See police confiscate guns from Americans
From Katrina to Seattle to small-town Alabama, watch the unthinkable
Published: 14 hours ago
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓
Is it possible – or even imaginable – that in the United States of America, police could go door to door and confiscate citizens’ legally owned firearms?
To many, such a concern is conspiratorial and evidence of paranoia. They might be surprised to learn that not only has outright gun confiscation of legally purchased weapons already occurred in a major way in the U.S., but public officials in some areas are right now attempting to pass legislation to allow more of the same.
Alas, with the national furor over multiple new gun restrictions being proposed by President Obama via “executive action,” in Congress, in state legislatures and in municipalities, the plan being forwarded by officials in Guntersville, Ala., this week drew scarcely a mention in the media.
Mayor Leigh Dollar says that in case of an emergency or crisis, she wants police officers to have the authority to “disarm individuals, if necessary.”
“We are not trying to infringe upon anyone constitutional rights whatsoever,” she says. “It’s just to protect the workers working out there in a disaster.”
The ordinance is up for debate at the city council meeting next week.
Such blatant grabs for guns are not new in the U.S. Less than a year ago, the Second Amendment Foundation fought a court battle over a North Carolina regulation that banned firearms and ammunition outside the home during any declared emergency, and won.
Get “Shooting Back,” the DVD about the man who fought off terrorists in his own church, and now explains why good people NEED guns.
And just days ago, it was revealed that a provision in a new Washington-state gun-control bill was so draconian that even its sponsors backtracked or denied any knowledge of it when they were confronted about it.
As Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat reported , the “Orwellian” measure would allow the county sheriff to inspect the homes of owners of so-called “assault weapons” to ensure the weapons were stored properly.
In the post-Newtown debate, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke speaks for many of the nation’s sheriffs in saying such firearms seizure plans are flat-out unconstitutional and they won’t enforce them.
“The people in Milwaukee County do not have to worry about me enforcing some sort of order that goes out and collects everybody’s handgun, or rifles, or any kind of firearm and makes them turn them in,” he told radio talker Alex Jones. “The reason is I don’t want to get shot, because I believe that if somebody tried to enforce something of that magnitude, you would see the second coming of an American Revolution, the likes of which would make the first revolution pale by comparison.”
Is such a scenario even imaginable in the United States of America – the scene of officers pounding on your door, or worse yet, inside your home throwing you up against a wall and pounding on you because happen to have a legally owned weapon for self-defense?
Although many Americans don’t know it, that is exactly what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Thousands of weapons – legally obtained and owned – were simply grabbed from citizens after New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III announced, “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.” Just to make sure the message was loud and clear, the city’s Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley told ABC News: “No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons.”
Then they did exactly that.
One man at a post-Katrina meeting assembled in conjunction with the National Rifle Association said, “The bottom line is this. Once they did it, they set a precedent. And what we’ve got to be sure [of] is that the precedent stops here.”
In a series of videos, the NRA has documented the stunning weapons grab by police in New Orleans, assembling videos that show them physically taking weapons from individuals, including one woman who was stunned when officers threw her against her kitchen wall because she had a small handgun for self-defense.
The not-to-be-forgotten images, Part 1:
The police actions – many of the victims describe the gun confiscation as out-and-out theft – left New Orleans’ residents, who had been prepared to stand their ground and defend themselves from thugs and looters running amok, completely defenseless.
Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, told WND such plans “start smacking of a non-The United States of America” and more of “some Third World country.”
The government, he said, appears to want ever more control over people’s lives, which “is crippling the ability of people to defend themselves … in situations like a Hurricane Katrina where the police were nowhere around and people were taking up arms to protect their property.”
He noted that since the U.S. Supreme Court has determined police do not have a constitutional obligation to protect people from crime, self-reliance often can be the key to survival.
Gun confiscation schemes, then, mean “we’re going to have a citizenry that is helpless in the face of lawless people.” And that, said Thompson, is simply unconstitutional.
Herb Titus, a nationally known constitutional attorney and law professor, told WND government’s claim always is that such draconian powers will only be used “in an emergency situation.”
But there are so many “emergencies,” he said, that “all of our rights are in jeopardy.”
“It’s typical of the government to do this, typical of this age. You see the government believes it can make the decision for you better than you can make it for yourself. There’s a lot of this from the Obama administration,” he said.
The result? Government “as our master, rather than servant,” he said.
The danger is great, he added, noting that all the major scourges around the globe – Hitler, Mao, Stalin – started with weapons confiscation from victim populations.
Mathew Staver, chairman of the public interest law firm Liberty Counsel, told WND Americans “should be shocked and rightly concerned” at attempts to ban and confiscate guns.
“This is a significant threat to our freedoms,” he said. “When the government takes away the ability to defend yourself, it crosses the line.”
Recorded testimonies from the NRA videos are stunning, including these statements from law-abiding residents of New Orleans who were subject to the city’s “emergency” gun confiscation:
“They didn’t care what your rights were.”
“They were drawing down on ME?”
“I thought they were going to kill me.”
“They really did a number on me,” from Patty Konie, who was thrown against her kitchen wall by police officers taking her handgun.
“You’re treated like a criminal and you did nothing wrong,” from Richard Styron.
“The took something they didn’t have a right to take.”
NRA officials said on the organization’s video that even after the danger was over, gun owners were not allowed to get their weapons back. Some had been destroyed by police officers; others were taken without an identifying receipt, so the owners had no way to prove their ownership.
Several even had original purchase receipts, but were not allowed to retrieve their guns.
As a result, many of the victims of gun confiscation reported what they called almost “religious conversions” – from being apathetic about the Second Amendment to being strong supporters. One man reported 30 participants in his latest gun training class.
Experts warn the danger is real and current. Just days ago, the United States Army general credited with “restoring” order in post-Katrina New Orleans said Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel needs to ask for all the federal help he can get to fight the escalating violence in the Windy City.
Retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who served as the commander of Joint Task Force Katrina in 2005, told WLS-TV in Chicago that similar efforts to those used in New Orleans are needed to restore order in Chicago.
“Well, you know, if we had a natural disaster, the mayor and the governor would be able to ask for a federal declaration and get all the government assistance to house and shelter people, and emergency power,” said Honore.
“We have a similar things happening on the human capital side,” he added. “That is communities that are being exploited by violence where our citizens who spent their lives in these communities are not free. That shouldn’t happen in America. The mayor and governor should ask for federal assistance in all of government. I’m talking about healthcare, educational opportunities, dealing with mental health issues, after school programs, and additional police that should control our streets. This is America.”
When asked by WLS if the National Guard should patrol certain streets of Chicago, Honore stopped short of endorsing the idea.
“I think that the first thing you do is have an expansion of police, bringing in other police officers from cities around Chicago and the state to control the situation and maintain control in the part of the city that has the violence. And surveillance, it’s amazing what happens when you put cameras on every corner. Reinforce the liberties of the people to be able to walk the street so little girls like [15-year-old Hadiaya] Pendleton don’t get shot.”
What about gun confiscation?
Honore said the same measures used in New Orleans are needed in Chicago.
That’s despite a murder death rate in Chicago that’s greater, over the past decade, than the number of American forces who have died in Afghanistan since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom. And yet the city remains one of the most difficult in the nation in which to buy or possess a firearm.
Outright gun confiscation would not be new to Chicago. In 1994, as the Chicago Tribune reported, special squads of police officers were sent to patrol the hallways and stairways at the Chicago Housing Authority’s Robert Taylor Homes. Then-Mayor Richard Daley said U.S. District Judge Wayne Andersen was allowing systematic, apartment-by-apartment searches by police under certain circumstances. Police Supt. Matt Rodriguez said the “mission teams” of patrol officers, detectives and gang crime specialists also were dispatched to other South Side areas.
Civil rights lawyers argued the warrantless searches and confiscations were blatantly unconstitutional.
Like Wisconsin’s Sheriff Clarke, hundreds of U.S. sheriffs have said they will not participate in gun confiscation, including Collin County Sheriff Terry G. Box, who posted on Facebook, “Neither I nor any of my deputies will participate in the enforcement of laws that violate our precious constitutional rights, including our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”
WND by JOHN UNRUH (Remember this poem, “First They Came for the Jews,” attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller: “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.” One cannot pick and choose, according to personal beliefs, which Constitutional liberties to defend without first fighting to uphold the US Constitution in its entirety. To do otherwise is to do nothing at all.. JM, My Two Sense))
Obama’s DOJ targets religious freedom, again
Argues gov’t knows better than parents what benefits children
Published: 16 hours ago
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓
The Obama administration has launched another challenge to the rights of individuals to act on their religious beliefs, this time focusing on a family of homeschoolers.
The administration already has argued in legal cases against the Obamacare contraceptive mandate that religious business owners can be forced to pay for abortifacients for their workers in violation of their religious beliefs.
Repeatedly, the government has referenced its dedication to the freedom of “worship,” altering the First Amendment’s assurances of freedom of religion.
Now comes a case in which the administration is seeking to return a family of homeschoolers to Germany, where they likely would be persecuted for their religious objections to the mandatory public school system.
Attorneys for the Justice Department are arguing before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a government has every right to demand that parents send their children to public schools, even if the schools’ teaching conflicts with the family’s religious beliefs.
Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, found the position adopted by the Obama administration startling.
The administration contends subjecting children to those teachings for several dozen hours a week doesn’t violate any religious or human rights.
“Does anyone think that our government would say to Orthodox Jewish parents, we can force your children to eat pork products for 22-26 hours per week because the rest of the time you can feed them kosher food?” he wrote in a website commentary.
He warned that while the case involves German homeschoolers who were granted asylum in the U.S. by an immigration judge because of the persecution they likely would face on being returned to Germany, there’s an application for Americans.
“When the United States government says that homeschooling is a mutable choice – they are saying that it is a characteristic that a government can legitimately coerce you to change. In other words, you have no protected right to choose the education for your children. Our nation could remove your ability to homeschool and your choice would be mutable – since the government has the authority to force you to implement their wishes,” he said.
“The prospect for German homeschooling freedom is not bright. But we should not reserve all of our concern for the views of the German government. Our own government is attempting to send German homeschoolers back to that land to face criminal prosecutions with fines, jail sentences, and removal of custody of children,” he said.
“We should understand that in these arguments by the U.S. government, something important is being said about our own liberties as American homeschoolers. The attorney general of the United States thinks that a law that bans homeschooling entirely violates no fundamental liberties.”
The case involves the family of Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, who in 2010 were granted asylum in the U.S. because Germany was persecuting them as homeschoolers. They had been fined nearly $10,000 for refusing to allow their children to be subjected to the social indoctrination in German schools.
Then the Obama administration went to court to send them back to Germany.
Farris pointed out the asylum law allows a refugee to remain in the U.S. due to the threat of persecution for any of several reasons, including for religious reasons or being part of a “particular social group.”
But Attorney General Eric Holder’s official position is that the family doesn’t qualify, even though the Supreme Court of Germany already publicly declared the purpose of the German ban on homeschooling was to “counteract the development of religious and philosophically motivated parallel societies.”
The Obama administration position is that it is irrelevant that the children were “bombarded with negative influences” in the German public schools that included “alleged teaching of evolution, abortion, homosexuality, disrespect for parents, teachers, and other authority figures, disrespect for students, bullying, witchcraft, disrespect for family values and ridicule of Christian values.”
The German goal, Farris explained, is “to prohibit people who think differently from the government (on religious or philosophical grounds) from growing and developing into a force in society.”
“It is thought control. It is belief control. It is totalitarianism dressed up in politically correct lingo,” he said.
But he said the what should be alarming for Americans is the “state of the position of our government at a very high level.”
He said the executive branch is arguing that it’s no problem to ban homeschooling.
“There are two major portions of constitutional rights of citizens – fundamental liberties and equal protection. The U.S. attorney general has said this about homeschooling. There is no fundamental liberty to homeschool. So long as a government bans homeschooling broadly and equally, there is no violation of your rights.
“A second argument is revealing. The U.S. government contended that the Romeikes’ case failed to show that there was any discrimination based on religion because, among other reasons, the Romeikes did not prove that all homeschoolers were religious, and that not all Christians believed they had to homeschool.
“The central problem here is that the U.S. government does not understand that religious freedom is an individual right. One need not be a part of any church or other religious group to be able to make a religious freedom claim. Specifically, one doesn’t have to follow the dictates of a church to claim religious freedom – one should be able to follow the dictates of God Himself,” Farris wrote.
“The United States Supreme Court has made it very clear in the past that religious freedom is an individual right. Yet our current government does not seem to understand this. They only think of us as members of groups and factions. It is an extreme form of identity politics that directly threatens any understanding of individual liberty.”
Germany is notorious for its attacks on homeschooling families. In one case several years ago, a young teen was taken from her family and put into a psychiatric ward because she was homeschooled.
Fines and even jail terms are common for those who offend the mandatory public school indoctrination there.
But WND previously reported on a law journal article that undermines the arguments from the Obama administration.
The article, “Germany Homeschoolers as ‘Particular Society Group’: Evaluation Under Current U.S. Asylum Jurisprudence,” was written by Miki Kawashima Matrician and published in the 2011 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review.
It focuses on the case of the Romeikes.
In 2006 the family withdrew the children from Germany’s public schools and started homeschooling because of concerns over content in modern German textbooks that violated the family’s religious beliefs. The family said the objectionable material included explicit lessons on sex, the promotion of the occult and witchcraft and an effort to teach children to disrespect authority figures.
Weeks later, German police officers entered the Romeike home without a written court order and “forcibly” removed the children to escort them to public school.
$10,000 in fines accumulated for the family.
Then after German court rulings that year and in 2007 “paved the way for the German government to take custody of homeschooled children, the Romeikes fled Germany for fear of losing their children.
The Romeikes entered the U.S. as tourists in 2008 and requested asylum based on the persecution threatened by the German government.
An immigration judge in 2010 granted asylum, but the Obama administration immediately filed an appeal, which remains pending
“The BIA should find that all German homeschoolers comprise a ‘particular social group,’ regardless of whether the Romeike family successfully established a claim of ‘well-founded fear of persecution,’” the article argued.
The problem is that a Nazi-era law in Germany in 1938, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, eliminated exemptions that would provide an open door for homeschoolers under the nation’s compulsory education laws.
The author warned that such “unfavorable treatment” is not unique to Germany.
“There is a robust debate in the United States and elsewhere regarding the validity of homeschooling as a means of education. For instance, in February 2008 the Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles handed down a surprising decision upholding the constitutionality of a state statute prohibiting homeschooling for children between the ages of 6 and 18 unless their parents possess teaching credentials,” the author noted.
While that decision later was reversed, there also is a movement “to end homeschooling in United Nations member countries on the theory that a child’s right to education may be vindicated only by compulsory education in traditional schools outside the home,” she wrote.
Further, WND has reported on social services agencies in Sweden taking possession of a child, against the wishes of the parents, enforced by the presence of armed police officers.
But in the law, there are several provisions that support homeschooling, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The first states that “everyone has the right to education,” “elementary education shall be compulsory” and “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children,” the author noted.
The ICESCR recognizes, “The liberty of parents … to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the state and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”
And the European Convention states, “The state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
Germany effectively makes homeschooling illegal because of laws that make raising and training children a responsibility of the government.
Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, previously wrote on the issue in a blog, explaining the German government “has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion.”
As WND reported, the German government believes schooling is critical to socialization, as evident in its response to another set of parents who objected to police officers picking up their child at home and delivering him to a public school.
“The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling,” said a government letter. “… You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. … In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/obamas-doj-targets-religious-freedom-again/#yvQM2D5XimEWwDZQ.99
- Obama’s DOJ targets religious freedom, again (wnd.com)
- Obama targets homeschoolers (educationviews.org)
- Holder Opposes Individual Religious Liberty in Romeike v Holder (independentsentinel.com)
- Our Homeschool rights may be impacted by German homeschool case (home4schooling.wordpress.com)
- German Couple Who Want to Homeschool Their Kids Fighting to Stay in the U.S. (reason.com)
- Eric Holder: Banning Homeschooling Doesn’t Violate Fundamental Rights (vineoflife.net)
- Eric Holder: Homeschool Ban Doesn’t Violate Fundamental Rights (joemiller.us)
Donilon, White House vs. Hagel over Hezbollah, EU Terror List
Yesterday, White House national security adviser Tom Donilon published an op-ed in the New York Times urging the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist organizations. In doing so, Donilon took the opposite position to that of Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel, who has resisted urging the EU to do so.
Donilon was reacting to the outcome of an official investigation by Bulgaria into last summer’s bus bombing in Burgas, which killed several Israeli tourists and a local bus driver. The Bulgarian government concluded that Hezbollah was responsible for the terror attack–against heavy diplomatic pressure from other European governments, which are eager to preserve the fiction that Hezbollah has become a legitimate political group.
Barack Obama to actively campaign against the sequester THAT HE HIMSELF PROPOSED.
And he’s going to do it with the usual living props, too: “President Barack Obama will once again call on members of Congress to avoid the mandatory spending cuts due to hit at the end of the month, joined by first responders whose jobs may be on the line, according to a White House official.” Some thoughts on this: This is remarkably small-ball for a | Read More »
Mystery over the SEVEN-MILE long ‘super mega-pod’ of 100,000 dolphins spotted off the coast of San Diego
PUBLISHED: 17:29 EST, 17 February 2013 | UPDATED: 05:20 EST, 18 February 2013
A group of over 100,000 dolphins spotted off the coast of San Diego caused a spectacle for nature watchers as they traveled together in an enormous pack.
‘They were coming from all directions, you could see them from as far as the eye can see,’ Joe Dutra said after seeing the spectacle first hand.
Mr Dutra, who captains Hornblower Cruises, was out on his daily tour with a boat full of nature watchers when he spotted the massive group of dolphins.
Colorado Democrat Says Women Can’t Be Trusted With Guns, Backers Fail To Rebuke
While debating a bill on the Colorado house floor that would ban all firearms from Colorado university campuses, freshman lawmaker Joe Salazar (D-Thorton) suggested female college students should not have guns …
Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar’s Unacceptable Non-Apology
If you haven’t already seen it, here’s Colorado Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar telling women they’re incapable of determining when there is or isn’t a threat against them:
And here’s his “apology,” courtesy of KDVR:
“I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention,” Salazar said. “We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong.
In classic liberal fashion, Salazar hasn’t apologized for his offensive claim that women can’t tell whether or not they’re in danger of being raped. Instead, he’s apologized that you were too stupid to understand him.
But what’s equally disturbing is Salazar’s claim he doesn’t “believe” guns make campuses safer. The data is readily available. Colleges are required to report their crime statistics to the FBI in a uniform report that is publicly available. If Salazar weren’t blindfolding himself to the world and blasting the party line at 120 decibels, five minutes of research would have shown him that sex offenses at Colorado State University fell off a cliff in the wake of the 2003 concealed carry law.
Originally posted at ErikSoderstrom.com as “Rep. Joe Salazar’s Unacceptable Non-Apology“
DOOFUS PRESIDENT is at it again–the same ol’ song and dance!
Obama: ‘The Problem Is I’m Not The Emperor Of The United States’
Posted on February 16, 2013
President Obama took part Thursday in what the White House called a “Fireside Hangout — our 21st century take on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats.” During the event, which was broadcast on the White House’s official YouTube channel and Google+, the president was asked about the administration’s deportation of 1.5 million illegal immigrants.
When asked specifically what he would do to make sure more families weren’t deported, Mr. Obama responded: “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”
MY TWO SENSE
Praise God he isn’t Emperor of the U. S.! Why did he respond in that way? Why not refer to our Constitution in his answer? Why not defend American citizens and say, “ENOUGH ALREADY with the added burdens on our people? ” As for his statement about enforcing the law; that was the biggest yuck of all time! And, by the way, to Stalin’s young and “useful idiots,” you should know that the past 50 years have witnessed amnesty for so many millions of illegal immigrants, that, unless they did not reproduce, have reached an approximate figure of 100 million people more than would have if not for all those amnesties.
Report: Venezuela’s Intelligence Service Is Spying on the Country’s Jewish Community
Feb. 4, 2013 8:59am Sharona Schwartz
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gestures before voting in Caracas on October 07, 2012. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)
Leaked documents published on an Argentinean website show that Venezuela’s intelligence service SEBIN has been spying on Venezuela’s small Jewish community as well as on organizations that do business with Israel.
The Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) National Director Abraham Foxman said he is “deeply troubled” by the reported policy and condemned it in a statement:
Venezuela under the regime of Hugo Chavez has a history of harassing the Jewish community in that country. It is chilling to read reports that the SEBIN received instructions to carry out clandestine surveillance operations against members of the Jewish community, as described in detail in documents leaked by the Argentinean web site, Analisis24.
In a country where the government and some of its followers have publicly accused the Jewish community of disloyalty and where the community’s institutions and houses of worship have been attacked, reports of this kind of surveillance add fuel to an already incendiary atmosphere inciting prejudice and hate. For more than a decade, elements of the Venezuelan government-run media and the so-called “alternative” media operated by Chavez government supporters have regularly engaged in spreading anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and promoting anti-Semitic stereotypes.
During the presidential elections in October, President Hugo Chavez employed anti-Semitic barbs to vilify his opponent Henrique Capriles Radonski, a Catholic of Jewish descent. A Tel Aviv University report examining the election campaign described Chavez’s methods which included: “defamation, intimidation and conspiracy theories, many of which portray Capriles as a Zionist agent, and by mixing classic and neo-antisemitism.”
American Jewish organizations including the ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center slammed Chavez’s efforts to suggest his opponent was disloyal due to his Jewish roots. The Simon Wiesenthal Center pointed to a column on the state-run Radio Nacional de Venezuela’s website which described the Jewish ancestry of opposition leader Radonski only to then label him a secret follower of Zionism, a movement the website described as “the most rotten sentiments represented by humanity.”
Abraham Foxman of the ADL said then: “Blatant and persistent anti-Semitism is used by President Chavez and his government apparatus as a divisive political tool.”
“What we are seeing at the outset of Venezuela’s presidential elections is an attempt to cast the opposition candidate as a ‘traitorous Jew’ who is unworthy of the presidency,” he added.
The ADL provides more detail on the Argentinean news report:
The Analisis24 article suggests there is an official government policy targeting Venezuela’s Jewish community. We strongly condemn these dangerous intimidation tactics and call on the current leadership of the Venezuelan government to immediately cease targeting the Jewish community.
The Analisis24 report, which has since been republished on at least one web site Venezuela, included several documents, mainly from 2010, with specific, private and official information about Jewish Venezuelans. For instance, among the documents posted are the official passport information of members of an NGO related to Holocaust remembrance, including all entry and exits from the country and where the members traveled.
Since Chavez came to power in 1999, there has been an upsurge in anti-Semitism in the Latin American country while its president has forged warm ties with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a leader who has stated his desire to destroy Israel.
Not surprisingly, during Chavez’s reign, the Jewish community has dwindled from 30,000 to just 9,000.
- Venezuela Reportedly Spying on Jewish Community (israelnationalnews.com)
- Report: Venezuela Spied on Members of Jewish Community (algemeiner.com)
- Report: Venezuela is spying on Jewish community (jta.org)
- Jews are spies and infiltrators, Venezuelan secret documents show (destroyzionism.com)
- Venezuela’s Secret Service Spying on ‘Far Right-Wing Zionists’ (jewishpress.com)
- Latin American Jewish Congress meets in Venezuela to strengthen its Jewish community (jta.org)
Farrakhan Accuses U.S. Gov’t of Plot to Kill Billions Using Eugenics, Planned Parenthood and the AIDS Virus: ‘It Was Concentrated in the Black Community’
Feb. 4, 2013 9:33am Billy Hallowell
In the fourth installment of his 52-week sermon series, “The Time and What Must Be Done,” the Minister Louis Farrakhan accused former Sec. of State Henry Kissinger of implementing a plan to kill two to three billion people across the globe. The controversial Nation of Islam leader questioned whether AIDS was one of the chosen tools used and he warned Mexicans and other minorities that they, too, could soon fall victim to eugenics at the hands of the U.S. government.
Farrakhan described a plot that he claims was implemented — one that allegedly had dire consequences for black people across the globe, noting that scarce resources and the quest for U.S. dominion likely led to the sinister attempt at population reduction.
“Under Kissinger a plan was hatched that two to three billion people on our planet would have to be [killed],” Farrakhan proclaimed in his weekly address. ”But the people that Kissinger — and the U.S. government agreed with Mr. Kissinger — these people who would be killed would be in the Third World. But since this culling has many third world people in industrialized countries, in would start as well in the industrialized countries.”
The Minister Louis Farrakhan (Photo Credit: YouTube)
From there, Farrakhan became more specific, asking some odd questions and waging pointed accusations at the U.S. government:
“Could this be why, in Africa, AIDS is slaughtering black men and women by the tens of thousands, particularly in those areas where the mineral resources of that area is necessary to keep America in power in this 21st century? Could it be that this is why black women in America are said to be the number one carrier of the [AIDS] virus? Could this be that 30 years ago when the birthrate of blacks was outstripping the birthrate of whites — so much so that demographers said by 2050 blacks would either be equal to the population of whites or greater than their population — and they didn’t stand still on those figures? They went to work with eugenics and Planned Parenthood and pills that aborted children. And it was concentrated in the black community. At that time, the Hispanics were not the ones that were the majority of the minority populations. It was the blacks.”
Farrakhan next warned that “the same genocidal thoughts” will next come against Mexicans and other minorities in America. His claims of murderous intent then moved from the U.S. government to “white supremacists,” whom he said “cannot abide that this country that was made by white people for white people will now be in the hands of brown people.” These people, he claims, have been particularly agitated that an African American, President Barack Obama, is inhabiting the White House.
Watch Farrakhan explain his theories, below:
- Farrakhan Condemns Gun Ownership in a ‘Volatile America’: ‘There Is No Need for the American People to Be Armed to the Teeth’
- Farrakhan Promises God Has ‘Execution’ Planned for America: A ‘Savage,’ ‘Brutal’ and ‘Uncivilized’ People and Nation
- Farrakhan Claims CT Shooting Massacre Could Be a Lesson From God: ‘Chickens Coming Home to Roost
REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
President John Adams ~ October 2, 1780
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
In the Pledge of Allegiancewe all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. “Republic” is the proper description of our government, not “democracy.” I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word “people” may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to “liberty and justice for all.” Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People’s rights vs Citizens’ rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution’s first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONSGovernment. ….the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ….In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, “the government objects to the witness.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
Note: Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.
Democratic Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual’s household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.
The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, “It is for the common good!” The other side rebuttals, “This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!” Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority is ignored. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, every individual must reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has mandatory powers in a democracy. Those who wish to go against the collective (whole body politic) will be punished accordingly. The minority has neither voice nor rights to refuse to accept the dictatorial majority. Everything is mandatory in a democracy. This brings dictatorship and lividity to the realm.
Republican Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual’s household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.
The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, “It is for the common good!” The other side rebuttals, “This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!” Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic. Bearing in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority. He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule. The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.
COMMENTSNotice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government’s only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.
The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people —> government agencies —> and citizens.
The people did “ordain and establish this Constitution,” not for themselves, but “for the United States of America.” In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the “Great Experiment in self government.” The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, “Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?”
The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.
Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).
There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.” The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.
It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?
* “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
- Ron Paul: When the Republic Returns By Displacing Banker’s Democracy! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Warning to :::::: We the People (tatoott1009.com)
- Democracy versus Liberty (nalonmit.wordpress.com)
- Democracy versus Liberty (the2012scenario.com)
- Democracy is not Freedom! It’s a Scam! (disclose.tv)
- Republic or Democracy? (josephprestonkirk.wordpress.com)
- Peaceful Politics (Part 1) (thenewworldreporter.com)
- Political Vel Craft Back In Russia: Pravda ~ Son Of Joe Biden Attempts To Quash The Sovereign Powers Of The United States Sheriffs! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Democracy as distraction (oup.com)
- Mass Arrests of the Dark Cabal – Why & How? (pathwaytoascension.wordpress.com)
- Our Gullibility Potential (americanclarion.com)
- The Reason Why America Isn’t The Democracy (socyberty.com)
- A nation of wimps, victims and cowards (askmarion.wordpress.com)
- [People] FOI: Waiting for the Hail Mary Pass By Walden Bello (hronlineph.com)
- Our Protections Against Tyranny (bettercareful.newsvine.com)
- Democracy vs A Republic (usdailyreview.com)
- ILYA SOMIN: What to Do When Illiberal, Anti-Democratic Forces Take Power Through the Democratic Pro… (pjmedia.com)
Saturday, February 2, 2013
|image: INDECT homepage|
The race to perfect and implement true pre-crime technology continues to accelerate. Stalwarts of computer tech, such as IBM seen below, and Microsoft in their agreement with the New York police, are investing in a cooperative effort with big government to hit the last nail in the coffin of human liberty – our thoughts.
Anonymous has previously issued several warnings and action items to thwart the encroaching surveillance grid, and now brings to light INDECT 2013 in their recent semi-satirical video. Whether or not Anonymous is controlled opposition shouldn’t preclude investigation of this very real program. The INDECT initiative was reported on by The Singularity Hub back in 2009 as:
a wide ranging five year plan to bring passive and active monitoring to almost every aspect of public life in the EU. Hardware and software platforms to monitor public spaces for ‘abnormal behavior’, special search engines for images and documents using ubiquitous hidden digital watermarks, and internet based intelligence gathering that will monitor public networking communities – if you’ve had a nightmare about government invasion of privacy, chances are that Project Indect is trying to make it come true. (Source)
After tens of millions of pounds in funding, it seems that we are on the cusp of what INDECT promised for the “security of European citizens.The core of INDECT is real-time behavioral analysis and mapping which ultimately could produce an algorithm of likely future behavior. It is the amalgamation of all of the pieces that have so far been introduced: video surveillance footage, biometric information, web-based data, drones, GPS, police databases and more. The project aims to correct the flaws contained in these disparate systems and offer seamless data integration across platforms in order to instantly determine threats.
Perhaps the creepiest aspect of this technology is the reverence given toward the machine mind vs. the human mind. The video highlights inherent limitations in wide-range human scanning and instant analysis abilities. Mankind, comprised of such weaknesses, is implied to be ill-equipped to handle the new world of the ever-present terrorist and criminal threats. Therefore, humanity must be willing to relinquish its place to the vastly superior machine matrix where real-world tracking and Web searches merge into persistent surveillance of all human activity.
And, naturally, this matrix of systems will be automated, echoing similar goals for drones and other forms of machine warfare. The result is an all-encompassing attempt to render daily life as part of a terrorist threatscape where all are suspect and thus subjected to being scrutinized by the “flawless” scanning devices and decision making of the computer mind.
The following video is IBM’s concept for enabling police to use predictive analytics to reduce crime by up to 30%. It’s worth noting the use of the phrase, “Let’s build a smarter planet.” For key information about the “Smart” planet to which IBM likes to refer, please see the series of articles by Julie Beal, outlining everything from economic control to gun control.
Just in case the above information might prompt anxiety about full implementation of such technology – and despite the fact that much of the surveillance apparatus already exists – we apparently shouldn’t worry, because the European Commission would like to put our minds at ease with the following statement:
Not a European surveillance system
Contrary to widespread allegations, there are no plans for a European wide Orwellian surveillance system. INDECT will simply enable existing video surveillance systems in small areas to better react in crisis situations (such as violence on train platforms, crowd panics, hooligans throwing objects). Such video surveillance systems are already installed in underground stations or in football stadiums. INDECT will not add any new cameras, but will enable existing systems to be more efficient as it will help automate police or security officers’ analysis of the huge amount of images provided through video surveillance cameras.
There will never be a centralized European INDECT system. The EU is merely co-financing a research project implemented by universities and research centres in 12 EU Member States with a total budget of € 15 mio (EU contribution of € 10,9 mio). It will then be up to Members States and research partners to implement decentralised and focussed improved video surveillance systems – in restricted areas – to improve security at places where risk is higher that persons can be harmed.
The main characteristics in a nutshell
INDECT is a security research project co-financed by the EU’s Framework Programme 7 for Research and Innovation (FP7) (INDECT = Intelligent information system supporting observation, searching and detection for security of citizens in urban environment)
INDECT is not installing any cameras in the EU or filming people at random. It is also not linked to any of existing databases and social networks. All that INDECT is working on is an improved way to analyse the existing images of video surveillance cameras.
INDECT is thus developing algorithms to identify images that allow the detection of dangerous or criminal behaviour. Examples could for instance be crowd panic during public events, or when people throw objects in football stadiums.
There is no secret information on INDECT that is not published. There is nothing “secret” about INDECT. All the information on this project can be found on the website of the project and on the websites of the Commission.
INDECT is only tested by volunteers: Like most research projects INDECT is tested by volunteers. It will not be tested in real life situations. No testing of the research carried out by INDECT will take place during sport/entertainment events. An explicit disclaimer has been uploaded on the website of INDECT in 2011 on this matter.
Technologies developed by INDECT are intended for police and other law enforcement authorities of the Member States.
Should Member States intend to use such new technologies within the scope of Union law, they are bound to comply with the existing national and EU laws.
Advantages of INDECT
INDECT could have helped to avoid mass panic during the Loveparade in Duisburg, Germany
One could easily imagine situations where such a technology could have been very useful, like the crowd rush at the Loveparade in Duisburg or the tragedy in the Heysel Stadium in Brussels in 1985.
The INDECT project is trying to tackle an essential problem for police work – there is too much surveillance footage to monitor.Mass panics can be better dealt with, ambulances better directed, lives can be saved
In times of crisis or attacks it is nearly impossible for the police to monitor all the information provided by today’s surveillance technologies. The most explicit example for this was the London bombing in 2005 which lead to the deaths of 52 innocent people.
Following these attacks, the metropolitan police had to withdraw hundreds of police from the streets and put them in front of screens to identify the attackers and their background.
Media do not report accurately on INDECT. Several media outlets have reported misleading information on the nature and aims of the INDECT project. This is a sign of a healthy democratic society in which media are free and no one can impose boundaries on the free flow of information. For the sake of accuracy, we have listed below a selection of misleading articles accompanied by the correct facts.
INDECT was not tested during the UEFA football championship. This was incorrectly reported by Die Zeit, Der Spiegel, AFP, Focus, Der Standard
Poland did not withdraw from the project. This was incorrectly reported by Dziennik Gazeta Prawna in the article “O tym, jak MSW wystraszylo sie Anonymusa” page: 1 by Robert Zielinski on Monday, April 16, 2012 ; and by Polska The Times in the article “MSW i policja wycofuja sie ze wspólpracy nad INDECT” page: 3 by Anita Czupryn on Monday, April 16, 2012
Not the EU, but researchers in 12 EU Member States work on INDECT
The European Commission is not working on INDECT, but is financing research carried in 12 Member States.
This statement, which can be read in full here, includes some of the additional wonderful benefits of such technology. I have to wonder which is more Orwellian: the technology itself, or the doublespeak issued by the European Commission that denies direct involvement while admitting to funding the project.
What do you think? Please leave your comments below.
- Anonymous #OpBigBrother 02/23/2013 #IDP13 International Day for Privacy (leaksource.wordpress.com)
- ARGUS: The Technology that Takes Video Surveillance to Another Level (sgtreport.com)
- Yes, U.S. authorities can spy on EU cloud data. Here’s how (zdnet.com)
- Surveillance and Security Equipment: Technologies and Global Markets (sacbee.com)
- How Cell Phone Tech Resulted In The Spookiest Surveillance Camera On Earth (businessinsider.com)
- DARPA shows off 1.8-gigapixel surveillance drone, can spot a terrorist from 20,000 feet (extremetech.com)
- ARGUS: The Technology that Takes Video Surveillance to Another Level (video) (flowofwisdom.com)