That’s right. He said that. After reading the article I am not too thrilled with the ass the wrote it.
A statement that caught my eye was this:
“If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates,”
He cannot be serious. It would have “no bearing” on “larger policy debates”??? If that were true then why is it that so many people are trying to tie the bombing in with the 2nd Amendment and Libertarian political activists?
How can this moron deny that if the bomber were a “white anti-government extremist” it would certainly mean MORE surveillance of Americans with the excuse of intercepting “home grown” terrorist attacks?? What kind of idiot thinks that more surveillance and infringing on the rights of Americans will only happen because a “foreigner” or a “muslim” is behind a terrorist attack on American soil?
Sirota definitely has his own agenda motivated by his “anti white man” mindset which blames “white America” for the plight of others.
You can read Sirota’s article HERE… even tho I wouldn’t recommend it. I provide the link for those that would like to take the time to give him a piece of their mind.
The more serious charge being made by much more honest and trustworthy media, which has some credibility, is that the Boston bombing was another “false flag operation” brought to you by one or more of the alphabet soup group.
In the gun control debate there is one particularly annoying thing the pro gun control lobbyists are very good at doing: citing statistics and giving no reference for them. Piers Morgan has made a huge deal about the crime rate in America but fails to mention that crime has dropped by 50% from 2009 to 2011. Meanwhile, in the U.K., where they have strict gun control (NO GUNS!!), the violent crime rate is rising off the charts.
Of course, there are other annoying things the pro gun controllers do, such as using the term “assault” weapon for small caliber, single shot weapons. But let us address the important topic of Crime Rates to show that as private gun ownership rises – crime rates fall.
Watch this and check the numbers:
Just Say No to Gun Control
Nullification in the Bluegrass State?
By Michael Boldin
View all 3 articles by Michael Boldin
Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment
In states around the country, there’s a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution — the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.
The latest to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law”
While the FFA’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:
“federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”
Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.
A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Supporters say the growth of such a movement is long overdue.
“For far too long elected officials and unelected bureaucrats at the federal level have passively forgotten or actively neglected the Tenth Amendment that guarantees rights not enumerated in the Constitution be left to the individual states,” said Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer, who introduced an FFA in his state. “The willful disregard of the Tenth Amendment in relation to a citizen’s right to bear arms isn’t the only constitutional infringement that we should be worried about, but it is one that has been singled out by the new administration.”
“Enough is enough,” urged Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers. “Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”
In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).
“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”
Even the most ardent supporters suggest that the real test will come if the federal courts rule against the FFA. Will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country?
The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus — federal agencies who didn’t recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005. Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.
Only time will tell if gun rights activists have the same courage.
Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Intelligence document says extremist radicals “stockpiling” weapons and ammunition in fear of Obama gun ban
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, April 13, 2009
A Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment equates gun owners with violent terrorists and states that radical extremists are “stockpiling” weapons in fear of an Obama administration gun ban.
This newly uncovered document is just the latest in a long sordid line of training manuals in which the federal government characterizes millions of American citizens as potentially violent terrorists who are a threat to law enforcement.
The document is entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (PDF link) and was released just a few days ago. The paper is labeled Law Enforcement Sensitive and states, “No portion of the LES information should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers. Release of this information could adversely affect or jeopardize investigative activities.”
However, probably as a result of a concerned whistleblower, the secret document has been leaked to the Internet. Alex Jones called the numbers listed on the document and validated its authenticity. He contacted the “watch captain” at the Department of Homeland Security’s National Infrastructure Coordinating Center who confirmed the product number on the document as legitimate but would not comment further. A call to the FBI went unanswered.
Click HERE to see the entire article.
A group in the US State of New Hampshire is becoming more vocal in its fight for independence. They believe the federal government has overstepped its role and intruded upon their states’ rights.
A group calling themselves the Free State Project says the only option is to let states govern themselves and set their own rules – much they already do on issues like firearm legislation.New Hampshire is one of the places with the most liberal laws in the country, but now it’s in a fight for even more independence. There are about 1.3 million people living in New Hampshire. The goal of the Free State Project is to attract 20,000 people to its cause within ten years time.
Some prominent figures have spoken out and criticized the recent operations of the government:
“The federal government is assuming powers that weren’t delegated to it. It is already acting to destroy the economy of the United States. It is going to devalue our currency, it is further corrupting domestic policies of the states, motivating them to do things they would not do naturally, except for being bribed with the people’s money,” said State Representative Dan Itse.
“If anything is going to cause the dissolution of the United States, it’s the stimulus package and the excessive spending of the federal government,” he added.
Chris Lawless used to work for the government, but he got fed up and quit. Now, he lives in New Hampshire with his wife and three children. Chris said the US Government is incompetent, and he has no illusions about the promises of change:
“The federal government doesn’t follow its own rules. There are countless laws that break the constitution and yet they don’t seem to care that they’ve broken these laws. Obama hasn’t broken that many laws yet, but he is about to. Just because he is charismatic and well-spoken, that does not make a great leader, it makes great TV,” said Lawless, who is a member of the Free State Project.
Chris says the country would be much better off if each state decided its own needs. That way, when the government makes a mistake, the entire country doesn’t have to suffer, as is happening now in the turmoil of the current economic catastrophe.
“We always say that we’re free – the land of the free. And we’re spreading democracy. A lot of times some other countries are freer. There are decisions being made in Washington that affect our lives that they have no business making,” said Lawless.
New Hampshire is also one place in America where it is legal to carry a gun. Liberty activists make sure they exploit that right to the fullest. When asked why one activist was carrying a gun he responded:
“For the same reason I have an airbag in my car, a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, and a smoke alarm in my house.”
The slogan of New Hampshire is ‘live free or die’. With the ambitions of members and supporters of the Free State Project, the term ‘freedom’ in America is taking on a whole new meaning.
Pass this on to Congress:
1. disobey or disregard something
transitive verb to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2. encroach on somebodys rights or property
transitive and intransitive verb to take over lands, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way
From Open Congress Blog:
February 18, 2009 – by Donny Shaw
With the election of Barack Obama in November came anxiety among gun owners that the constitutional right to bear arms would be curtailed. As the rest of the economy slumped, gun and ammunition sales surged following the election. Now there is a specific piece of legislation in Congress that gun-rights activists have identified as the leading threat – the Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1], would establish a federal gun licensing and registry program that would help the government track information on gun ownership and gun sales across the country. It would apply to handguns and all rifles with a “detachable ammunition feeding device.”