The Police State Strikes Again
Mar 13, 2013 Political
A woman in New Jersey was at a meeting to protest her property tax assessment which was done by a contracted agency. She expressed her displeasure (and quoted the Constitution) because her home was assessed without anyone ever entering it to appraise it.
She was told to sit down and shut up and listen. Then, employees of the assessment company escorted her out of the building. An earlier report indicated he made a threat about her assessment being even higher (a threat to screw her over by increasing her assessment because she protested).
The county assessor called the police and said she threatened to bring a gun back to the meeting, a claim she denies. Someone gave the police her car tag number and she was tracked down and arrested for making a terroristic threat (a BS charge) and was told she had to surrender her firearms of her bail would be set too high for her to pay.
The police took her two handguns for “safe keeping” which likely means she will never see them again.
This is how the tyrannical police state is unfolding. The state makes a claim and the citizen is arrested. Were any of the people at the meeting interviewed to check the veracity of the claim? Did the police find out if she ever said she would bring a gun back?
She claims that she never said the word gun and never made any threats. She claims that the assessor and the worker for the company were the ones acting out.
If this woman is telling the truth, and there is no reason right now to believe she is not, then her rights have been trampled on. This is how tyranny works. Make an example out of someone and others will fall in line. It matters not how this ends up because the others at the meeting got the message as intended.
I hope that she is exonerated and gets her firearms back.
But, if the police investigate and find that the assessor and the assessment worker were the ones acting out will THEY be arrested and charged with making terroristic threats? The guy who threatened that her tax assessment would be higher should be at the top of the list.
If the assessor is found to have acted inappropriately then she should be fired.
Perhaps the homeowner will have grounds for a lawsuit that will bankrupt the township and the company that employs the assessor.
How long before the actions of the tyrannical government lead to an uprising? I think this is what government wants but I also think it is a dangerous path to take.
I hope it never comes to this but we need to pray for the best and expect the worst.
Especially with tyranny at all levels of government.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: assessment, lies, new jersey, police state, Second Amendment, taxes, tyranny
Government Defines AR 15 As Suitable For Personal Defense
Feb 7, 2013 Political
The term assault weapon is a manufactured term applied to firearms that the anti gun crowd finds scary. The state and federal government’s anti gun folks and their stenographers in the media use this term to demonize those who own them. This is why you hear the term assault weapon whenever an AR 15 is used. They want you to think that this is some magical firearm that can be used to kill more people than a firearm that is not designated as an assault weapon.
The anti gun (which means anti Constitution) crowd banned these firearms in the past. The bans were based on cosmetic items and had nothing to do with functionality. Any firearm that did not have the cosmetic items but fired exactly the same was not an assault weapon.
Bans do not work. Columbine happened in the middle of the last ban.
[note]One of the cosmetic items is a bayonet lug (for non gun folks that is the part of the firearm that allows a bayonet to be attached). This item makes a firearm an assault weapon despite Barack Obama’s assertion that we have not used bayonets in about 100 years.[/note]
When people who own these scary firearms say they use them to hunt and for personal protection the anti gun folks say that no one needs an AR 15. These firearms, we are told, are only suitable for the battlefield or for the police. Taking the battlefield argument out of it (despite what we have been told, America is not an actual battlefield) why do the police, the people who interact with citizens in America, get to have them? If the people do not need them then neither do the police.
Hell, the very same people who tell us that items that are suitable ONLY for the battlefield should not be on American streets are all too happy to have police departments and government law enforcement agencies patrolling around in vehicles designed for battle with people who carry weapons designed for battle.
But I digress.
The gun grabbers say your AR style firearm is not a personal defense weapon.
However, the government has designated these types of firearms as suitable for that very purpose. In fact, a DHS solicitation for 7000 select fire weapons (semi automatic AND fully automatic) indicates that the department solicited for 5.56mm NATO select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense
If the firearm the DHS will use is suitable for personal defense then the civilian model of that firearm is certainly suitable for the same purpose.
Those of us with a brain already knew this and can see the hypocrisy of the words used in the solicitation.
The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms and that Amendment does not define what those arms shall be. SCOTUS rulings have already made it clear that firearms protected under the 2A are those with a military function and our Founders made it clear that citizens were to be allowed arms equal to those used by a standing army to ensure we had the ability to fight our government should it become tyrannical.
Politicians at all levels of government have limited authority to define what kind of firearms free people may possess. It does not matter what they like or feel the 2A is clear. Government has no authority to limit the number of rounds one can buy or the number of rounds a magazine can hold. It has no authority to ban or confiscate firearms that it does not like.
Period.
Our Founders protected our right because of the very things we are seeing today.
It would be unwise for any government to try and disarm us. DHS knows it because it has purchased 7000 personal defense firearms to fight the people with dangerous assault weapons. /snark
The government is setting up the perfect storm and it is preparing for the unrest it is encouraging. The government has purchased many more firearms than this and has purchased over a billion rounds of ammo. That is enough to wage a war the scare of Iraq at the highest level of ammo expenditure for 30 years.
Any question about what they are planning?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: 5.56mm nato, ar 15, assault weapon, dhs, lies, personal defense firearm, Second Amendment, tyranny
Obama To Ignore Constitution Again
Jan 9, 2013 Political
And Obama is not the only one. Any politician in any state who is working to ban firearms is ignoring the Constitution. The Second Amendment applies to all states. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and it has supremacy over states in those items that are enumerated in it. The 14th Amendment requires all states to provide equal protection under the law and that means that states are not allowed to make rules that violate the Constitution of the US.
States are working on doing just that (and have for a long time). New York is working on banning guns even more than it already does. A lawmaker in Iowa wants to ban AND confiscate firearms (and make it retroactive, ex post facto violation). Not only would this violate the Second Amendment it would also violate the Fourth (illegal seizure of property).
Obama is doing his part to impose tyranny on the citizens of this country. He not only wants to impose strict gun bans but the news reports he will use an Executive Order to impose his will on gun owners and violate the Constitution at the same time.
Remember, it was Barack Obama who criticized George Bush for using Executive Orders which Obama called an abuse of power:
“These last few years we’ve seen an unacceptable abuse of power at home,” then-candidate Obama said in Chicago in October of 2007. “We’ve paid a heavy price for having a president whose priority is expanding his own power.” Washington Examiner
Obama has always been anti gun even though he lied while running for office. He said for people to tell their friends that he would not take our guns and that is what he will be doing, or should I say trying to do.
This will not go unchallenged.
We will not be subjected to a tyrannical government and we will use all means at our disposal to ensure we are not victims of government overreach and illegal actions.
So they can fold that Executive Order up and stick it where the sun does not shine.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: call to arms, gun control, lies, Obama, patriots, Second Amendment, tyranny
Pelosi Says What The Rest Think
Mar 4, 2012 Political
Nancy Pelosi let slip her feelings about unions in the private sector and her slip reveals a person who wants total government control. It reveals a person who wants a government that knows no bounds and a government that completely controls out lives. We already know this about the liberal/progressive/Socialist bunch infesting government at all levels from the courts, to the Capitol to the White House. Now Pelosi has put into words how far she will go for complete government control.
Heritage finds a nice catch in this CNBC interview with Nancy Pelosi last week, as Maria Bartiromo queries Barack Obama’s favorite House Speaker on the role of government in business expansion. Should agencies like the NLRB have the authority to shut down private-sector plants simply for not being unionized? Pelosi barely waits for the question to conclude before blurting out her “yes” Conservative Byte
Pelosi thinks a government agency should be able to shut down a private business for not being unionized. This is the mindset of those who want total government control. If there are no unions we will shut you down until you get one. If you don’t want to purchase healthcare we will force you to under threat of a penalty.
Yes, they encroach even more into our lives each and every day and they do so because we do not stand up to them.
Someone remind Pelosi that she and the government have no control over this and that our Second Amendment provides us a means to fight tyranny no matter how it manifests.
Our Founders would be shooting by now.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you do not fight for your freedom then your own government will take it away.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: nlrb, Pelosi, Second Amendment, tyranny, unions
Obama Should Have Listened To Limbaugh
Feb 12, 2012 Political
OK, he should have listened sooner…
Well, he is at least considering Limbaugh’s advice now. Perhaps that is because there is a tough election coming this November and Obama’s tax and spend policies (which are really tax, borrow and spend) have done little for the economy. Business is sluggish, the unemployment rate is still above where they said it would be if we passed the Stimulus and our debt grows by leaps and bounds each and every minute (every second!!).
When Obama was immaculated Limbaugh devised The Obama-Limbaugh Bipartisan Stimulus Plan of 2009. You can read it in its entirety but one of the items was to cut the corporate tax rate. America’s corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world and Limbaugh proposed cutting it in half from 35% to 17%. His ideas fell on deaf ears as Obama spent three years telling us the only way to fix things was to make the rich pay their fair share (while ignoring the fact that they pay most of the taxes) and to spend our way out of a debt problem.
Raising taxes, the Democrats tell us, is the only way to solve the economic problems. If only the government had more money coming in it could be responsible and spend it responsibly. This ignores the history of our government spending what it takes in, no matter the amount, and then some. Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue to the government but liberals claim it increased the deficit because there was not enough money. They ignore the reality that when more money came in, Congress spent more. They spent all of it and then borrowed money to spend even more.
Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm) will soon announce that the government will try to cut corporate tax rates. The number being floated is 20%. Yes, the government is looking to cut corporate taxes by 15% in order to get things moving and increase revenue. The article points out that it would be hard to do in an election year but it will give the appearance that government has listened to corporations.
The increase in revenue is what Limbaugh said would happen and is why he proposed it in his 2009 plan.
Democrats know that people feel they have been overburdened with taxes. I know there are folks who claim this is not true but any poll that includes those who pay no taxes or who get money back even though they paid nothing is not valid. Those folks will always feel that people are not taxed enough because they want those who pay taxes to pay more so they can continue to live off the sweat of the people who actually pay their fair share (and then some). In other words, the unpatriotic should not be included in the poll (VP Joe Biden said it was patriotic to pay taxes so if you don’t pay you are not patriotic).
The Democrat party hates tax cuts but it knows that people hate tax increases. The Democrats talk tax cuts around every election because they are pandering to the people and trying to get elected (which seems to be the take of the article). Once the election is over they go right back to screaming that taxes need to be increased.
The funny thing is that nearly all the time the Democrats claim that tax increases are needed and that tax cuts hurt the economy and take money away from government. Then when election time rolls around they claim they need to cut taxes to increase revenue and improve the economy. Let’s face it. The only reason they want to raise taxes is because doing so meets their definition of fair. Even when presented with the reality that taking 100% of the money the rich make would not fix our problems Obama said he would still raise taxes because it is the fair thing to do.
Some leadership there.
If the government succeeds in lowering the corporate tax rate and the economy improves (which it will barring some other stupid government intervention) look for Obama to claim his past policies made it work and that he deserves four more years.
While Obama crows about how great he is and how his policies worked Limbaugh will be the one who can say:
See, I told you so.
Obama should listen to the adults in the room and not the radicals in his regime.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: corporate taxes, Rush Limbaugh, see i told you so, tax cuts, tyranny