A Nation In Distress

A Nation In Distress

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

LaGuardia TSA botches handling of bomb material | Vision to America

LaGuardia TSA botches handling of bomb material | Vision to America

Monday, January 30, 2012

Why Gun Owners Should Be VERY Worried in 2012

Why Gun Owners Should Be VERY Worried in 2012

Home  »  2nd Amendment  »  Why Gun Owners Should Be VERY Worried in 2012
Jan 28, 2012 4 Comments ›› Staff Writer
We’re slowly inching closer to the day when Barack Hussein Obama will sign the UN Small Arms Treaty, otherwise known as the “UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons.” The UN is set to adopt this gun registration and confiscation treaty in late August of 2012, and Obama has indicated that he will sign it into law, effectively nullifying our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. What’s equally troubling is that 75 percent of the Republican candidates for President have refused to answer questions about this treaty.
America will start to look like a very different country if Obama (or a Republican President) signs this treaty and the Senate ratifies it. As we’ve reported earlier, Obama sidestepped Senate approval of the global Internet censorship treaty by claiming it was an “executive agreement.” Perhaps he’ll do the same with this gun grabbing treaty; no need to follow the rule of law if you’re convinced that you’re right and the Senate might vote against you.
For those who are not familiar with the UN Small Arms Treaty, here’s what you should know:
  • The treaty affirms the right of GOVERNMENTS to keep and bear arms.
  • Gun manufacturers will be required to mark all firearms so they can be traced and tracked – by the government.
  • Ditto for ammunition manufacturers.
  • Individual countries will be required to pass laws that limit the “illicit” (defined as “not tracked by the government”) sale of small arms. Personal transactions at gun shows would fall under this loosely worded definition.
  • Countries will keep permanent records of all gun sales. Currently, the FBI claims that it only temporarily keeps the information when a federal background check is run during a gun purchase. These records would be kept permanently, making it easier for the government to locate (and confiscate) the gun down the road.
  • Legal sales of handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles would be severely curbed, not to mention recreational firearms and so-called “assault” weapons.
Obama stated in his 2008 debates against Hillary Clinton that even though there’s a federal Second Amendment, local states and cities have every right to curb legal gun ownership. In the Illinois state senate, he voted against a bill that would make it legal for a homeowner to shoot a burglar inside their house. He stated on an election survey in Illinois that he supports a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns. He also affirmed that he supports a ban on “assault” weapons and that he supports mandatory waiting periods and background checks for legal purchases.
Another quote from Obama: “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.” Obama also voted “No” on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers. In other words, Obama believes that if a burglar breaks into a home and shoots the homeowner in the leg, that person should be able to sue the gun maker.
Based on Obama’s anti-American stance on gun ownership, it’s clear that he will sign the UN gun confiscation treaty. We know he’s definitely in favor of marking and tracking the sale of firearms, since that’s exactly what he allegedly had Eric Holder do in Operation Fast and Furious (which led to the deaths of 3 border patrol agents and who knows how many civilians).
Unless they tweak the treaty even more, it may come up for a vote later this year. If the UN comes up with additional amendments, it may not come up for a vote until 2013. Three of the four remaining Republican candidates for President have repeatedly refused to answer this question: If elected, will you sign the UN Small Arms Treaty?

The Greatest Political Scandal in U.S. History: Fast & Furious (I)

The Greatest Political Scandal in U.S. History: Fast & Furious (I)

Home  »  2nd Amendment  »  Scandal  »  The Greatest Political Scandal in U.S. History: Fast & Furious (I)
Jan 30, 2012 4 Comments ›› kyle
Despite the obfuscation of the Democrat-complicit media, time will show that Operation Fast and Furious was the greatest political scandal in American history. The Obama administration’s hubris of running an operation with the unmistakable intent of fabricating evidence to justify the impairment of citizens’ Constitutional right to bear arms, leading to the weaponizing of violent criminals, the murder of Mexican nationals and even of an American border patrol agent, make the operation a state crime for the ages. In fact, all other scandals on record, including those leading to the impeachment of presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and the resignation of President Richard Nixon, pale in comparison.
Such an intrepid case demands air-tight reasoning, historical evidence, and proper contextualization, all of which will be supplied in due course. In order to frame the scandal at hand by its order of magnitude and importance, we shall revisit those scandals of past administrations that led to serious and damaging repercussions. This will be the primary task of the first in a five part series revealing the Obama administration’s Fast and Furious scandal in the fullness of its severity and the graveness of its implications.
The Andrew Johnson impeachment charges are as obscure today as they are relatively tame by comparison to the routine daily operations of the Obama administration. Succeeding the assassinated Abraham Lincoln, the lifelong Democrat and slave owner Andrew Johnson was disliked by many northern politicians for his lax hand enforcing the post-Civil War architecture of “Reconstruction.”  A pretext for impeachment was found when President Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act, a law forbidding the president from removing Senate-confirmed appointees without additional Senate confirmation. Andrew Johnson suspended and replaced the sitting Secretary of War Edward Stanton, thus provoking the impeachment charge by Republicans. Johnson came within one vote of being forcibly removed from office.
President Johnson’s legislative infraction can be directly compared with yet another political scandal: Obama’s recess appointments while the Senate was not in recess.  The U.S. Constitution expressly and quite clearly forbids such an appointment. As Article II, Section 2 states, “The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.” The law of the land stipulates in Article I, Section 5, ““Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.” What Obama did was make his “recess appointments” while the Senate was not in recess; in other words, he once again overrode Senate advise-and-consent requirements, just as he did with his “czar” appointments.
President Obama’s violation of the recess appointment laws in The Constitution has been legally challenged, but the Department of Justice, undoubtedly one of the most politicized and corrupt in American history, upheld the administration’s actions on the spurious grounds that the Senate’s pro forma meetings did not qualify as ending the recess. We will later address the role of the Department of Justice, and particularly the testimony of Eric Holder during the House investigation, in the Fast and Furious scandal.
Teapot Dome was one of the most notorious political scandals of all-time, according to Democrat folklore. Regaled in American History textbooks throughout our public schools, the story depicts the insidious Republican figure Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall as an astonishingly corrupt figure.  The scandalcame to light when Senate Democrat John Kendrick inquired into how Secretary Fall could get rich so quickly after the Interior leased out naval petroleum reserve lands to private companies on a no-bid basis.  It turns out Fall had made arrangements with two associates to attain the oil contracts, while he received a kickback of $385,000 in the process. Albert Fall became the first high-ranking public figure in U.S. history to go to prison after committing an ethics violation.
Compare this with President Obama’s financing of Brazilian petroleum company Petrobras SA with American taxpayer dollars.  Not only did the $2 billion in guaranteed loans to the government-controlled Petrobras SA aid the administration of Marxist Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, it financially benefitedshareholder and Obama associate George Soros. Even when Forbes attempted to run interference for Obama and Soros, the publication could not deny that the loan benefited the Brazilian company. As President Obama himself said while in Brazil, “We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.” And the best part? The deal helped the Chinese attain oil resources.
This brings us to the most infamous political scandal in modern history, known only as “Watergate.”  The event became so notorious, that it has been nearly obligatory to append “gate” onto all successive political scandals. Trumpeted as the nefarious machination of President Richard M. Nixon, the scandal centered around a break-in of the Democratic National Committee office at the Watergate complex. When two intruders were captured with rubber gloves and one hundred dollar bills, a journalistic crusade traced the scandal back to Nixon. When the Supreme Court ordered the Nixon administration to turn over recorded tapes implicated in the plot, the president was caught on the record sanctioning the break-in. No one was killed. No Constitutional issue was at stake. It was a partisan and illegal act by an unscrupulous president against the pet party of the U.S. media.  But it was only a break-in committed against the Democrat National Committee for purposes of getting political ammunition against an adversary.
By comparison with Operation Fast and Furious, once exposed to its fullest, Watergate will appear to be the work of pikers. Certainly, the “Lewinskygate” affair of President Bill Clinton, still fresh in the public memory, appears frivolous, despite the fact that the impeachment charges rested mainly on the president’s perjury, and not on the sexual act itself. Even favorable sources apologizing for Clinton’s actions show the president admitted he had misled the grand jury.  President Clinton was impeached by the Republican-led House of Representatives, but the Senate was moved to acquittal, proving Henry Hyde’s comment that, “A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious.”
Hyde’s comment presages the election of President Obama, who has repeatedly proven that he does not take his Oath of Office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to heart. The president belies by his actions that he is hostile to the constricting intent of The Constitution, which is not a surprise since this “scholar” without any record of scholarly articles published on the founding document, has stated he believes it to be a doctrine of “negative liberties. ” In other words, Obama has stated that The Constitution “says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”  Additionally, Obama argued that The Constitution is an “imperfect” document with “deep flaws.”
Such is the appropriate context in which to view the actions of the Obama administration in the Fast and Furious scandal, one that is widely acknowledged as designed to undermine citizens’ Second Amendment right to bear arms and to bolster the case for an international Small Arms Treaty.  The operation, a facet of the publicly announced Project Gunrunner, knowingly risked the lives of Mexican and American citizens, and eventually resulted in the death of U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry. If the Obama administration is allowed to get away with this egregious political scandal, then lawlessness in government will reign. Like those who decried the Watergate scandal relentlessly and repeatedly condemned Nixon  until he was drummed out of office, we sensible and loyal citizens must do likewise. We must work tirelessly until the Obama administration is held to account for its wanton, unconstitutional, and deadly actions.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

SOTU: Obama wants government power consolidated under Executive Branch

From The Blaze:

SOTU: Obama wants government power consolidated under Executive Branch

Glenn was more than a little disturbed by comments made by Barack Obama at the State of the Union address and wonders why Obama’s call to consolidate bureaucracy (aka POWER) under the Executive Office isn’t getting noticed by reporters and politicians.
Last night, Obama said, “The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.”
You can see the statement at about 50:36 in the clip below:
“The executive branch? Hold it. Are we now talking structural changes to the Constitution? The executive branch needs to change,” Glenn said.
“Did he just say he wants to consolidate all of the powers into the executive branch? Did he say he’s consolidating the bureaucracy under him? Yes. That’s exactly what he said.”
“Listen to the pitch: I need more power in the executive branch so we can have leaner government. Who the hell believes giving more power to one person is going to give you a leaner government?” Stu added.
Glenn discussed the original intention of the Founders was not to create a system where one person could force any piece of legislation through Congress.
“This entire system was built so it doesn’t move on a dime. The reason why that’s important is because when it does, you make gigantic mistakes. As a group of people or an individual. So you wanted a slow, long, laborious process. The reason why it sucks so much is because we’ve given them too much power. It wasn’t designed to have all of the decisions made in Washington. You were supposed to make the decisions. The states were supposed to make the decisions. Now every decision in your own business has to go through Washington. It was never designed for that. That’s not what it should be doing,” Glenn explained.
“This should lead the news on every single channel,” Glenn said.

AllGov - News - Tax Evaders Renounce U.S. Citizenship

AllGov - News - Tax Evaders Renounce U.S. Citizenship

The Holocaust, FEMA Camps and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – Patriot Update

The Holocaust, FEMA Camps and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – Patriot Update

Formation of the Arizona Committee of Safety

from Committee of Safety::

Send CommitteeOfSafety mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CommitteeOfSafety digest..."

Today's Topics:

  1. Formation of the Arizona Committee of Safety (Gary Hunt)


Message: 1
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:57:54 -0800
From: "Gary Hunt" <hunt@outpost-of-freedom.com>
Subject: [Committees of Safety] Formation of the Arizona Committee of
To: "'Committee of Safety'" <committeeofsafety@oneamericanpatriot.com>
Message-ID: <002e01ccdb8a$dd8fa450$98aeecf0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Formation of the Arizona Committee of Safety

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 25, 2012

This past October 21st, a number of concerned citizens of Arizona got
together to form a group that was originally billed as the Border
Patriots Advisory Committee. That name, however, limited their purpose
to strictly border matters. It failed to recognize that such a group
could have an expanded role based upon the revolutionary history of the
United States of America.

Having some foresight into consideration of this expanded purpose, one
of the members brought to that meeting some "propose by-laws" for a
Committee of Safety (see Introduction to Committees of Safety
<http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=428> ). The expanded purpose,
from those by-laws:

Purpose:  The Purpose will be to provide for the Safety, Protection and
Security of the lawful inhabitants of Arizona, especially in those areas
where the federal and state government have failed to provide such
protection.  All activity is to be in adherence to the Arizona
Constitution and the Constitution for the United States.

The by-laws established a leadership structure along with rules that
were written to maintain discipline amongst the members, during
meetings, establishing an executive board and a general association (see
Committees of Safety and the General Association
<http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=504> ), and even establishing
how the Committee would related to Militia.

During that meeting, it was decided to pursue the Committee of Safety
approach and that the nest few meetings would be devoted to reviewing
the by-laws, making recommendations for changes, and then adopting the
by-laws and establishing the first Committee of Safety in Arizona's

Two meetings later, on December 2, 2011, the Arizona Committee of Safety
became reality when 22 members subscribed to the General Association,
signed the Secrecy Oath, and adopted the by-laws, with mostly minor

The significant change in the proposed by laws went from an Executive
Board comprised of 5 members elected from the General Association, and
additional members being added at one per County Committee of Safety as
they joined the state Committee to an Executive Board comprised only of
two delegates from each County Committee, once established, the only
other voting member being the Chairman of the Arizona Committee of
Safety who would have only a tie-breaking vote.

The General Association will handle the general administrative functions
of the ACoS while any decision of importance would required a vote of
the Executive Board. The Executive Board, being comprised of people who
have been sent up from the County Committee is, truly, grass roots --
all significant decisions will be made by those who have not come from
nowhere, rather, those who have worked their way up, one step at a time,
through the ranks, as the Founders did.

Their next meeting was held on January 13, 20012. By meeting's end, they
had 30 subscribers, a 36% increase, in their first month. At this
meeting, they made some necessary changes to the by-laws -- to deal with
circumstances that they realized needed to be addressed before any
problems. They had a raffle and a donation can (there are no charges for
membership or participation in meetings) and raised $89.

Some highlights of the accomplishments achieved, to date, by the Arizona
Committee of Safety:

*    Established sub-committees on Militia; Fund Raising; Field Shoot
(see below); Intelligence; and, Membership.
*    The Field Shoot sub-committee has a Patriot Day Shoot planned
for February 18, 2012, the first event sponsored by the ACoS
*    Nearly 1,000 flyers announcing the Field Shoot were handed out
at a Phoenix Gun Show on Saturday, January 21, and the recipients often
asked for an explanation of the Arizona Committee of Safety (as sponsor
of the Shoot), to which the were cordially educated on both history and
purpose of the Committees of Safety. Many expressed interest and will be
attending the next meeting.

Arrangements are being made to allow "virtual attendance and
participation" at Arizona Committee of Safety meetings via Skype, since
there are many who are interested though unable to afford the time
and/or expense of traveling hundreds of miles to attend. The ACoS is
optimistic that this approach will open the ACoS up to people who would
otherwise not be able to participate in this historic event, and
encourage them to establish a county or local Committee of Safety in
their own communities.

At least three counties have had initial meetings to establish
Committees of Safety. Whichever County first establishes and sends
delegates to the Arizona Committee of Safety meeting will have the honor
of signing the County Delegate Scroll in the manner of John Hancock on
the Declaration of Independence. The first three counties to send
delegates will, forever, be honored as the Charter members of the
Arizona Committee of Safety. These records, as well as all of the
minutes and other documents, will be bound for permanent record -- a
message to our Posterity that those who participated in the Arizona
Committee of Safety were determined not to pass the problems prevalent
in this country on to their children.

* * *

Too stay current on the remarkable and rapid growth of the Arizona
Committee of Safety, john either of the following mail lists:

Committee of Safety mail list

Arizona Committee of Safety mail list

Gary Hunt
<http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/> Outpost of Freedom

So long as we fight only amongst ourselves, we will never have to face
the more dangerous task of fighting against our enemy.