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 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.

Obama’s 23 Executive Orders, Don’t be Fooled

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

January 18, 2013

After weeks of threats and esoteric statements about the Obama administration’s Gun Control Committee, the president finally revealed what exactly he plans to do. As promised, Obama issued 23 sweeping executive actions everything from mental health to “gun safety” (which by the way is a term that will be inserted wherever it’s beneficial to the government). Not surprisingly, are the glaring absence of assault weapons and high-capacity magazine bans.

Were all the pro-gun lobbyists wrong? No. In fact, the Obama administration plans to push legislation through Congress. It doesn’t seem that Obama is quite as bold on this issue as he has been on health care and illegal immigration. This is the same president that said in 2010, “So I’ll order an Executive Order, that will allow us to go forward. Because I refuse to pass this problem to another generation of Americans.” Another statement of his in 2011, “I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.  Believe me, right now dealing with Congress the idea… But believe me the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting.”

The above quotes from the president are very telling. Everything from his body language and facial expressions indicate that if he could get away with it, he would and indeed he did on other issues. The latter quote, in the middle of his statement he pauses, while the crowd of sycophants chant, “Yes we can”. Obviously our public school system has failed to transmit to the citizenry what exactly are the functions of the Executive branch. However, what is even more pathetic is the lack of care or knowledge concerning what historically an Executive Order is for. Clearly these actions put forth by the early presidents were only to help in the administration of the Executive branch and not a way to bypass the Legislative or Judicial branches.

The best guess I can make as to why the authoritarians didn’t go for broke is at least due in part to millions of citizens rushing to buy guns declaring a line in the sand concerning the Second Amendment. Another reason why they may have gotten cold feet could be all the calls for the commencement of a second American Revolutionary War. Anybody who does a small bit of research on the events leading up to 1776 will see the obvious correlation between the infringement of the right to bear arms and the rebellion against the British Empire.

Although the Obama administration did not ban anything through executive fiat, they did raise concerns about civil rights violations, profiling, creating a professional “snitch” culture, and the expansion of a nanny state. Below I have listed the 23 executive orders, they are as follows:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

In the near future I hope to give a more thorough breakdown of the executive orders. I also look forward to seeing how the Obama administration implements these actions in light of public resistance. But who knows, there are a lot of spineless activists these days that talk a good game but have no action when it counts.

Continuing on, as I understand the actions:

Order numbers 8, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19 all deal with safety measures and federal intervention within the public school system.

Order numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 all deal with the ATF, FBI, law enforcement, and how they regulate private and commercial purchases of firearms. It also touches on guns that are formally seized and has the potential of creating a no buy list.

Order numbers 7 and 23 seem to indicate an implementation of anti-gun and mental health campaigns aimed to propagate the government’s view on these issues.

Order numbers 2, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 22 all focus on mental health issues and the creation of professional snitches.

Already there are people in the Legislative branch that are ready to resist Obama’s executive orders by nullifying them with a bill. Sen. Rand Paul came out recently and said, “In this bill we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation…And there are several of the executive orders that appear as if he’s writing new law. That cannot happen.” Furthermore he states, “I’m afraid that Pres. Obama may have this ‘king complex’ sort of developing, and we’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen…” If that wasn’t clear enough, Sen. Paul said during an interview for CBN, “I’m against having a king. I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Congress… That’s someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch.”

Hopefully as this issue develops, people who are standing strong now will continue to stand as political pressure mounts. We cannot let a bunch of hen pecking authoritarians drown out our voices or some ninnying yuppie publications like Esquire magazine persuade us to give up 1 inch by their sarcastic satire. Neither can we give in against the political theater of politicians surrounding themselves with children to evoke emotional responses that lack any logical thought. Let us pay close attention to every word and deed of these people because this is a treacherous time.

An American Dictatorship: A Potential Reality

Mao Zedong Propaganda Poster

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

January 7, 2013

Is 2013 going to be the year of political insanity? We have only made it through the first week and thus far seen gun control bills, measures to raise taxes on 77% of Americans, and the list goes on. But the tour through the loony bin isn’t over yet, we have another attempt to consolidate power to the executive branch.

Last Friday, Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano of New York, introduced the bill H.J.Res.15 to Congress that would repeal the 22nd amendment. Basically the repeal would allow presidents to serve more than two terms and essentially become a dictator. As it stands, the 22nd amendment says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice…”

Serrano’s bill states, “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of United States to repeal the 22nd article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as president.” It should be noted, that he has submitted this bill several times over past administrations. Although some may regard this bill as an “unserious proposal” one could see the public warming up to the idea of a limitless term of office if it was applied to a well-liked president.

FDR was the last president to serve more than 4-8 years, before then it was an unwritten law to only serve for two terms. Even George Washington when urged to serve another term refused to do so at the end of his eight-year tenure. A statesman from Virginia named Richard Henry Lee said that having a lack of term limits is “dangerously oligarchic”. However, it wouldn’t be until 1947 that such an amendment would be created.

During George W. Bush’s administration, the former president in PDD 51 gave the executive branch absolute power over the other two branches of government during a catastrophe in a secretive Continuity of Government program. The executive order is not a new action but in the last three administrations they have been used to move the bar closer to an American dictatorship. To make matters worse, executive orders have to be renewed by each administration and to date no sitting president has ever vetoed one that gives them more power.

Whether or not H.J.Res.15 is taken seriously by Congress will be determined by how close we are to a situation that would activate a COG scenario. Currently the president already has the “right” by executive fiat to consolidate power judicially and legislatively unto himself, can control the distribution of food and products, availability of healthcare and medicine, marketing of gasoline, various forms of civilian transportation, and other invasive acts that violate the separation of powers and civil liberties. It is too early to say with any certainty when this could happen but it is important to keep in mind that the authoritarians have all the tools at their disposal. All they are waiting on is the right moment.

Chicago Prepares for Terror Plot

RaHMBoMB

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

As the NATO Summit on May 20-21 approaches in Chicago, we see a heightened sense of paranoia being pushed upon the people of the Windy City. With the recent announcement by the Obama administration that the war on terror is over, a new threat is emerging – citizen terrorists.

The Chicago NATO host committee is not divulging much information but it appears they are preparing for riots and acts of violence to break out by protestors. There are reports of security forces in full armored gear that will be standing guard around federal buildings in the Loop as the date draws near. The Emanuel administration has also put up bids for training aids and new riot gear for horses. According to Mike Shields, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, in addition to new high impact gear for horses they also purchased about 3,000 protective face shields to guard against human waste or flammable liquids being pelted at the officers.

According to the Red Cross, there are plans for a mass evacuation of the downtown area if such an event occurs. Although the Secret Service is denying such a plan, the Milwaukee branch, confirms in a memo that the Summit “may create unrest or another national security incident. The American Red Cross in southeastern Wisconsin has been asked to place a number of shelters on standby in the event of evacuation of Chicago.” The chapter spokesperson of the Red Cross in Milwaukee confirmed that this plan was not there own but the product of the city of Chicago and the Secret Service.

This is not the only measure that is taking place during the globalist Summit. Starting on the 19th a no-fly zone will also be imposed for the downtown area with another 10-30 mile ring around the perimeter. To add to the fear factor they have given the order “shoot-to-kill” to any unauthorized aircrafts. Last February Vislink confirmed that they would be equipping both air and ground vehicles with new surveillance gear to monitor the public. Furthermore, USPS on the 13th will implement a safety tactic by removing their mail collection boxes within the downtown area, McCormick Place, and the scheduled protest route.

READ MORE

Matrix of Terms: False Left-Right Paradigm

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Our first entry in the Matrix of Terms Series we will define what a false left-right paradigm is. In order to understand what this false paradigm is we must comprehend how a true paradigm is defined.

According to anthropology and political science, a left-right paradigm is a natural gravitation in society for people to divide into ideological opposites. A major proponent of this theory is a social anthropologist named Rodney Needham from Britain who believed that this was a basic human device. One can do further study into this subject with Needham’s 1973 work “Right and Left: Essays in Dual Symbolic Classification” (University of Chicago).

A false left-right paradigm is essentially two opposing groups who give the illusion of hopelessly polarizing worldviews but in reality, they share common goals in the overall scope of things (such as the direction of our country towards a global system). Usually these groups disagree on smaller divisive matters, which maybe real, to manipulate and rally the public behind one side or the other. The basic idea behind this practice is to keep people divided, powerless, and to maintain overall influence within their sphere. The Roman Empire was experts at this tool and although they no longer physically rule, their concepts still live. The false paradigm masterfully uses important issues like abortion, gay marriage, entitlement programs, etc. to distract the masses while they bulldoze bills, executive orders, contracts, etc. that usually constrict our freedom and destroy the sovereignty of our country.

The groups that use this tactic also are funded or influenced by many of the same organizations and institutions. It should be no surprise then, when one looks at former associations, donations, and other forms of support we find international financiers, corporations, etc. either running these groups or being benefitted in some way by them. A good example of this is in the European political system we see former Goldman-Sachs officials filling in positions of unelected power to help fix the financial crisis they helped create. The same example is true in America. Goldman-Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and people from the Federal Reserve fill in positions of authority. A simple investigation of presidential appointments within various administrations and with whom they surround themselves exposes a gaggle of technocrats and elitists.

The most common examples we see of the false left-right paradigm in Western politics are Democrats vs. Republicans, Liberal vs. Conservative, and as the term suggest Left wing vs. Right wing. Nowhere is the dynamic tension more apparent then what we see in the mainstream news. Many times, we see video clips of congressional debates or talk radio rants criticizing one group over another but once the cameras are gone, the doors are closed, the real nature of their relationships are revealed. A good example of this was the issue of raising the debt ceiling. When no one was quite as concerned about it there was a consensus between the two parties that it would have to happen. However, just as little as five months later the Republicans made a spectacle of it. This was nothing more then a dog and pony show because Harry Reid said earlier, “I want the Republicans to have some buy-in on the debt…They’re going to have a majority in the House. I think they should have some kind of a buy-in on the debt.” So there we have it, they knew they had to do this, they knew the Democrats had taken the dissension last time, and it was the Republicans turn to do the same. The false paradigm performs this same theatrics on any issue they want to steer. One side plays the “good guys” and the other side plays the “bad guys” depending on whose turn it is.

If we were to put forth a concise definition, it might read something like this: “A false left-right paradigm is a political stratagem that uses people’s natural propensity to belong to a like-minded group to drive public opinion and to change policies and laws to benefit their handler’s interests.