ledeagenda.com

Got this blast from the, “Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms”:

Obama and the White House are looking the other way as Lautenberg seeks to ban guns from 1,000,000 US citizens on a secret FBI terrorist watch list. Obama has deliberately and repeatedly lied to America’s 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone’s firearms. Now Obama’s silence endorses Lautenberg’s latest attempt at banning guns.

Lautenberg has now introduced bill S. 1317 that would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. We must defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General.

…

How you ask? Trial by innuendo and misinformation that has put 1,000,000 Americans and maybe even you on a terrorist watch list without your knowledge by saying: people placed on this government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, and will also be stopped from buying a gun.

Being skeptical of the 30-40 emails a day I get from various special interest groups I decided it would be prudent to investigate the claims of CCRKBA. What I discovered was shocking end-run around our second amendment rights to individually possess firearms, as reaffirmed by the Court in the Heller case last year.

S. 1317 would:

To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.

On a surface level, it sound’s reasonable. Denying weapons to terrorists. Most reasonable people would agree that sounds like a good idea. The problem is that the devil is in the details and S. 1317 is amending a section of the Patriot Act that defines “terrorism”.

S. 1317 amends a section 2331 of the Patriot Act which defines terrorism as the following:

International Terrorism-  Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended-(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

Domestic Terrorism-  involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended-(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Domestic terrorism then, as defined by the government, is intimidation or coercion to affect the conduct of large groups of people. The problem is that the government is not limiting it’s labeling of people as ’terrorists’ to just those who would, “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping”.

There is legitimate concern that abuse of the ‘No-Fly’ list would greatly accelerate once public acceptance of the extremely secretive list becomes main steam. As it stands today, protesters are terrorists. Constitutionalists are terrorists. Ron Paul supporters, anti-abortion activists, anti-New World Order and North American Union people are all ‘domestic terrorists’. 

In fact, most mainstream opposition to the administration of President Barack Obama can find some aspect of their political beliefs labeled as ‘domestic terrorism’ according the DHS ‘Rightwing Extremism’ and MIAC ‘Modern Militia’ reports. There is no evidence that the government is actively putting the targets of the DHS and MIAC reports on the ‘No-Fly’ list. However, it is clear; President Barack Obama is using the full power of the Department of Homeland Security in an attempt to chill free speech.

For more coverage of the DHS ‘Rightwing Extremism’ and MIAC ‘Modern Militia’ reports click here. 

The real motive of S. 1317 may be a genuine desire to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists, but given the DHS and MIAC reports one has to wonder if this bill is really some fully loaded punch-back with some major issues of constitutional authority and permissibility.

With today’s political environment it is clear, we do not have the luxury of finding out the real motivation of S. 1317, write your Senators and Representatives today. Tell them to send S. 1317 packing.

From the same administration that released the DHS and MIAC reports, labeling citizens who support the Constitution, Ron Paul and limited Federal government as domestic terrorists, comes this beauty:

On Tuesday, the White House posted a blog that asked supporters to report “fishy” information they come across about the health insurance debate. The appeal was made at the end of the blog, which showed a video that countered a set of online clips that made it look like Obama wanted to eliminate private coverage. 

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there,” the blog concludes. “Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.” 

With the request raising the possibility of a kind of Nixonian “enemies list” that would initiate a whole new brand of surveillance over that undertaken during the Bush administration, critics called the move an Orwellian tactic to control the health care debate. 

That’s right, Obama has set up his snitch-line to report those ‘domestic terrorists’ who dare oppose his socialism and unconstitutional government actions.

Consider this: what potential, raw abuses of government/state power await those who dare stand against any political administration who runs afoul of the Constitution? After all, the Department of Homeland Security in it’s, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic And Political Climate” report lists gun owners (pg. 3), opponents of globalization (5), those opposed to abortion (5), same sex marriage (5) and illegal immigration (6), as ‘domestic terrorists’.

Or how about the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report, “The Modern Militia Movement” report which lists those opposed to the New World Order (1), North American Union (4), and universal national service (6) as threats to the American public. Do you fly a Gadsen Flag? The MIAC reports lists you as a domestic terrorist (7). Or how about supporting a third political party? Ron Paul? The Campaign For Liberty? Again, you are a threat to the Homeland (7).

You see, Obama and the cronies moved very, very quickly to establish his enemies list. By working with law enforcement, he is targeting constitutionalists and libertarians for political character assassination in an attempt to marginalize and demean you. He know that adherents to the constitution are the biggest threat to his political agenda and also the biggest opportunity for the Republican party to rebuild. That is he is now going beyond law enforcement and establishing this snitch line only confirms the fact that the American people are waking up, fascism- the total state takeover of our lives- is breathing down our neck if we don’t demand a return to the Constitution, and demand it now.

Well we are going to have a little fun and show this Administration that we are not afraid of his gestapo tactics.

Judge Napolitano writes:

The White House strategy of turning supporters into snitches when they see “fishy” information about the health care debate may run afoul of the law, legal experts say.

“The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it,” Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX News analyst, said Friday. 

“There’s also a statute that requires the White House to retain all communications that it receives. It can’t try to rewrite history by pretending it didn’t receive anything,” he said.

“If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute.”

Napolitano was referring to the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon’s resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech.

So what are we going to do? Simple, we are going to email ‘The Messiah’. Make sure that what you write is in opposition to one of his policies, preferably the reason this email address was created in the first place, nationalized health care. Cap and tax or opposition to the stimulus package are also good suggestions. In any event, just email his snitch line- flag@whitehouse.gov, and then our work begins.

You see, as Judge Napolitano writes, it is against the law for Obama to retain these records on political opponents, but it is also against the law for him to delete communications. You see we are going to force the issue to bring attention to the chilling effects of civilian monitoring that was put into place with the creation of the DHS, and put to use against citizens when Obama came into power. We are going to file Freedom Of Information Act requests to obtain our own emails to the President.

Should Obama fail to produce these records, he is in violation of the statue that requires him to retain communications to his office. Should he provide our own email back to us, he violates the Privacy Act of 1974. Either way, he is caught in a catch-22.

The ACLU notes:

The ACLU said in a statement to FOXNews.com that the White House blog is a “bad idea that could send a troublesome message.”

But the organization added, “While it is unclear at this point what the government is doing with the information it is collecting, critics of the administration’s health care proposal should not fear that their names will end up in some government database that could be used to chill their right to free speech.”

Specifics on filing a FOIA request can be found here, but the most important aspect is this: to ask for both a copy of the email, any database that it was collected in and person’s who it may have been forwarded on to. For the record, the address to mail your request to is as follows:

A request made under the FOIA must be submitted in writing, by mail or fax, to the following address:

Office of Administration
FOIA Officer
725 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20503
Fax: (202) 456-7921

The words FOIA REQUEST should be clearly marked on both the letter and the envelope.

Have fun, and realize this is a smoking gun against unconstitutional Executive and state power. As you get your responses, please let us know so that if necessary we can reverse engineer the President’s enemies list setup.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”- Edmund Burke

Bailouts, reforms, expanded powers of the Federal Reserve. Economic turmoil. Nationalization of our the auto, bank and health care industries.

When you look at all the problems facing us today it almost seems surreal. It almost seems passé  to worry about the erosion of civil liberties due to the expansion of government power and control. Contrast this to the eight years of the Bush presidency when one couldn’t sneeze without someone arguing about how Bush is violating their rights. No one, it seems, is willing to face the reality: Obama, by and large, is carrying on with the exact same agenda, secrecy and expansion of government that his predecessor was. Hope and change has turned out to be nothing more than a marketing gimmick. A intentional disguise to hide the fact that he actually intends to build on what he inherited from President Bush. A cool ploy to hide the man behind the curtain: centralized banking and the power oligarchs.

And I don’t begrudge those haven’t caught up to this fact yet. But the facts are the facts. There will be no end to the war or terror, the war in Iraq or secret military tribunals. There will be no end to the Department of Homeland Security and the so-called Patriot Act. If anything we have seen the emboldenment and elevation of the Terror State since Obama took office. And, just like the patriots warned would happen, the DHS is now starting to label American’s as terrorists for simply supporting the Constitution, waving a Gadsen flag or re-affirming a strong political stance.

What we are facing is really a crises of responsibility. It really boils down to that.

Men, it is time to step up. If you love your life, if you love your country, it is time to step up.

I would like to suggest this: It doesn’t matter if a government program is doing good or bad, by simply existing it is a threat to our liberty and freedom. Decentralize and repeal must become the mantra of the patriot, the Christian, the freeman. We must demand a return to the principals our our forefathers: our rights end were another person’s begin. Taxation operates out of compulsion and force; it is the antithesis of freedom and liberty. We can not support federal government mandated programs where they exceed the 18 limited and enumerated powers of the Constitution, no matter the positive or negative effects to society.

Perhaps some of you are not the ‘political type’. I get that, I really do. But I would like to ask you this: at what point does this system become a problem? How many abuses will you allow to be assailed against you before you petition for redress? Where is your line in the sand?

Think about your home. Your land and home are taxed.  The loan you obtain the home with is taken from a bank owned by the Federal Reserve. The food you fill it with, regulated and controlled in it’s manufacture, marketing and content. The clothes you wear, subject to trade law and the health care you need should you become sick, nationalized. The car in your driveway, built by a company owned by the Federal Government. Your employer, regulated, controlled and taxed. At every aspect of our most basic right to life, liberty and property we find the usurpations and abuses promulgating every aspect of our being.

Consider what Frederic Bastiat wrote in ‘The Law’, 1850:

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.  These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.  For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

Do you see where we are at? Do you see what is at hand? Put most simply: you have a moral obligation to fight against government encroachment into areas that exceed it’s lawful powers. We can no longer be happy with simply fighting for a smaller percentage of government growth, we must reduce the size, scope and authority of said government.

Decentralize and repeal. No longer a choice between two bad idea’s, but honest hope and change. The first step, of course, is for us to take responsibility for our own lives. So I guess the real question of the day is this: what are you doing to promote your own freedom and happiness? What battles are you fighting? Are you dependent on this system that operates on force to help you obtain what you need to survive? These are the questions we must ask.

Men, are we willing to fight this battle for posterity? History will record the result.

*Sigh*Virginia State Police: Assesing Potential Threats Of Violence  Note: This one is too large to upload, save a hard copy.

Reposted before Fox News pulls the story:

A written exam administered by the Pentagon labels “protests” as a form of “low-level terrorism” — enraging civil liberties advocates and activist groups who say it shows blatant disregard of the First Amendment.

The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:

Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”

— Attacking the Pentagon

— IEDs

— Hate crimes against racial groups

— Protests

The correct answer, according to the exam, is “Protests.”

“Its part of a pattern of equating dissent and protest with terrorism,” said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained a copy of the question after a Defense Department employee who was taking the test printed the screen on his or her computer terminal.

“It undermines the core constitutional values the Department of Defense is supposed to be defending,” Brick said, referring to the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble

She said the ACLU has asked the Defense Department to remove the question and send out a correction to all employees who took the exam.

“There were other employees who were unhappy with it and disturbed by it,” Brick said.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk said the Defense Department is looking into the matter and expects to provide more information later Wednesday.

“We need to determine if it’s something we’re currently doing,” Melnyk said. “A lot of the information in this exam is intended for people stationed abroad. We counsel those people to avoid demonstrations.”

Anti-war protesters, who say they have been targets of federal surveillance for years, were livid when they were told about the exam question.

“That’s illegal,” said George Martin, national co-chairman of United for Peace and Justice. “Protest in terms of legal dissent has to be recognized, especially by the authorities.

“It’s not terrorism or a lack of patriotism. We care enough to be active in our government.”

Bill Wilson, president of the Americans for Limited Government, which supported the Tea Party demonstrations earlier this year, agreed.

“Groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, paramilitary orgainzations that are striking at out at something they oppose or hate, that’s terrorism,” Wilson said.

“To equate that in any degree with citizens being able to express themselves seems to me to be headed down a road where all dissent is suspect and questionable.”

Ben Friedman, a research fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, said the U.S. government has a long history of infringing upon citizens’ civil liberties in the name of domestic security.

“It’s the kind of thing that happens when you have large security bureaucracies, which is why they need to be kept in check,” Friedman said. “These things tend to occur in times of panic, like after Sept. 11.”

The ACLU, in a letter of complaint it sent to the Defense Department, catalogued a list of what it said were recent civil liberties violations by federal authorities, including the monitoring of anti-war protests and the FBI’s surveillance of potential protesters at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York.

Martin said getting information on the extent of the FBI and National Security Agency’s surveillance programs is nearly impossible.

“I have been arrested within 100 yards of George W. Bush and spoken out against the policies of our government in more than 100 countries,” he said. “But they said they have no record on me. I don’t believe that.”

During Bush’s presidency, the Defense Department was criticized for infringing on citizens’ civil rights through surveillance programs designed to protect the nation against terrorist attacks. Brick said she has seen no indication that there will be a change in policy under President Obama.

“We need to see what they do,” she said. “In a number of areas the Obama administration has not backed off and kept the Bush administration line.”

See Also:

http://www.ledeagenda.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf

http://www.ledeagenda.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/miac-militia-2009.pdf