investigation of the incident.

The five officers will be placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation which is standard procedure.

Obama’s Inaugural Address: Second Amendment Obsolete

January 21, 2013

From The New American by Thomas R. Eddlem, January 21, 2013

President Obama derided the Second Amendment as obsolete in his second inaugural address, claiming that “when times change, so must we” on issues like citizen gun ownership.

We have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.

Obama added an explicit reference to the Newtown, Connecticut, massacre. “Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.”

Obama’s second inaugural address was otherwise designed as largely a Rorschach test of sorts for its listeners; most will hear what they want to hear. In recent years, inaugural speeches have featured only glittering generalities, and Obama’s speech was little different. Obama even threw one sop to the political Right, claiming, “Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.”

But on both sides of Obama’s perfunctory invocation that — as Bill Clinton once more succinctly stated that “the era of big government is over” — Obama advocated an ever-larger series of broad and vaguely defined government initiatives.

More Federal Education Spending: “No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.”

More Federal Infrastructure Spending: “Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.”

More Federal Social Welfare Spending: “Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.”

On foreign policy, an area where presidents have greater constitutional flexibility than on fiscal issues, Obama pledged that “a decade of war is now ending” even while he pledged perpetual U.S. military engagement on every corner of the planet. “America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe,” Obama stated while at the same time claiming “enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”

Part of America’s engagement means regime change in the furthest reaches of the globe, meddling in those nations’ internal affairs and giving potentially massive transfers of foreign aid. “We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice — not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes.”

Obama’s second inaugural address included an explicit reference to climate change: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” But, interestingly, his speech omitted reference to the greatest threat to America’s children and future generations: the structural budget deficit and growing national debt. The inaugural address did not contain the words spending, deficit, debt, or budget, and contained no reference to them. The closest reference Obama made to spending was a remark that “we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future,” which implied endless deficit spending.

States Aim to Nullify Obama Gun Control

January 21, 2013

From The New American by Alex Newman, January 19, 2013

Across America, state lawmakers, governors, attorneys general, sheriffs, and other officials are promising to protect the gun rights of citizens in their jurisdictions in the face of the most aggressive assault on the Second Amendment in generations. Indeed, as the Obama administration’s unconstitutional agenda becomes increasingly transparent — backed by some Democrats and much of the establishment media resistance to further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms is exploding nationwide.

Numerous bills have already been introduced in state legislatures, for example, that would nullify unconstitutional federal gun control and even criminalize enforcement of such lawless restrictions. Texas, Wyoming, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, and other states are considering nullification legislation in the wake of Obama’s recent push to enact gun control by executive decree and proposals sent to Congress. Other states are expected to join soon, and many have already adopted laws in recent years protecting guns made and kept within their jurisdictions from federal regulations.

In Mississippi, Republican Gov. Phil Bryant sent a letter on Wednesday urging state lawmakers to “immediately pass legislation that would make any unconstitutional order by the President illegal to enforce in Mississippi.” Citing widespread concerns over “our sacred rights as Americans,” the governor noted that “several states have introduced similar measures and I believe will be successful in preventing this overreaching and anti-constitutional violation of our rights as American citizens.” He also urged citizens to resist any such presidential decrees, according to news reports.

Among the states that have already introduced strong legislation to protect gun rights from lawless federal restrictions is Wyoming, which has one of the most heavily armed populations in America while enjoying some of the lowest crime rates. State lawmakers there are rallying behind a bill, which they expect to pass, that would nullify any and all future infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, including restrictions on semi-automatic weapons or magazines. Federal officials attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or executive orders would face felony charges and up to five years in prison.

“We’re a sovereign state with our own constitutional form of government,” said Republican state Rep. Kendell Kroeker, the chief sponsor of the Firearms Protection Act and a strong believer in both the Wyoming and U.S. constitutions he took an oath to uphold. “We’ve got a right to make our laws, and if the federal government is going to try to enforce unconstitutional laws on our people and take away the rights of Wyoming citizens, then we as a state are going to step up and make that a crime.”

Following Wyoming’s lead, lawmakers in Texas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, and other states all filed similar nullification legislation designed to put the federal government in its place on the gun rights issue. Legislators say that with the increasingly out-of-control federal government running wild and threatening to restrict the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, it is time for states to take action and re-assert their sovereignty.

“It’s our attempt to push back on the federal government’s ever increasing encroachment, not only on our personal liberties but on our state sovereignty, and this is what we’re going to do,” said Tennessee state Rep. Joe Carr during a press conference on his legislation to criminalize enforcement of the Obama administration’s anti-Second Amendment schemes. “We’ve had enough and enough is enough. We’re tired of cheap political antics, cheap props using children as bait to gin up emotional attachment for an issue that, quite honesty, doesn’t solve the problem.”

In Texas, famous for its independent-minded citizens and its relative respect for gun rights, state officials are also stepping up to the plate. State Attorney General Greg Abbott, for example, noted that the proposals being discussed in Washington, D.C., are unconstitutional and should be treated as such. Citing Supreme Court rulings on gun rights, the state’s chief law enforcement officer promised to take the infringements to court and get them thrown out. Gov. Rick Perry, meanwhile, also jumped on the Second Amendment bandwagon, slamming Obama and his allies in the media for exploiting dead children to advance an unconstitutional agenda.

State lawmakers in the Lone Star State are taking concrete action in defense of citizens’ rights, too. “We can no longer depend on the federal government and this administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in,” said state Rep. Steve Toth, who recently introduced a bill to nullify federal restrictions on gun rights and charge anyone trying to enforce them with a felony. “The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our state are too important to just let the federal government take them away. The overreach of the federal administration’s executive orders that are do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas.”

One state, however, is standing above even Texas. Analysts say that legislation filed in Missouri by Republican state Rep. Casey Guernsey with over 60 co-sponsors, known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act, appears to be among the strongest bills at this point. If passed, it would nullify any and all federal acts, orders, laws, statutes, rules, or regulations purporting to limit or restrict access to personal firearms, accessories, and ammunition. Any federal official caught attempting to enforce such unconstitutional rules in the state would be charged with a class D felony, facing up to four years in prison upon conviction.

The Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates state nullification of all unconstitutional federal statutes, celebrated the legislation in Missouri and called on other state governments to join the movement. The non-profit organization, citing history and the Constitution, insists that it is the duty of state officials to uphold their oath of office and protect the unalienable rights of citizens — especially with the federal government becoming increasingly lawless and unhinged.

“When you’ve got people like Feinstein talking about major bans and Biden telling us that all they need is an executive order, you know these folks are willing to go all the way. So, it’s good to see these folks in Missouri go all the way as well, all the way in support the 2nd Amendment without any ifs, ands, or buts,” said Mike Maharrey, the Tenth Amendment Center’s national communications director. “The feds have absolutely zero constitutional authority to make any laws over personal firearms. Period.”

The principle of nullifying unconstitutional federal activities goes back to the earliest days of the republic, when Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson invoked it. Throughout American history, though, it has always been around. The state of Wisconsin, for example, nullified a federal statute purporting to require that runaway slaves be returned to their masters.

Numerous constitutional scholars have studied the issue, and in recent years, the concept has exploded into the public consciousness, with even big government-oriented Americans nullifying unconstitutional federal power grabs. Some 18 states have nullified federal drug statutes by legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, for instance. Colorado and Washington State recently legalized the controversial plant even for recreational use — all in open defiance of clear federal dictates.

Conservatives, meanwhile, are increasingly relying on nullification as well, targeting everything from ObamaCare to the latest round of gun-control scheming. In a recent article for The New American on Missouri’s efforts, liberty-minded attorney Joe Wolverton, an expert on nullification, explained the foundation — both legal and historical — for state actions nullifying unconstitutional federal power grabs.

“Nullification is a concept of constitutional law recognizing the right of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution,” he explained. “Nullification exists as a right of the states because the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.”

While states pursue nullification, county sheriffs nationwide have also promised not to comply with new gun control, with more than a few chief law enforcement officers pledging to actively prevent the enforcement of such measures in their jurisdictions. At the federal level, of course, lawmakers who take their oath of office seriously are working to stop the administration’s anti-gun rights machinations as well, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) working to push a bill targeting “King” Obama’s executive orders. Some Republicans in the House have even put impeachment on the table.

Despite the intense efforts to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms being led by the Obama administration and some Democrats in Congress and amplified by their allies in the press, the anti-constitutional push may be backfiring, according to analysts. Aside from renewed interest in nullification, recent polls show two out of three Americans understand that the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect the people from tyranny — not for “hunting” or “sporting” purposes, as citizen-disarmament advocates continue to suggest.

Much of the state-level resistance is currently focused on stopping unconstitutional gun control, but the awakening taking place nationwide is increasingly expanding to other areas as well. As the federal government continues to lawlessly expand its size and scope far beyond constitutional limits — targeting more and more of the people’s rights in the process — activists from all sides of the political spectrum will increasingly rely on nullification. And if the anti-constitutional trends out of Washington, D.C., continue, a showdown between states and the feds will become imminent.

Obama’s Inauguration: The devastation and ignorance being caused by this Catastrophic occurrence will forever destroy the Fiber and character of a once great nation With little hope for correction or rebuilding At the present rate of duplicity and complacence Being displayed by the American public.

January 21, 2013

Second Amendment Supporting Oklahoma Congressman is Target of Death Threats

January 21, 2013

Death threats have been made against 2nd District Congressman Markwayne Mullin, his wife and children, his Chief of Staff Karl Ahlgren said in a statement released Saturday

From The Tulsa World by Susan Hylton, January 20, 2013

Ahlgren said that local and federal authorities are investigating and consider the issue to be a “serious matter due to the content and nature of the threatening letters which were received.”

Precautions have been taken to ensure the safety of Mullin’s wife and three children, Ahlgren said.

Ahlgren said the office would make no further comment.

U.S. Capitol Police Officer Shenell Antrobus said Saturday that his department was working with the FBI and local law enforcement on the matter. He said he could not provide any other details, including the state of origin of the threats.

Mullin, a Republican, is three weeks into his first term in Washington. He was sworn into office Jan. 3. He has cast few votes since coming to Washington. He and fellow Oklahoma freshman Rep. Jim Bridenstine have been among a small minority of House members casting votes against aid to states affected by superstorm Sandy last year.

It was not known Saturday whether the threats were related at all to congressional business.

The threats come several months after a Skiatook man told police he wanted to kill then-U.S. Rep. John Sullivan, of Tulsa.

Skiatook police questioned Wayne Franklin Miles, 52, in July after he said he believed that he was being watched and shot at. He said “he would protect himself and would shoot (Sullivan),” police said.

Miles was arrested on Jan. 11 and remains in the Tulsa Jail.

New Proposal Will Force Gun Owners to Store Assault Weapons At Government Authorized Storage Depots

January 21, 2013

Mac Slavo, SHTFPlan.com, Jan 19, 2013

Because you can never have too many laws, regulations and mandates, Massachusetts State Representative David Linsky has filed a new bill that would, among other things, force gun owners to undergo mental health background checks, acquire liability insurance, pay an additional 25% tax on all forms of ammunition, and require firearms categorized as “assault weapons” to be stored outside of their homes and only at government approved storage depots.

“This bill is a comprehensive effort to reduce all types of gun violence – murders, intentional shootings, accidental shootings and suicides.  There is not one solution to reducing gun violence – we can’t eliminate it – but there are a lot of common-sense steps that we can take to significantly reduce the everyday tragedy of gun violence and deaths,” said Linsky.

“I have spoken with hundreds of people over the past few weeks in developing this legislation – victims, police officers, criminologists, physicians, and yes – gun owners and sportsmen,” stated Linsky. “There are a lot of good ideas out there. We should all have one goal – reducing gun violence and trying to keep more tragedies from happening.”

Provisions in the bill include:

  • Having one standard of the issuance of all gun licenses, giving local police chiefs the ability to evaluate all aspects of an application for a gun license.
  • Requires proof of liability insurance for possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.
  • Requires that all large capacity weapons and grandfathered assault weapons must be stored at gun clubs or target ranges.
  • Requires live shooting as part of the curriculum for a basic firearms safety course; this is not a current requirement.
  • Requires all applicants for gun licenses and FID cards to sign a waiver of mental health records for review to be destroyed after decision.
  • Imposes 25% sales tax on ammunition, firearms, shotguns, and rifles; dedicates funds towards firearms licensing, police training, mental health services, and victim’s services.
  • Brings Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
  • Limits gun buyers to one firearm purchase per month.

Source: Natick Patch

Bills such as this one are being filed by irrationally driven anti-gunners all over the country.

They are targeting every aspect of firearms in an effort to first reduce ownership, and then to ultimately ban it altogether.

They’ll expand the definitions for mental health to include basic forms of stress and normal human mood fluctuations and designate these as mental health conditions that would disqualify you from owning a gun.

They’ll tax gun purchases and ammunition like they’ve done with cigarettes (tripling the cost over a decade) and require huge insurance premiums, making ownership unaffordable for most Americans.

They’ll track the sale and transfer of all firearms through registration, with unjust punishments for anyone engaging in black-market trading.

And, eventually, another crisis – likely one that purports to threaten the very security and stability of the government of the United States – will be used in an attempt institute a complete roundup of the majority of modern firearms.

A full out assault on the Second Amendment is underway.

DHS Says Gun Owners Are Terrorists

January 21, 2013

Kurt Nimmo, Infowars.com, January 17, 2013

Following Obama’s choreographed attack on the Second Amendment earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security announced it will join the administration, the Justice Department and the FBI in a renewed attack on firearms.

Under the guise of preventing what is largely unpreventable short of disarming the entire country – eliminating “active shooter” situations – DHS boss Janet Napolitano announced on Wednesday she will work to “identify measures that could be taken to reduce the risk of mass casualty shootings,” in other words, disarming law-abiding gun owners.

The Department of Homeland Security is basically an interior ministry ostensibly created in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Although its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism, it has, since its creation in October of 2001, pursued its real and unstated objective – acting as an internal political police force tasked with undermining and attacking enemies of the ruling elite.

DHS: Global Elite’s Secret Political Police

The DHS is not dedicated to preventing “future mass casualty shootings,” as Napolitano recently stated, but is assigned the critical task of attacking political enemies considered a threat to the globalist status quo. From lurid fictional claims about “rightwing extremists” to shepherding a national effort to undermine and destroy an idealistic Occupy movement, the DHS has repeatedly demonstrated that it is a political secret police.

The “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” document leaked to the alternative media in 2009 set the stage for demonizing gun owners and Second Amendment advocates in addition to a panoply of other political groups derisively tagged as “rightwing extremist” by the government.

The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) also produced a document in 2009 warning about the danger of a purported “Modern Militia Movement,” including the likes of Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. MIAC and fusion centers around the country coordinated with the DHS to “collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence” on the supposed threat of libertarians and constitutionalists, including Second Amendment advocates. Between 2004 and 2007, the DHS provided $254 million to fusion centers engaged in surveilling Americans considered a terrorist threat by the government.

Earlier this year, the DHS released a report, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008,” that employed the phrase “extreme right-wing, ethno-nationalist/separatist” to describe individuals and groups it claims pose a domestic terrorist threat.

Conflating liberty issues with racism is a deliberate attempt to further demonize Americans opposed to the policies of the federal government. Designating opposition as racist is a well-tread path taken by the corporate media and Democrats, particularly since the election of Obama.

According to the latest DHS report, “the new ‘terrorists’ in this country are the Americans who love liberty, hate unconstitutional government edicts and fear the bureaucrats running Washington, D.C.,” writes Pat Shannan. “Second Amendment advocates are at the top of this ‘terrorist’ list, but a mere ‘pro-life’ bumper sticker might be enough to make one suspect in the eyes of a dumbed-down cop who forgot his oath.”

Pentagon Joins Effort to Target Pro-Second Amendment Movement

More recently, the government enlisted a West Point think tank to produce propaganda detailing the so-called “far right” and warn about white supremacists teaming up with the “anti-federalist movement” to attack political enemies, the government and most notably the police.

The West Point report specifically targets the patriot movement and constitutionalists opposed to a federal government controlled by an international financial oligarchy. These violence-prone terrorists, the report states,

espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement. (Emphasis added.)

The last sentence in the above underscores the purpose of the report generated by the United States Military academy – demonizing libertarians, constitutionalists, and specifically advocates of the Second Amendment as violent terrorists who pose a direct threat to law enforcement. The effort is designed to radicalize the elite’s front line – police and first responders – and set them against the “far right.”

Establishment Media’s Orchestrated Propaganda Campaign

The establishment media’s concerted campaign against the Second Amendment has delivered a relentless barrage of polarizing and divisive propaganda in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre in December.

CBS Chief Washington Correspondent and anchor of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer, demonstrated the absurd lengths the establishment will go to trash the Constitution and sow fear and dissension of firearm ownership.

Following Obama’s speech earlier this week, Schieffer said dismantling the Second Amendment may present a formidable task, but one less daunting than passing civil rights legislation or defeating Nazi Germany in World War II.

Producing a relentless wave of skewed surveys and op-eds in favor of “gun control” and “gun safety” (the latest misleading euphemism) reveals the urgency of the effort to disarm America and render it helpless.

Conclusion: Law-abiding Gun Owners Are the Target, Not al-Qaeda Terrorists

It is now obvious what is going on in the wake of Sandy Hook – the establishment is finally pulling out the last remaining stops in its long envisioned disarmament of the American people in accord with its ultimate plan to usher in a one-world government and financial system. A well-armed and educated populace prevents the global elite from realizing this objective.

In order to realize this required disarmament, supporters and defenders of not only the Second Amendment but the Constitution at large must be branded as renegade terrorists who threaten police. The cynical propaganda effort to pose law enforcement against a growing liberty movement is key to the elite’s effort to impose an authoritarian police state on America, a plan that will not be successful if the American people are allowed to possess firearms more potent than 22 caliber bolt-action rifles.