Joe Arpaio in the "Hotseat" again for doing his job!

From Reuters via Internet:

A federal judge on Friday barred high profile Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio from detaining people simply for being in the country illegally, in a ruling that faulted the local lawman for enforcing federal immigration law.

The 40-page written opinion by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow came on the same day he issued legal sanctions against Arpaio over destroyed documents.

The decisions come as a further blow for the controversial sheriff, who already has faced rebukes from the U.S. Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

Both rulings by Snow stemmed from a 2007 civil lawsuit against Arpaio and his agency, which accuses his officers of racial profiling of Latinos in traffic stops the judge found were conducted as immigration sweeps.

The judge also said officers with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department (MCSO), which covers Phoenix and surrounding areas, circulated emails that "compared Mexicans to dogs" and portrayed them "as drunks."

"Local law enforcement agencies, such as MCSO, may not enforce civil federal immigration law," Snow said in his written opinion.

He added that the sheriff's agency was "hereby enjoined" from detaining "any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States."

In his ruling, Snow also granted a request by plaintiffs to certify the lawsuit as a class action.

He defined the class action as encompassing all Latinos "stopped, detained, questioned or searched" by Arpaio's officers "while driving or sitting in a vehicle" on roads or parking areas in Maricopa County.

EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION

Snow also cited the admitted destruction of emails and patrol records by Arpaio's office related to the case. He noted the sheriff's agency never contested those documents were shredded rather than lost.

Further proceedings in the case are expected to be decided by Snow rather than a jury because the plaintiffs have not requested a jury trial.

Snow's sanctions against Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office were outlined in written opinions issued a day after the judge heard oral arguments on the matter.

Separately last week, the U.S. Justice Department issued a scathing report accusing Arpaio and his deputies of engaging in a "pervasive culture of discriminatory bias" and violating civil rights laws by singling out Latinos for unlawful detention and arrests.

The same day, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security barred Arpaio's deputies from screening jail inmates for their immigration status.

Arpaio was given until January 4 to agree to negotiations addressing the abuses cited by the Justice Department or face a request for a court order requiring compliance.

The Justice Department's report and the similar allegations raised in the lawsuit relate to Arpaio's controversial efforts to crack down on illegal immigration in Maricopa County.

Those efforts have earned him accolades in conservative political circles. Several candidates for the Republican presidential nomination sought his endorsement, which ultimately went to Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Arpaio has denied that his department engages in racial profiling and accused the Justice Department under President Barack Obama of undermining immigration enforcement.

A lawyer for Arpaio was not available for comment.

The sheriff was a strong supporter of controversial new Arizona law SB 1070, requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain and suspect of being in the country illegally.

That law is under challenge by the Obama administration in a case the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide next year.

Aside from the allegation of racial profiling, Arpaio also faces a firestorm over media reports that his office might have given short shrift to hundreds of sex-crime investigations.

~Lordhawke

EPA using Obama tactics to make an "end run" around Constitutional Law, and Congress

Well, here they go again, sticking their filthy little noses where they don't belong!  Take away a person's right to property, which the founders believed was the root of liberty, and you destroy his or her freedom!
These filthy beaureaucrats MUST be stopped from helping to destroy America!

 

Prepare To Have That Puddle in Your Back Yard Regulated!

    

Posted by Ben Howe (Diary)

Monday, November 21st at 5:00PM EST

Just as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has used the Clean Air Act to broaden the scope of their authority way beyond its original intention with rules like MACT and CSAPR, the Clean Water Act is becoming a tool of overreach by the out of control agency.
Barack Obama and the EPA’s Lisa Jackson have made it clear through their actions that they will circumvent the legislature by using regulatory enforcement to enact Obama’s green dreams, and now it seems that circumvention includes the Supreme Court of the United States.
During the Bush presidency, a series of Supreme Court decisions acknowledged the limits of reach for the Clean Water Act. Most notably, the Supreme Court clarified that federal jurisdiction did not extend to wetlands and other “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.  Through the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Country v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) and Raponos v. U.S. (2006) the Supreme Court established that private property rights still mattered even in light of the Clean Water Act and that the federal government did not have authority over them.
This of course isn’t stopping Barack Obama and Lisa Jackson from moving forward anyway.
It’s important to remember the original purpose of the Clean Water Act (1972).  It gives the federal government and the EPA the authority to regulate “navigable waterways.”  In other words, not a ditch out front with a lot of water in it and certainly not acres upon acres of private or state owned wetlands.  Yet, regulating these types of waters is precisely what the EPA is in the midst of doing.
The Army Corps (pronounced core) of Engineers and the EPA are in the process of finalizing “Draft Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act,” which is a fancy way of saying “we’re going to go out and change the definition of certain bodies of water so that we can pretend they fall within the Supreme Court’s definitions.”
The Barrasso-Heller Amendment, introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), was created to prevent the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA from incorporating those Obama changes into the regulatory guidelines, which serves the purpose of distinguishing precisely what the Supreme Court had already covered when it established the clear limitations of the Act.
The Property Rights Alliance and the American Farm Bureau Federation support the amendment, although its been met with predictable opposition from the left who have branded the amendment a “destructive measure.” One such bit of opposition is coming from the editorial page of the New York Times who incredibly claims that upholding the Supreme Courts decisions on the limitations of the Clean Water Act is somehow a “subversion” of its mandate.

Republicans just won’t give up on their misguided attempts to subvert the Clean Water Act. Senators John Barrasso of Wyoming and Dean Heller of Nevada plan to offer a rider denying protections to one-fifth of the nation’s wetlands and as many as two million miles of small streams. The House has approved a similarly destructive measure, so it is crucial that the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, and his Democratic colleagues block this legislation.

In April, the Obama administration proposed new guidelines restoring inclusive protections and promised to codify them in permanent regulations. This infuriated home builders and anyone else with an interest in filling in streams and wetlands. The House then voted to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers from carrying out the new guidance. The Senate bill would permanently prevent action to clarify the law. As always, the legislators driving these campaigns say their goal is to remove regulatory barriers to job creation. But the real issue is whether the country gets the clean water it wants and needs.

Of course. Believing that certain waters should either be at the discretion of the property owner or (gasp!) the state is exactly equivalent to wanting all Americans to drown in dirty water. Because let’s face it: without interference by the federal government, there’s no chance that we as mindless citizens could figure it out on our own.
Want to see how the EPA can use this type of authority to mess with law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?

Four years ago the Sacketts were filling in their lot with dirt and rock, preparing to build a simple three-bedroom home in a neighborhood where other houses have stood for years. Then three federal officials showed up and demanded they stop construction. The agency claimed the .63-acre lot was a wetland, protected under the Clean Water Act.
The Sacketts say they were stunned. The owners of an excavation company, they had secured all the necessary local permits. And Chantell Sackett says that before work began, she drove two hours to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, to consult with an Army Corps of Engineers official. She says the official told her orally, though not in writing, that she didn’t need a federal permit. “We did all the right things,” she says.
The EPA issued an order requiring the Sacketts to put the land back the way it was, removing the piles of fill material and replanting the vegetation they had cleared away. The property was to be fenced off and the Sacketts would be required to submit annual reports about its condition to the EPA. The agency threatened to fine them up to $32,500 a day until they complied.

But this is about clean water, not federal land grabs, right?  Tell that to the Sacketts.
Lost in all of this is the fact that, since the introduction of the Clean Water Act (which yes, was needed at the time), our drinking water is remarkably clean. Consider how important it is that when visiting 3rd world countries (or most infamously, Mexico) that you don’t even drink the water there because an American’s body is il-prepared for the ravages of dirty water. Our water is so clean, we can’t even drink dirty water anymore or we’ll die! That’s saying something.
Yet, the government thinks it’s not good enough. And it won’t be until they have control over all water in America.
A few years ago, President Obama scolded the Supreme Court in front of the world during his State of the Union Address. I suppose it’s not shocking that he has such little respect for the division of powers in our government that he’d use the regulatory to trump the two out of three of them.

This is a shameful abuse of power by an unelected bureaucracy!  ~Lordhawke

REMEMBER THIS WHEN YOU VOTE!

From NRA-ILA Alerts: Thank you, Justice Stevens and Mrs. Obama Friday, October 28, 2011 In case any reader of our weekly Grassroots Alert has not decided how to vote in the 2012 presidential election, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and First Lady Michelle Obama have volunteered to help him make up his mind. Recently, Time magazine asked Stevens what he would fix about the American judicial system. Stevens' response:  "I would make all my dissents into majority opinions."  Fair enough, since he's entitled to think he is right, even when a majority of his former colleagues and a larger majority of the American citizenry disagree. But then Time asked Stevens to single out one issue in particular, and he said, "I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment." Referring to the Court's decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases that the Second Amendment protects individuals from federal, state and local infringements on their right to possess and carry arms, he added "The court got that quite wrong." In his dissent in Heller, Stevens claimed that "there is no indication that the Framers of the [Second] Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." And in his dissent in McDonald, he claimed that even if one assumed the Fourteenth Amendment protects a general right to self-defense, that didn't mean that a person has a right to have a handgun. As if to suggest some logic to his theory, Stevens said "while some might favor handguns, it is not clear that they are a superior weapon for lawful self-defense." We have earlier noted the comment of another of the four justices who dissented from the majority's Heller and McDonald opinions, Stephen Breyer, to the effect that District of Columbia residents who don't like the city's onerous gun laws should go to Maryland. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, another of the Heller and McDonald dissenters, has publicly indicated her hope that a "future, wiser court" will reconsider the Heller decision. Of course, Justice Stevens and another of the four dissenting justices in Heller, Justice David Souter, have since retired and been replaced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented from the majority's decision in McDonald, and Justice Elena Kagan, who joined the Court in August 2010 and who had a clear anti-gun record during her service in the Clinton White house. Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated to the Court by President Barack Obama, of course. And not long ago, during a pre-2012 campaign event, First Lady Michelle Obama asked some of the president's most ardent supporters to remember the Court's two newest justices when they go into the voting booth next year. In the upcoming election, she said, "we're going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come . . . let's not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices . . . let's not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come." Obama supporters will not forget, and neither should supporters of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment's margin of safety on the Court remains intact by merely one vote. Given the likelihood of at least one retirement from the Court during the next presidential term, the future of the amendment could easily hinge on Election Day 2012.

Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. ~Lordhawke

Rawsome Foods

This is a prime example of what I have been talking about with government controle at all levels.


Written by a well armed potential suspect...well hell (Ring) Huggins, be honest...you are general and originator of the Terlingua Liberation Front.
Hail Obama!

Cowing the Population
By Doug Hornig

The noose around Washington, D.C.'s neck continues to tighten, with no clear way to remove it. Behind the scenes, there is undoubtedly a rising sense of panic. That's bad. The last thing you want is panicky people operating the far-reaching power levers of the state.

But if push does come to shove, history teaches us, the government will not hesitate to clamp down on its subjects by whatever means necessary to preserve itself. And the best way to mute resistance is to prepare citizens ahead of time for escalating levels of police control. An enhanced law enforcement presence must be accepted as the new normal. But rest assured, it's "for our own good."

That disclaimer has been used to hoodwink decent folk forever. But the truth is, what's really up is the application of the time-tested political axiom that the more fearful people are, the easier they are to control. We've seen this principle at work for years. Politicians continually pass more intrusive laws; and police take increasing liberties with our rights, content that the courts will back them up... which they have done, as spineless judges hand them larger and larger cartes blanche to act however they please. The first ten amendments to the Constitution have been largely gutted. The things the Founders cared most passionately about have been tossed into the dustbin.

We're told: that our homes are no longer safe from no-knock entries, and warrants be damned (precisely the abuse that most riled the revolutionary colonists); that we should rat out our neighbors at the first sign that something is "amiss," just as in any communist state you care to mention; and that it should be regarded as okay that warrants of all kinds are commonly served by gangs of helmeted thugs, covered with body armor and toting a dizzying array of lethal weapons.

Readers of a certain age will remember when the police were called peace officers, as their job was primarily to maintain the peace. Who's heard that quaint term lately? No, now they are law enforcement officers, and they are at war with a widening swath of the citizenry. And the targets of overwhelming force are not just murderers and rapists and armed robbers. SWAT teams are routinely dispatched to deal with bickering spouses, zoned-out pot smokers, parking ticket violators, and those delinquent in loan payments.

Make no mistake about it: Authorities around the country have gotten the message from Washington that a complaisant populace is required. And they're dutifully applying the heat. It may seem odd that they're going after ever less-violent people, but it makes perfect sense. It's in the government's interest to suggest that all of us are potential suspects.

Take, for instance, the case of Rawesome Foods in California, a private buying club dedicated to bringing the most wholesome, natural food products to its members. Does that sound like a criminal conspiracy? It did to local and federal officials, who staged a joint SWAT-style raid on the club last week. Without a warrant, officers entered the storefront, seized cash, destroyed inventory, and jailed the club's founder.



But if those in power are really serious about creating a docile population, there is absolutely no better way to go about it than criminalizing children. Yes, children.

No, I'm not talking about SWAT raids here. But in a way, this is even more insidious, because the effort is directed at teaching kids at an early age that Big Brother is always watching and that you'd better be sure you obey the letter of every law (as if anyone could possibly know what they all are) or you're in for trouble with the Man.

This has been - and I swear I am not making this up - the summer of the lemonade-stand bust. Yep, children's lemonade stands have been closed down in states all over the country, including California, Oregon, and Texas - and even, astonishingly, in such bedrock, sensible-values American heartland states as Wisconsin and Iowa.

The latest of these important police actions came in small-town Georgia, where the local cops advised the kids in question that they had to cease and desist from selling their lemonade until they forked over $50 a day for a business license. Watch this news report only if you have a strong stomach and your outrage button is not easily pushed.




That video is instructive in oh so many wonderful ways.

First, take a good look at the head cop as she explains their actions. "The law is the law" is about as close as you can get to "I was only following orders." Squint your eyes a little. She'd look perfect decked out in SS lightning bolts, wouldn't she?

Next, consider the little girl who says, "... but we had to listen to the cops." She's learned her lesson.

Then there's mom. We're sure that if she were one of our readers that stand would've been up and running the next day, and every day until the police were forced to take those kids to court over this. But not here. This mom is backing away from the issue, saying, "I'm trying to teach my kids good, and I don't think it'll teach 'em good if I keep on an' on with this." Right, the lesson wasn't only for the children.

Finally, in addition to instilling fear of authority in our most impressionable citizens, there's an added kicker to this incident. What better way to kill the entrepreneurial spirit in its cradle and set us up for the day when we all work for the state?

Question: What's the point when we finally announce that we're not going to take it any more? If that point isn't when they go after our kids, then there isn't one.

Obama Colludes with Int'l Organizations to End Gun Freedoms!

Good Evening everyone;  I got home tonight and checked my e-mail, as usual, and came across this by Raquel Okyay, it bears reading from beginning to end, and then we all need to contact our representatives in Washington D.C. and apprise them of the threat from without the U.S.  It's not only an internal problem, and hasn't been for quite some time.  The U.N. is one of the gravest threats to American sovereignty and freedom that the world has ever known!  It's past time to get rid of this nefarious organization; send them to some other country that will put up with their crap!
~Lordhawke


From Redstate Briefing

by  Raquel Okyay

08/16/2011


"Should we be worried? YES!  International entities vigorously trying to usurp America’s exclusive  God-given right to “keep and bear arms,” as dictated by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, are just as dangerous to our Republic as the anti-gun politicians in Washington.  The executive branch will have you believe they are supportive of gun owners’ rights, but really they are not.

“I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” said Pres. Barack H. Obama Jr.

Yet, with respect to gun control, the White House website reveals that Obama supports ratification of a treaty that would do just that:

Work with Congress to secure ratification of the Inter American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials.

A quick peek into the beliefs of the Inter American Convention shows an anti-United States group based in Washington D.C. that focuses on a universal standard of conduct and cooperation regarding firearms and related ammunition production, sales and distribution.

Its mission responds to the objectives and principles adopted in the ¨Declaration on Security in the Americas¨ based among others, in the new multidimensional concept of security, and in that bases and purpose of security is the protection of human beings. [http://bit.ly/o08JAb]

Since the United States of America identify a right to bear arms, that shall not be infringed, there is absolutely no reason for the White House to promote a treaty that, in all potential circumstances, reflects a system of security that does not mirror what has been in effect since 1776 – The Declaration of Independence​, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and amendments thereof.

So, when the president tells us he supports gun owners, direct him to the following excerpts from the Treaty he says Congress should adopt.

CONSIDERING the urgent need for all states, and especially those states that produce, export, and import arms, to take the necessary measures to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; and

CONVINCED that combating the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials calls for international cooperation, exchange of information, and other appropriate measures at the national, regional, and international levels, and desiring to set a precedent for the international community in this regard.

The simple answer is NO of course not.  The whole world looks at the United States as exceptional because of the freedoms we enjoy.  Obama seems to think an unelected body of internationalists can determine what laws or treaties will be enacted, rather than utilizing the brilliant masterpieces that are already extant.  In fact, the entire premise of the gun control lobby is based upon the myth that less firearms is tantamount to less crime, when studies show nothing of the sort.

A review of 18 studies of the effects of gun availability among potential victims and criminals found that the overall effect of criminal violence was zero. One study found no significant differences in total robbery rates, between cities where guns were widely available and cities where anti-gun laws were strict. If guns weren’t available to criminals they simply used other weapons. [http://bit.ly/qBqz8m]

Gun control advocates will advise that an international treaty that infringes upon our American rights to bear arms, could never happen because of the hurdles involved.  Even if the President would enter into such an agreement, the treaty would require two-thirds Senate approval and a reversal of certain Court rulings that have set precedent on the matter, including the most recent Supreme Court decision that says (in part):

The opinion holds that the right to keep and bear arms is among the most fundamental rights necessary to this Nation’s system of ordered liberty and is deeply rooted in our history and tradition. Thus, it applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [http://bit.ly/nGIjZC]

Despite this ruling, international gun control advocates keep pushing forward with their dastardly plans to remake the U.S. Constitution and create an international consensus that is out of touch with American law and American norms.  The bottom line is this: If the U.S.A. elects enough anti-firearm officials who in turn appoint enough anti-firearm judges, the liberal’s dream of taking our guns away will have reached fruition.  Do not let it happen, please!"





I cannot stress often enough or strongly enough how evil this group is!  To see what will happen if we let the U.N. dictate laws to us, and disarm us, look no further than the Genocides committed or allowed to be committed by U.N. troops!  African countries were especially vulnerable to the depredations of U.N. sanctioned armed forces.  Pictures of the carnage are graphic; they are reminiscent of Nazi Germany Deathcamps circa 1945.   ~Lordhawke

Obama Executive Order 13528 Subverts Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

Greetings;

I found this while perusing Executive Orders; it's from a site called: Bill's Blogs.  I can't get the link to post, so you'll have to enter it in your search bar:  http://www.billsblogsandmore/.  It comes up under Blog 20.

"On January 11, 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13528 (PDF) that, among other things, establishes a Council of Governors, chosen by the President who, as noted by the Intel Daily, will rubber-stamp long-sought-after Pentagon contingency plans to seize control of state National Guard forces in the event of a ‘National Emergency.’

Executive Orders are orders given by the President that are generally used to direct Federal Agencies and officials in their execution of laws or policies established by Congress. In many instances, especially during this past decade, Executive Orders have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to Congressional intent. Executive Orders are controversial since they are sometimes used to make law without the consent of Congress. It’s time for a closer look at EOs & Directives and it’s time to fix the intentional, often illegal, subversion of laws.

In keeping with tradition, no mention was made in the corporate media of President Obama’s EO 13528 that egregiously subverts the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. A White House Press Release claims the ten member, bipartisan Council was created ‘to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards.’

Once appointed, according to the White House Press Release, the council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of various States; Homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
Synchronizing and integrating state National Guard units with those of the Armed Forces would place them under the control of the United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) that was egregiously created in 2002, allegedly to help fight the ‘War on Terror’ — one of the largest acts of treason ever perpetrated against U.S. citizens by its Government.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 – which EO 13528 clearly subverts — bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement. For years Bush tried to accomplish the same thing.

During the height of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina crisis, Bush tried citing presidential prerogatives for using the National Guard troops under the Insurrection Act, a draconian statute that authorizes the President to federalize National Guard units when state governments fail to ’suppress rebellion.’ The plight of Katrina victims was twisted — aided and abetted by complicit corporate media — into an act of ‘rebellion’ and a new criminal category was concocted to criminalize the traumatized New Orleans residents.  (see youtube video: Hurricane Katrina door to door firearms confiscation.~Lordhawke)

As noted by The Intel Daily, given the serious implications such proposals would have for a functioning democracy, the media’s deafening silence on Obama’s Executive Order is hardly surprising. As the cheerleaders in the illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and now Pakistan with Iran and Yemen coming soon, the censorship by the media says a lot about the state of affairs in ‘new normal’ America. As with his predecessors, Mr. hope and change will try to illegally forge ahead and invest the permanent National Security bureaucracy with unprecedented power.

Under the guise of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, the President will establish the bipartisan Council of Governors to advise, and exchange views and information with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions. The Secretary of Defense will designate the Executive Director of this 'toothless' Council.

In ‘exchanging views’ with the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Homeland Defense and America's Security Affairs, the Commander, United States Northern Command, the Chief National Guard Bureau, the Commandant of the Coast Guard and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense as well as appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security, the council will serve as civilian cover for political decisions made by the Executive Branch and the security apparatus.

Obama Had Previously Proposed Expanding Military Use in Domestic Disasters

Last summer Obama proposed expanding the military’s authority to respond to domestic disasters. His proposal was opposed by the National Governors Association (NGA) because it would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate inter-agency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts and interfere with gubernatorial Constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their respective constituencies.

EO 13528 further erodes the constitutional limits on Executive Branch power, and actually has little to do with catastrophic emergency response. It is however, the latest attempt to expand the National Security state and the Continuity of Government (COG) programs that are, and have been, illegally kept secret from Congress and the American people.

Many members of Congress are not authorized to view information on COG plans, procedures, capabilities and facilities, as well as the classified annexes of National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (NSPD 51/HSPD 20), two other draconian, illegal pieces of ‘legislation.’ Despite Obama’s vows of openness and transparency, even the redacted version of those documents have been removed from the White House web site.
Reagan-era EO 12656 defines a national security emergency as ‘any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.’ The problem is, the U.S. Government has a history of terrorizing its own citizens and creating disasters and false flag attacks.

Secretive Continuity of Government Plan Raises a Lot of Questions
 
George W. Bush’s Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8), also removed from the White House web site, established ‘a national program and multi-year planning system to conduct homeland security preparedness-related exercises.’ That program, details of which are unavailable to Congress and the American people, is to be carried out in collaboration with state and local governments and private sector entities. The secrecy surrounding the shady creation of illegal ‘law’ raises a lot of questions and concerns.

Loosely worded definitions concerning the Defense Department’s role during such emergencies leave the door open for potential abuses by unscrupulous politicians and their corporate partners. USNORTHCOM’s role in all of this is shrouded in secrecy. As the past decade has shown, the egregious amount of corruption in Washington has gotten entirely out of hand and something needs to be done to stop it. The fact that corrupted military leaders are now courting corrupted politicians also raises a lot of flags.

The timing of the deployment of U.S. combat troops as an on-call federal response force coinciding with the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the 1930s that was fraudulently created by Wall Street is peculiar and suspicious. 
(The Stock Market Crash of 1929 was actually caused by a contraction of currency issued by the Federal Reserve System, a private financial lending institution controlled by Rothschild, Rockefeller, et al.  See the youtube video: The Money Masters) ~Lordhawke


The fact that COG plans are shrouded in secrecy and kept from members of Congress and the American people is very disturbing and very revealing. It raises a LOT of questions. In keeping with the tradition of creating tyranny while destroying any semblance of law — like his predecessor — President Obama’s EO 13528 undermines the democratic rights of the American people. Mr. Obama needs to start paying attention to those that elected him, keep his promises that put him in office and quit running Bush’s third term. It’s time for accountability and it’s time to restore the rule of law."

Could this be the precursor to Martial Law with the current "debt crisis" that continues to loom over us all?  I don't have the answer to that, but, time will tell.  Let us hope and pray that we have ADVANCE warning!  ~Lordhawke

BRADY CAMPAIGN AT IT AGAIN!

From Redstate Briefing:

Ant-gun lobbyist group seeks to disarm Americans

by Raquel Okyay                                                                           

08/09/2011

"Here we go again. Another ad hoc group focused on limiting 2nd Amendment rights upon innocent Americans. The more scrutiny into the topic of controlling gun sales, the worse it gets. Add “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” to our list of groups to battle. Founded in 1974, they have spent decades seeking to control gun sales and sue gun makers, arguing in a recent blog post “Actually, guns do kill people.” No, they do not. Someone has to pull the trigger, stupid!

Charging to “educate people about the dangers of guns . . . especially children who have the right to live free from the threat of gun violence” is a premise begging for substance. Yet they use this premise to pressure politicians to enact laws that prevent law abiding citizens from selling and buying firearms, even though the Constitution does not indicate any such right to children they suggest, nor does it reflect upon objects that may cause violence. In fact the 2nd Amendment could not be clearer: “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
They blame cars for car accidents; drugs for drug addicts; the paper money is printed on for greed; as long as they are not blaming the individual, they can subvert any empty premise to misinterpret the Constitution and what it stands for.  The Constitution protects us from an overreaching government, not the other way around!

Much damage has been done

Shocking is the degree of influence the Brady Campaign has on American jurisprudence, the following is a list of, they call “accomplishments” we will call “control measures”, celebrated at their website (in part):

Bills are introduced in Congress to ban clips holding more than 10 bullets and to extend Brady background checks to all gun sales. (2011)

Two million gun purchases are denied since the enactment of the Brady Law. (2011)

The Brady Center files a lawsuit against Badger Guns blaming the gun maker for selling a gun to an individual who committed an illegal act. (2010)

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signs a new law requiring maintenance of purchaser records by handgun ammunition vendors. Local law enforcement can use these records at will. (2009)

The Brady Campaign successfully works to pass the “NICS Improvement Amendments Act” which forces innocent buyers of guns to undergo rigorous background checks. (2007)

Brady Campaign launches the Campaign Against “Illegal” Guns, to limit licensed gun dealers from selling guns. (2006)

The Brady Campaign launches a campaign to renew the assault weapons ban. (2004)

The Brady Center achieves historic victories in three lawsuits brought by victims of criminal activity. The settlements yield a record $4.4 million in payments by three gun dealers. (2004)

The California Assembly approves legislation that requires handgun manufacturers to redesign new handguns to ostensibly “prevent accidental shootings”. (2003)

Center to Prevent Handgun Violence launches a new nationwide initiative to encourage attorneys general and other state officials to use their so-called consumer protection authority to regulate gun design. (2001)

The District of Columbia becomes the 30th jurisdiction to sue the gun industry. (2000)

The Attorney General of Massachusetts becomes the first in the nation to use consumer protection powers to regulate guns. (2009)

New York City becomes the 32nd city or county to sue the gun industry. (2009)

Colorado and Oregon pass statewide referenda to control sales at gun shows. (2009)

The states of Maryland and New York pass new gun control restrictions. (2009)

Obviously the Brady Campaign very actively promotes laws and actions that prohibit innocent Americans from buying and selling firearms. Using fear as a general tactic, whenever there is a mass killing in the U.S. or abroad, the Brady Campaign does not blame the deranged psycho path that committed the crime, they blame the three-letter instrument, the “g-u-n” instead.
Actually, enacting gun restriction laws places us in more danger than not, because it limits the way we can purchase firearms as a means of protecting ourselves from criminals and/or a criminal government. The Brady Campaign would like to protect us from ourselves. U-h-m, no, thank you!"



I find it absolutely flabberghasting that some people actually accept this crap as truth!!
~Lordhawke