Missouri Politicians Set Stage for Gun Confiscation

Police confiscate guns

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

February 16, 2013

Recently it seems Missouri politicians have been willing to tackle some very tough but important issues within legislation. Although not perfect, we have bills that attempt to resist the NDAA and warrantless spying by drones on the state level. But with every small victory or progress comes with them more concerns about the condition of our civil rights. One more controversy that we have to keep a close eye on is the legislation sponsored by Rep. Rory Ellinger called HB 545.

Ellinger, along with his cosponsors Representatives Schupp, McNeil, and Walton Gray, have presented an amendment to Chapter 571 of the RSMo. HB 545 essentially puts a ban on “assault weapons” which is not a surprise but their definition of such weapons is even more concerning. This bill doesn’t simply want to ban “assault rifles” like an AR-15, its language clearly includes shotguns and handguns that are able to accept a magazine of more than 10 rounds.

To make matters worse, the bill also does not allow for any “assault weapons” acquired before it becomes law to be grandfathered in. The only solutions it gives are for the owner to remove their gun and high capacity magazines out of state, render the weapon inoperable, or turn the firearm over to the police. Legislation also gives such owners 90 days from the effective date to do one of the three options before they would be in violation of the law. Did I forget to mention that it has a felony charge attached to it?

While the Democrats are certainly the source for such a ridiculous bill, we should not assume that the Republicans are going to come out strong against this legislation. Although House Speaker Tim Jones says he’s committed to protecting the Second Amendment we must hold both parties feet to the fire. The NRA came out recently under their Institute for Legislative Action and said, “Compelling law-abiding citizens to surrender their firearms and magazines is unconstitutional, wrong and another failed attempt to reduce crime… HB 545 would only affect the lawful, while ignoring the actual problem of violent criminals who misuse firearms.”

Of course, there are others that are skeptical about the implementation of this bill. The questions arise as to who would actually follow one of the three steps and would local law enforcement confiscate guns if further action was needed. The answer to both questions is quite simple and stems from a similar logic. People who follow the solutions of HB 545 will be law-abiding citizens who in their naivety think the government knows best. While police officers, in reaction to civil disobedience, will probably go along with an Executive Order by Gov. Jay Nixon or Pres. Obama to quell dissent. However, I do realize that many police officers and even military have stated that they will not go door-to-door confiscation of guns. Let’s just hope that philosophy holds strong when the threat of losing their job or imprisonment becomes a reality.

It is my belief that it is our responsibility to make sure those who supposedly represent us submit to our will. It is also my opinion that we as a society cannot fully depend on public servants to protect us or even resist larger institutions. That is our job. With that being said, I want to challenge local grassroots efforts to focus in on HB 545. The best thing you can do right now without leaving your residence is call the office of Gov. Jay Nixon (573-751-3222) and tell him to renounce this bill. Apparently, according to his secretary, they are keeping count of whether or not the public is for this legislation.

Most importantly, as a concerned citizen, I ask that you also contact your State Representative at573-751-2000 and tell them to reject HB 545 or any new gun control legislation. If you do not know who your State Representative is please click here and look them up by district. Furthermore, as a measure of chastisement, I ask that you contact the sponsor and cosponsors of this bill.

State to them your disapproval of HB 545 and tell them to discontinue any efforts for further restrictions or gun bans. It is important that you are respectful and do not make any violent threats because the latter only hurts our credibility. A final note for any activists that are interested in making calls or sending emails but live out of state, you are also welcome to contact our Missouri State Representatives and express your disgust. There is no need to tell them what state you’re from and it is encouraged not to tell them. For those that are interested in getting out and making your presence known I suggest going down to Jefferson City, MO at the Capitol building, in an organized way, and stage a protest or demonstration.

Advertisements

St. Louis Residents: Still Under the Shadow of the Manhattan Project

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

January 29, 2013

Back in September I filed a report on the research of a local sociologist named Lisa Martino-Taylor. Through FOIA requests she discovered in the early 50s and mid-60s that black residents in St. Louis, MO living in the Pruett-Igoe Complex were being sprayed with radiologicals without their consent. Within her findings she discovered that there was a direct correlation between the military, US Radium, and the Manhattan Project. The specific sub-branch of these experiments was the Manhattan-Rochester Coalition; which was in operation here locally.

A couple weeks after publishing my article, a local activist got me in contact with an internet group called “Coldwater Creek – Just the Facts Please” where I met a member named Jenell Wright. Through a series of messages and studying several notes and documents within the group I saw a connection with the secret experiments being conducted on low income families within the city and the disease clusters in the county.

Despite seeing a connection between Martino-Taylor’s research and the Coldwater Creek’s collection of data, I wanted to attend a public meeting on this local problem. Meanwhile, as I compared historical resources, I observed that after various experiments were conducted (including the ones done on the Pruett-Igoe Complex) by the Manhattan-Rochester Coalition, the radioactive waste was sent to be stored and dried out in a facility off of Latty Avenue. Early on the people processing this waste didn’t even wear protective gear and it wasn’t until while later that the federal government came in and changed their approach.

By the early 70s the government decided the best way to dispose of the radioactive waste (composed of plutonium, uranium, and thorium) was to illegally dump it in the Missouri River floodplain and similar sites that would later leach into the water supply. They provided no protective barrier from the waist to the groundwater and in most cases it was just on the surface. As it stands now, the third site is buried under a fairly shallow layer of dirt and guarded by a fence that could easily be scaled by anybody determined to get inside.

Since that time, many people who were unaware of such operations developed residential areas around the radiological sites. Still others were exposed in a more indirect way by the waste being carried through the air and water to more remote places. In 1993 some of the areas would experience one of the worst floods in St. Louis history and pictures during that time from Latty Avenue prove that the waters were clearly exposed to radiologicals.

The early 90s would also be a time of a somewhat quiet cover-up of the contaminated areas. In fact, I heard at the Coldwater Creek St. Louis oversight committee meeting on November 8, 2012 a Florissant resident relayed a story about men in hazmat suits covering all the canals with concrete. The very presence of men with suits laying concrete in areas the government knew were exposed to waste can only lead one to be more suspicious of such activities.

As a result of a half century of exposing people to nuclear waste, many people from these areas either know people who are sick or have died from rare cancers. Many of these people are sick or dying themselves. But it’s not just one in 1 million cancers that people are affected by but multiple cases of lupus on the same block, many cases of conjoined twins, and other neurological issues being recorded in clusters. A map developed by members of the “Coldwater Creek – Just the Facts Please” group shows that these clusters are indeed downstream from the radiological sites.

Moving forward to a more recent meeting on January 17, 2013 the EPA wanted to bring a presentation to the people of Bridgeton, MO concerning the West Lake landfill (i.e. the third site). After years of cleaning up the other two radiological sites, their solution to the people of Bridgeton was to merely “cap” the landfill. The presentation that the EPA brought forth was clearly a whitewash and the nearly 300 people that attended knew it was as well. In fact, I believe that this was the whole point of downplaying the site so they could execute a “cheap” solution.

I must admit that I was pretty impressed with how the public addressed the EPA in the open mic session. Ed Smith, Safe Energy Director at MCE, gave a salient case against Dan Gravatt’s explanation of the data. Gravatt, by the way is the Remedial Project Manager of the EPA who presented the agencies findings. Similarly, Dr. Bob Criss, who is a professor at Washington University specializing in geochemistry and the Missouri River, debunked the EPA’s 45 minute presentation in a matter of 7. I was also inspired by the Teamsters and knowledgeable residents of St. Louis County who have been affected by the nuclear waste. They all came out strong and well informed on the specific subject that they addressed towards the EPA.

Unfortunately the fight for a clean environment and compensation for the victims, at the time of this writing, is still ongoing. I don’t feel that I have gave this subject the attention it needs but I hope the reader will research this further and get involved no matter what part of St. Louis you live in. My goal is to continue to go to these meetings, make further connections with other cases, and expose the government for who they really are. I know as more attention is brought to this issue, the more heat will be applied to them. Despite the federal government’s ever encroaching power, the people of this country still have the ability push back if we desire to do so.

St. Louis Venerates Obama Over MLK

"Giving honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama" - Jamie Foxx

“Giving honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama” – Jamie Foxx

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

January 23, 2013

Initially I hadn’t planned on writing a piece concerning this year’s Martin Luther King Jr. March. But after a few days of thinking about the ridiculousness of our local organizers I felt that something had to be said. It’s really a shame that Democratic operatives have co-opted the holiday committee for MLK because this should be a day without “party lines”. After all, Dr. King was not a big proponent of the left-right paradigm.

In fact, at one point he said, “I feel someone must remain in the position of non-alignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the conscience of both—not the servant or master of either.” With that being said, one might think that the committee would be nonpartisan. But apparently this is not so (or at least it is not a concern of the organizers). The reader will see shortly why I think there was a bias within the committee that originated from political elements.

This year, the Inauguration Day fell on the same date that we observe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. The holiday committee decided that since Dr. King’s birthday fell on Pres. Obama’s Inauguration Day, they would combine the festivities. While I believe that some on the committee genuinely thought this was a good idea, clearly there wasn’t much thought put into it.

A couple of days before the march I got word of what the organizers had planned to do. I was a little puzzled by this decision because of what I knew about Dr. King’s stance on war as opposed to the president’s actions the last four years. The whole time I couldn’t stop thinking, “If MLK were alive today, would he support the president’s policies concerning drone strikes, foreign intervention, and indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial or jury?” But at the end of the day I tried to give the organizers the benefit of the doubt and chalk it off as them wanting to honor two influential men of color.

I discussed this with a local activist and rapper named Rev Dellic, who also had the same concerns. Despite my reservations about the inauguration component, I decided to join with local activists to commemorate Dr. King. Admittedly a few of us also wanted to strike up conversations with Obama supporters to see what their thoughts were on the comparisons of these two men.

Rev and I decided that we would march with signs around our necks that read, “MLK had a dream…What is Obama’s dream?” We decided the best approach would be to pose a somewhat simple and nonthreatening question to open up dialogue.

As I made my way to the Old Courthouse, I hadn’t even gotten across the street to where everyone was meeting for the march, when my attention was immediately brought to a 10-12 foot tall Obama puppet standing with outstretched hands behind the ROTC choir. Besides the irony of the giant puppet, I found the whole situation awkward. Another thing that stood out to me was the fact that Obama was the predominant character despite the status of MLK.

At any rate, once we got over to the site of where the march would begin, we proceeded to put on our signs. Overall we had a 95% positive reception with a few double takes and a couple snide remarks. But by and large most people were indifferent to the question posed. To those that responded negatively or somewhat perturbed, they seemed to be going more on their emotions or the perception that we may give wearing a political sign at such an occasion. Of course the latter response is silly since the Democrats already politicized MLK Day by combining the inauguration with it.

One self-proclaimed “Anarchist” named James rode over on his bike to henpeck us on why these signs were inappropriate and polarizing towards nonwhites. His arguments weren’t totally illogical and he wasn’t being a jerk, however he was worried more about his agenda to proselytize African-Americans to Anarchism then our right to freely express ourselves. He also made this wild assumption that because some of us were white that we had no connection to the black community here in St. Louis. I couldn’t help but laugh on the inside when he said this.

While I get being sensitive to the culture of others, I don’t buy into the psychology of “white guilt”. My personal belief is that your motive for helping oppressed peoples should not come from a place of making penitence but out of love and the brotherhood of man. Needless to say James failed to convince us to remove the signs but he did successfully remind us that even some in the activist community censor themselves according to the other parties’ color of skin.

Another gentleman that was a little annoyed by our signs, got in my face and asked what I meant by the statement being made. I was a little caught off guard by his aggression but I proceeded to explain my position. Unfortunately, like I have to do every time I discuss Pres. Obama, I had to preface my argument by saying that the problem is his policies and not his hue. Once I got past the opening spiel, I told him that I believed that if Dr. King were alive today he would have denounced the president’s actions against foreign countries and the continuance of tyrannical “Bushian” policies.

This gentleman actually looked at me, with a straight face, and said, “It seems like we’re living in the past…” He also took issue with the sign and tried to charge us with not being forthright by simply posing a question. The guy said it was disingenuous and that “Obama is about peace because he brought the soldiers home from Iraq.” He further hashed out his argument by saying that MLK was against the Vietnam War but that this was a different time period altogether. The gentleman then attempted to counter my mention of the murderous drone strikes by saying, “France has taken over that.”

Defying logic and facts, this guy waved off the killing of women and children (that the president signed off on) by playing political hot potato and essentially telling us that we need to evolve on our views of foreign intervention. After he was done I started to note a few things that he seemed to be brushing aside but before I could say another sentence, he literally ran away like a cartoon character out of Looney Tunes.

Fact of the matter is, this man was a diehard Democrat and an Obama sycophant, who when Bush was in office opposed war and surely cried aloud about the civil rights violations of Gitmo prisoners. But now that he has someone that “looks” like him, he feels comfortable in playing identity politics (a charge that Dems attempt to put on the majority of whites on the right). Aside from the hypocrisy, he tried to obfuscate the truth.

It is inaccurate to say that America does not have “boots on the ground” in Iraq. We are still meddling in that country through private mercenary groups like Blackwater; which changed its name from XE to Academi.  Furthermore, as far as I know, the United States is still in full command over drone strikes in Pakistan and is waging other proxy wars in the Middle East and Africa. I haven’t the slightest clue where he got that France is now the sole villain in droning innocents.

Continuing on, a more peculiar moment was when we were approached by college students from UMSL that had no idea what the march was about. They said to us that their instructor told them to meet down at the Old Courthouse for a class assignment but didn’t tell them what the event was about. Although I thought this was incredible that they were oblivious to MLK Day and the presidential inauguration, I definitely could see how they could be confused considering all the mixed messages.

This confusion leads into the center of mine and other’s frustration with how this event was handled. It is my opinion that the two events should not have been combined or there should have been a distinction made. It seemed to run altogether and quite frankly Obama was the center of attention despite later marching for Dr. King. I can’t speak for everyone there but the Obama worship was creepy just as it was in DC. I was kind of expecting for people to form lines and patterns for their dictator. But I guess we’re not there yet.

H.B.57 Will Outlaw the NDAA in Missouri

Will history repeat itself?

Will history repeat itself?

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

January 12, 2013

As we reported yesterday, P.A.N.D.A. founder Dan Johnson, contacted me late Thursday night. He alerted me to a new bill that had been submitted a few weeks ago. I then contacted Heather Cottner, who is P.A.N.D.A.’s new State Coordinator for Missouri, to get further details and to see what her strategy was to get this legislation signed into law.

The bill, which at the time of this writing has no scheduled hearing, was sponsored by Rep. Scott Fitzpatrick and cosponsored by Rep. Rocky Miller and Rep. Paul Curtman. At its most basic level House Bill 57 (HB 57), hinges on the 10th amendment and state’s rights. The sponsors of this bill aim to reestablish Missouri’s state rights over the federal government and to outlaw indefinite detention of its citizens.

It also slaps the executive branch right in the face by nullifying 50 USC Section 1541 (concerning the War Powers Resolution) that illegally gives the president power to declare war over Congress.  The Unlawful Detention of Citizens Bill (i.e. MO HB-57) states:

“Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no state agency, political subdivision, employee of such State agency or political subdivision acting in his or her official capacity, or member of the Missouri National Guard on officials state duty, shall knowingly aid an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention of any citizen pursuant to 50 USC Section 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 or any subsequent provisions of law.”

The evolution within the NDAA concerning indefinite detention of US citizens can be slightly confusing. The first thing a reader will notice is that the indefinite detention subsection from fiscal year 2012 has moved from 1021 to 1031 of fiscal year 2013. Another issue to note is the number of amendments that have been proposed or applied to this particular section. One of the first attempts was the Smith-Amash Amendment. Then the Feinstein-Lee Amendment was introduced, which was later replaced by the request of Sen. John McCain with the Gohmert Amendment. A lot of these amendments seek to clarify vague language and “seemingly” uphold constitutional rights. But like with any legislation, there are always loopholes which the ACLU and others have pointed out.

Due to the above issues, people within and outside of government, that seek to retain some semblance of their civil rights have moved to actions on the state level. This brings us back to the organization P.A.N.D.A. and their involvement in helping Missouri representatives get the support they need to pass this bill.

When I talked to Cottner last night she was optimistic but added she needs a lot of support and volunteers to get this done. She also warned that the citizens of Missouri only have five months (until May) to get this bill passed. The first thing that she proposed was to form a coalition for purposes of laying out an orderly plan and to conduct training sessions. Cottner explained that distance would not be an issue because they will be utilizing teleconference calls to reach people all over the state.

She also discussed that there will be many levels of opportunities for people to engage in activism everything from simple phone calls to going to the Missouri state capital in Jefferson City. We also talked about a very exciting strategy that she hopes will get the attention of local politicians. At this time I cannot disclose this plan but I can tell you that they will remember who P.A.N.D.A. is and what they stand for.

As this story develops and P.A.N.D.A. coordinates locals, we will be here to give you up-to-date coverage. If you would like to learn more about P.A.N.D.A. please go to www.pandaunite.org or if you are ready to get involved here in Missouri please call Heather Cottner at (314) 803-2364. Alternatively you can contact me via email Media@tyrannywatch.org and I will plug you in with the right people. For up-to-date coverage on the NDAA and indefinite detention please consider “ liking” P.A.N.D.A. and Tyranny Watch on Facebook or “following” us on Twitter.

Illinois: CC Legal, Let’s Ban the Guns

Authoritarians want to make Illinois a "gun-free zone"

Authoritarians want to make Illinois a “gun-free zone”

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

January 5, 2013

UPDATE:  Due to the current nature of Illinois politics, some facts may change as we receive more details.

As recently as three weeks ago, the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Illinois ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional and the legalization was long overdue. According to Judge Richard Posner, “There is no suggestion that some unique characteristic of criminal activity in Illinois justifies the state taking a different approach from the other 49 states.”

Posner continues, “If the Illinois approach was demonstrably superior, one would expect at least one or two other states to have emulated it.” The federal court gave 180 days for lawmakers to create a bill that would legalize open carry in the state. This seemed to be a major victory for all gun rights advocates in Illinois but with recent developments in gun control laws, it appears to be hollow.

Within this last week Democratic Senate leader John Cullerton submitted HB 815 amendment 1 & 2 and HB 1263 amendments 5 & 6, which would essentially ban most semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns (including pump rifles and shotguns), ammunition magazines that hold 10 rounds or more, require registration with Illinois State police, and most likely close down gun ranges and clubs.

Apparently there is some opposition, State Sen. Dale Righter stated, “I will not support any legislation…That requires anyone in Illinois to register their firearms with state government.” The amendments did pass through the Illinois Senate Public Health Committee last night but failed to get the 30 votes required in the Illinois Senate. As a result Cullerton postponed the floor votes until later this week.

But don’t worry there is no rest for the wicked. From Sunday to Tuesday a lame-duck session convenes, where Gov. Patrick Quinn and Mayor Rahm Emanuel plan to focus on the House of Representatives to achieve their anti-gun agenda. To make matters worse Rep. Edward Acevedo just filed an amendment to Senate Bill 2899, which is very similar in language to Cullerton’s proposed amendments.

Although time is running short we still have an opportunity to send the gun grabbers home with their tails tucked between her legs. The easiest thing an activist can do is call your State Representative ASAP and express your opposition to Senate Bill 2899. Tell them any legislation that bans firearms, magazines, and registers law-abiding citizens with the state police is unacceptable and will result in them applying for unemployment when they come up for reelection. The main number for the Illinois General Assembly is 217-782-2000 or you can find your state legislator at: http://www.ilga.gov

It is time to stand strong for the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. The road to disarmament is paved incrementally and created through apathy. We must not sit idly by as gun grabbers try to inundate us domestically from all sides with new amendments and bills. All the while they are securing their agenda internationally by trying by March to sneak the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty in any way they can. To all the detractors who think we are crazy, maybe they should observe the co-author of the Second Amendment’s words when he said, “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” This is of course what the authoritarian’s want, so why would we give them the power they crave?

Feinstein’s Anti-Gun Witch Hunt

1500_bushmaster

Zachary Cole

Tyranny watch.org

December 28, 2012

The last couple years have been a major milestone in the process of disarming the public. The attack on the Second Amendment has come directly from the US government through the operation of Fast and Furious; the UN Arms Trade Treaty, and the unfortunate opportunism through the mass shootings of Aurora and Newtown that have occurred in the latter part of 2012.

Of course this has not been without a political circus that the Obama administration has not taken advantage of. After all Rahm Emanuel said, “We can’t let a crisis go to waste.” (Hilary Clinton said similar things as well.) We have even seen the false left-right paradigm exposed in recent shootings because of the hand-in-hand approach that the Democrats and Republicans have displayed on national television. While posing as different, they have actually come out and truly shown their colors. This only proves once again that they are behind the scenes working on similar goals. While publically entertaining the masses with their disagreements on secondary issues.

We have crazies like Rep. Donna Edwards from Maryland who said, “The Second Amendment is important…But we gotta get the guns.” We also have retiring Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas say, “It’s the semiautomatics and those large magazines that can be fired off very quickly. I think that does need to be looked at.” Thankfully Hutchison will not be able to vote for any upcoming assault weapons ban bill this year.

Fast-forward to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, who is set to introduce a bill on the first day of Congress that will officially ban assault weapons. She has been quoted as saying, “Who needs these military style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?” Concerning the specifics of the bill, last Sunday on Meet the Press she said, “It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and possession, not retroactively, but prospectively, and ban the sale of clips of more than 10 bullets…The purpose of this bill is to get…weapons of war off the streets.”

What Feinstein and her legislation failed to clarify is that although people who already possess assault weapons that are targeted within this bill would be grandfathered in, it actually requires the same citizens to register their guns, provide a photo ID of them, and submit their fingerprints. This would not only eliminate the private sell of guns but would also create a potential list of “threats” to the federal government. This is not unlike the suggestion last week of some, that people on prescription drugs for mental illness should be registered. This can only lead to pre-crime measures and certainly tighter profiling on American citizens (which most civil rights activists have been against concerning race).

By the way, Sen. Feinstein is the same politician that presented an updated amendment for the NDAA that fooled a lot of people into believing that the indefinite detention measure have been corrected and would finally put to bed the issue of American citizens being disappeared without a trial or jury. Of course, this was far from the truth and certainly this assault weapons bill will have the legalese the federal government needs to incrementally ban all guns.

To go back to what Feinstein said, I will attempt to answer her questions according to what the founders of the Constitution actually meant by the Second Amendment. First and foremost, the Second Amendment was not for hunting. In fact, it wasn’t really even for defending yourself against common criminals. The founders expressly said that it was for defending the US citizens against tyrants in the federal government. It was for our defense militarily against a tyrannical system. Even Thomas Jefferson, no matter what you thought of him in his personal life, spoke of the dangers of becoming comfortable in our freedoms because if we did not have a revolution every few decades we can almost guarantee our enslavement.

Why do US citizens need “military style assault weapons”? It is because we need similar or equal power to defend ourselves against an out-of-control government and/or police state. Who needs “ammunition feeding device capable holding 100 rounds”? It is the general public that still believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is the average citizen that still believes in the validity of the Declaration of Independence. For the federal government is not our rulers but we are theirs and according to those that founded this form of governance, it is also our right to remove the corruption at any time.

As Barack Obama and the treasonous Gun Control Committee convene in this next month, let us all turn up the heat on those that seek to steal our rights. Call your local congressperson or your senators and tell them that they are politically done if they seek to put more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. Assemble other people in your area that are pro-Second Amendment that would be willing to go to your State Capital or local federal buildings and have lawful pro-gun assemblies. Create a committee that would be willing to put together a pro-gun rally in which people could speak on the facts of gun free zones, violent crime statistics, and the historical dangers of disarming the public and its correlation to democide.

The time is now to get serious about our rights or slowly but surely they will be decimated. It’s easier to incrementally take away our right than it is to take large swaths of freedoms away. We only have to look at the patriot act and all the draconian legislation that has been passed since 9/11 to get an idea of what the future of the Second Amendment will be like. But if you like the direction in which this country is going, then let the words of Samuel Adams be the voice of reason to your descendents, “If you love wealth more than liberties, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

We Are Change STL Exposes the Matrix on UMSL Campus

On Friday Novemeber 9, 2012 We Are Change-STL visited the UMSL campus to talk with college students and professors on 5 important topics. The questions are as follows:

  1. What is the Federal Reserve?
  2. Can you point out (in the picture) where a Bowing 747 jetliner hit that building (Pentagon)?
  3. Should genetically modified food (GMO) be labeled?
  4. Which presidential candidate (Obama or Romney) supports drone bombing?
  5. Which presidential candidate (Obama or Romney) supports indefinite detention of US citizens?

Watch the video above for the surprising answers. As noted in the video, research these 5 topics for yourself so that you may be fully informed!

Please check out and “like” WRC-STL on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/WeAreChangeSTL

TW Radio Archives Interview With Laura Bernal of American Resolution

American Resolution

Tyranny Watch Podcast #5 – In this week’s episode Zachary talks with Laura Bernal the founder of the American Resolution. We also discuss the movement to merge all people who fight for liberty and freedom under one banner.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN OR DOWNLOAD

TW Radio Archives Interview With STL Anonymous on Trapwire

Saint Louis Anonymous

Tyranny Watch presents Episode #4 – This week’s episode Zachary talks to STL Anonymous about Trapwire, Stratfor leaks, and the growing spy grid being put in place. We also discuss the Anonymous-based activism that happened in St. Louis on October 20th from Noon-10pm downtown at Keiner Plaza.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN OR DOWNLOAD

Todd Akin Says NDAA Is Constitutional

Todd Akin

Zachary Cole
11/05/12
TyrannyWatch.org

The indefinite detention section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has been a hot button issue since its ratification into law. Basically this section of the bill declares US territory as a battlefield and gives the government power to detain citizens for an undetermined amount of time without due process. It also lay out in this section, albeit vaguely, that anyone associated or frequently communicates with those the government deems as terrorists can be place under the same treatment. This could potentially include journalists, veterans, and those that network with various political or religious groups.

Senator McCain, co-author of the bill, confirmed that US citizens could be indefinitely detained and Senator Lindsey Graham even went as far to say that an American can be killed. Senator Carl Levin, who is another author, surprisingly exposed the Obama administration on the floor by saying that it was the president that insisted indefinite detention be left in the bill (despite telling the media he was not for it). Although there was little debate from the Republicans or Democrats, President Obama still insisted on his objection and signed the bill into law under the eve of a New Year (2012). He tried to justify his action with a signing statement promising not to use the power of indefinite detention on US citizens. This of course broke his previous word that he would veto the bill if it included this section and as we have seen since its ratification into law the government has used it to detain indefinitely and even kill US citizens (like that of Anwar al-Awlaki).

Now we are again on another eve but this time it is the election of 2012. A lot is up for grabs this time around and it is not just the office of president. Locally in Missouri we have a heated race between Senator Claire McCaskill (D) and Representative Todd Akin (R). Akin most recently he has been in hot water for his statement on abortion for victims of rape which lead to a firestorm of condemnation from the left and right.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE