NY Times: FBI Hatches Terror Plots

NYT reports in 2012 FBI’s habit of fabricating terror attacks to make high-profile arrests – now Boston suspects’ family claims sons were led every step of the way by the FBI. 

Tony Cartalucci

landdestroyer.blogspot.com

April 21, 2013 (LD) – In an April 2012 New York Times article titled, “Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.,” it is revealed that many of the high-profile terror attacks foiled by the FBI, were in fact fabricated from start to finish by the FBI itself. The article states:

The United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.

But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.

The report would also reveal that a fabricated, then foiled attack in Portland in 2010, even included a van and an inert bomb parked next to a real crowd of thousands during the city’s annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony:

When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of “inert material,” harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust.

Indeed, the only missing ingredient separating Portland from Boston, was the FBI’s decision of what to fill the 55-gallon drums with. (For more details on other FBI cases, see: FBI’s History of Handing “Terror Suspects” Live Explosives)

The NYT piece continues, describing how the FBI picks its targets:

Typically, the stings initially target suspects for pure speech — comments to an informer outside a mosque, angry postings on Web sites, e-mails with radicals overseas — then woo them into relationships with informers, who are often convicted felons working in exchange for leniency, or with F.B.I. agents posing as members of Al Qaeda or other groups.

The article also explains how some targets “seem ambivalent, incompetent and adrift, like hapless wannabes looking for a cause that the informer or undercover agent skillfully helps them find.” Disturbingly, the NYT reports what appears to be the coaxing of one target toward violence they would otherwise never have considered:

“He was searching for answers within his Islamic faith,” said his lawyer, Clinton W. Calhoun III, who has appealed his conviction. “And this informant, I think, twisted that search in a really pretty awful way, sort of misdirected Cromitie in his search and turned him towards violence.”

A year after the NYT article was written, the Boston Marathon would be attacked by two explosive devices, killing three and injuring many more. The suspects, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and brother Dzhokar Tsarnaev, would be announced by the FBI a day after a bizarre press conference cancellation and a security scare at the federal courthouse where a suspect was allegedly being brought.

An explanation for the FBI’s bizarre behavior may be owed to the fact that it now turns out that at least one of the suspects in the Boston bombing had caught the attention of Russian investigators in 2011 who then contacted the FBI to investigate the matter. The FBI would indeed interview Tamerlan Tsarnaev, several family members, and conduct investigations into Tsarnaev’s background, phone conversations, and Internet activity. This was all finally disclosed on April 19, 2013 in an official statement that can be found on FBI.gov:

The two individuals believed to be responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings on Monday have been positively identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev, now deceased, and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, now in custody. These individuals are brothers and residents of Massachusetts. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a legal permanent resident and Dzhokar Tsarnaev is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Charges have not yet been filed against Dzhokar Tsarnaev and he is presumed innocent.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, age 26, was previously designated as Suspect 1, wearing a black hat. Dzhokar A. Tsarnaev, age 19, was designated as Suspect 2, wearing a white hat. Both were born in Kyrgyzstan.

Once the FBI learned the identities of the two brothers today, the FBI reviewed its records and determined that in early 2011, a foreign government asked the FBI for information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.

In response to this 2011 request, the FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family members. The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government.

The FBI’s bizarre behavior grew more suspicious when CBS reported that initially the FBI denied it had any prior contact with the Tsarnaev’s. In their report, “CBS News: FBI Interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev 2 Years Ago,” CBS claimed:

CBS News reports although the FBI initially denied contacting Tsarnaev, the brothers’ mother said they had in an interview with Russia Today.

That interview with Russia Today, in an article titled, “‘They were set up, FBI followed them for years’- Tsarnaevs’ mother to RT,” stated of the suspects’ mother:

But her biggest suspicion surrounding the case was the constant FBI surveillance she said her family was subjected to over the years. She is surprised that having been so stringent with the entire family, the FBI had no idea the sons were supposedly planning a terrorist act.

She would say of the FBI to Russia Today:

“They used to come [to our] home, they used to talk to me…they were telling me that he [the older, 26-y/o Tamerlan] was really an extremist leader and that they were afraid of him. They told me whatever information he is getting, he gets from these extremist sites… they were controlling him, they were controlling his every step…and now they say that this is a terrorist act! Never ever is this true, my sons are innocent!”

Additionally, the suspects’ uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, told NBC news in an article titled, “Uncle: Mentors ‘radicalized’ older Boston bombing suspect,” that:

“I strongly believe they were just puppets and executors of something of bigger scale.”

“There certainly were mentors. I was shocked when I heard his words, his phrases, when every other word he starts sticking in words of God. I question what he’s doing for work, (and) he claimed he would just put everything in the will of God. It was a big concern to me. He called me ‘confused’ when I started explaining to him, make yourself useful to yourself and to your family and maybe you’ll have extra to share with everybody else.

“It wasn’t devotion, it was something, as it’s called, being radicalized. Not understanding what he is talking (about). He is just using words for the sake of the words and not understanding the meaning of it.’’

Perhaps, these two young suspects were “looking for a cause,” that an “informer or undercover agent skillfully helped them find.”

Clearly now, it is confirmed by the FBI itself, in an official statement found on their website, that they did indeed contacted the suspect and his family. The FBI also claims it, “did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign,”  but clearly there must have been some evidence of at least some “pure speech — comments to an informer outside a mosque, angry postings on Web sites, e-mails with radicals overseas.”

The FBI refuses to elaborate on the case, prompting even journalists across the mainstream media to ask important questions. Business Insider’s article, “The FBI Needs To Explain Why It Failed To Monitor Boston Bombing Suspect Despite A Clear Warning,” asks the following questions:

  • Given the explicit warning, why didn’t the FBI continue to monitor Tsarnaev?
  • Why didn’t the FBI follow up with the foreign government when it didn’t get the additional information it requested?
  • How common is a warning from a foreign government about a specific person like this? Does the FBI get thousands of them?
  • What made the FBI effectively clear Tsarnaev — and what might the FBI change  to avoid making this mistake again?
  • Will the FBI conduct a full investigation into what happened?

The answer to these questions may help answer what transpired between 2011 when the FBI allegedly closed the case, and the 2013 bombings – including answering whether or not the Tsarnaev brothers were part of yet another FBI entrapment. Perhaps such suspicion may seem unwarranted, after all, despite the FBI fabricating terror attacks, they averted them before being carried out…

But at least one undercover operation, in 1993, was carried out to deadly effect. FBI agents, according to the New York Times, were indeed overseeing the bombers that detonated a device killing six and wounding many more at the World Trade Center. In their article, “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast,” NYT reported:

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City’s tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars.

Can the FBI then, be ruled out as a prime suspect or accomplice in the Boston blasts? And isn’t it monumental folly to allow the FBI to investigate a crime they may have played a central role in? Raising suspicions further was the decision made not to read the lone surviving suspect his Miranda rights. While US President Barack Obama, the Justice Department and Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham claim such a disgraceful violation of American law is required for “security,” it seems more likely that it is instead needed to enhance a desperate coverup.

And if 10 years of war, torture, indefinite detention without trial, and the creation and expansion of the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI’s Joint Terror Task Force, the TSA, and other federal agencies couldn’t prevent the Boston bombings, why does the President, DOJ, and two Republican Senators believe suspending the rights of a suspect will in any way make America safer? A better question is, why do we the people continue to let them make these decisions?

Miranda v. Arizona: Alleged Boston Bomber Has Rights

theintolerableacts.org

The Constitution doesn’t include a “Bill of Privileges” that Congress, the President, or law enforcement can suspend or deny based on the whims of men.

According to the “supreme Law of the Land,” the United States Constitution, We the People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. For nearly 50 years, law enforcement have been required to read a person in custody their 5th Amendment Rights.

The alleged Boston Marathon bomber, according to numerous news reports, is a naturalized U.S. Citizen. His citizenship isn’t the issue when it comes to the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights on U.S. soil. It only becomes an issue when considering the magnitude of charges against him. As a citizen, Article III, Section 3, regarding treason, might be the appropriate charge.

If convicted as a murderer, he may face the death penalty. Overzealous media queried the police and district attorney at the press conference after his capture if they planned to seek the death penalty. So much for being innocent until proven guilty.

It is hard to imagine how he will receive a fair trial considering the media circus and hysteria surrounding the manhunt.

Obviously, whoever committed the heinous attacks at the Boston Marathon deserve justice, and the harshest of penalties should be considered if found guilty. That doesn’t mean the accused has no rights. It doesn’t mean that he can be denied counsel during questioning. It doesn’t mean, simply because we “think” he’s the crazed killer that his rights have been forfeited.

Before getting too excited about taking Senator Lindsey Graham Vader’s advice, and denying anyone Miranda, read why being read your 5th Amendment rights prior to questioning/interrogation by police is called “Miranda.”

When any person is denied their rights under the Constitution, we all lose. We are all less safe.  – PatriotWatchdog

384 U.S. 436

Miranda v. Arizona (No. 759)

Argued: February 28-March 1, 1966

Decided: June 13, 1966 [*]

98 Ariz. 18, 401 P.2d 721; 15 N.Y.2d 970, 207 N.E.2d 527; 16 N.Y.2d 614, 209 N.E.2d 110; 342 F.2d 684, reversed; 62 Cal.2d 571, 400 P.2d 97, affirmed.

Syllabus

In each of these cases, the defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and, in three of them, signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. All defendants were convicted, and all convictions, except in No. 584, were affirmed on appeal.

Held:

1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491.

(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. Pp. 445-458.

(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the individual the “right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will,” during a period of custodial interrogation [p437] as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Pp. 458-465.

(c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, stressed the need for protective devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. Pp. 465-466.

(d) In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Pp. 467-473.

(e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Pp. 473-474.

(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. P. 475.

(g) Where the individual answers some questions during in-custody interrogation, he has not waived his privilege, and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. Pp. 475-476.

(h) The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, made by a defendant. Pp. 476-477.

2. The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the individual’s constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions. Pp. 479-491.

3. In each of these cases, the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 491-499.

[p439]

[The entire text of this case may be found here.]

The Toomey-Manchin Sellout

gunowners.org

Friday, 12 April 2013 00:25 Written by Gun Owners of America

But there’s still a very good chance we can win!

“Gun Owners of America [has] been pressing lawmakers who may have wavered on this emotional issue of background checks.” – CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, April 10, 2013

We’ve been fighting these gun control battles for almost 40 years now. And we almost always win. But it’s almost always a nail-biter.

And so it is on Obama’s gun control agenda.

We’d hoped that we could stop the gun control bribe-o-thon early (and risk-free) by blocking the motion to proceed to the package. But thanks to sell-outs like Pennsylvania’s one-term senator, Pat Toomey, we’re going to have to take a different battle position and defeat the package at a later stage.

The Senate today overcame the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster and voted to move to proceed to Harry Reid’s gun control bill (S. 649). Where Reid needed 60 votes, the tally was 68-31. Click here to see if your Senator sold you out by voting to “move to proceed” to the bill.

Republican defectors who voted anti-gun were: Alexander (TN), Ayotte (NH), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Coburn (OK), Flake (AZ), Isakson (GA), McCain (AZ), Heller (NV), Hoeven (ND), Kirk (IL), Graham (SC), Toomey (PA) and Wicker (MS).

So, here’s where we are. Right after the Senate proceeded to the gun control bill, Harry Reid used his privileged recognition to put a bunch of amendments in place. In Senate parlance, they are referred to as an “amendment tree;” and they contain the universal registry bill, the Feinstein gun ban, and the magazine ban. These will be voted on in upcoming days.

As for the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer universal registry bill, don’t believe the press’ efforts to sugar-coat it. If you have ever had an “Internet … posting” on (or related to) your gun, you can sell it only by going to a dealer and filling out a 4473 and getting the government’s approval. Only a cave man would be exempt.

And once you have a 4473? Well, the ATF is going from dealer to dealer, copying the information on these forms, and feeding it into a database. But, says Toomey, he’s against universal registries. This is where it would have helped if Toomey had consulted someone who knew something about guns.

Registration and violation of privacy.

First of all, Toomey’s anti-registry language prohibits photocopying the 4473’s, but it doesn’t prohibit going into the FFL with a laptop and copying all the information. Second, ATF takes the position that the data it’s accumulating in a database is not a “registry,” so Toomey’s ban does no good. Third, guess what the sanction is for violation of Toomey’s anti-registry language? Answer: Eric Holder has to choose to prosecute himself and his own department.

But this isn’t the only bad thing about Toomey-Manchin-Schumer.

Section 107 of the sell-out also waives any federal privacy prohibitions under HIPAA to sending the names of Americans with PTSD, ADHD, and post partem depression to the gun ban database. But that’s not all.

Believe in Jesus, hand in your guns?

Because private shrinks will be able to add patients names into a federal database of the mentally ill – without due process – you will be at their mercy.

As Red State editor, Erick Erickson says, “Activist mental health providers will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the list. Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto the list.”

And as for veterans? Toomey-Manchin-Schumer reinforces the proposition that bureaucrats in the Department of Veterans Affairs can take away veterans’ rights without any due process. If a veteran has $30,000 to spend getting back the rights Toomey-Manchin-Schumer wrongly took from him, the sell-out creates yet another redundant money-trap for restoration of rights that shouldn’t have been taken away in the first place.

Repealing gun owner protections.

What if you want to travel across the country? McClure-Volkmer allowed you to do that with an unloaded gun in the trunk (18 U.S.C. 926A). But, under the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, unless you can “demonstrate,” to the satisfaction of the New York police (1) where you came from, (2) where you’re going, (3) that you’re legally entitled to possess the gun in the place you can from, and (4) that you’re legally entitled to possess the gun in the place you’re going, they will arrest you in New York.

The Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out creates a Biden-like commission to insure that the cries for gun control continue.

Like sprinkles on a pile of dung, Toomey and Schumer steal some of the proposals we drafted and try to use them to get us to buy onto gun control. But it won’t work.

The gun movement is united against this disgusting pile of gun control.

Here is the new battlefield. Because of the Senate rules, many of the upcoming gun control votes will need 60 (out of 100 votes) to move forward. That will almost certainly be the case with the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer proposal. And because the entire Second amendment movement – GOA, NRA, etc. – is against the Toomey language, it virtually ensures his amendment will fail.

And if Toomey-Manchin-Schumer doesn’t pass, then Reid probably won’t have enough votes to overcome a second filibuster on the bill – as it would contain the original anti-gun language sponsored by Reid and Schumer. This all but guarantees that the legislation would die, as Republicans and a half-a-dozen Democrat Senators would then team up to keep the bill from getting the required 60 votes.

One last question or thought: Did we waste our time supporting the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster and fighting the motion to proceed? No, because we forced Obama to fire most of his ammunition, as he dragged his human props around Washington in an effort to exploit them for political gain.

If Obama had been able to wait to play this card until Toomey-Manchin-Schumer came up for a vote, that vote would be a lot harder for us to win.

But Obama has already played this card for his “they deserve a vote” theme. Okay, they’re getting their vote. But by the time we reach the vote on cloture on Toomey-Manchin-Schumer, Obama’s exploitation of the victims of Newtown will begin to be realized for the cynical exploitative political ploy that it is. And he will be less able to shift gears and use the victims for the theme “They deserve a ‘yes’ vote.”

ACTION: So contact your Senators. Tell them to vote against cloture on the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out.

Click here to send your Senators a prewritten email message.

———————————————–

GRNC Alert 4-14-13: Stop Toomey-Manchin Sellout NOW!

Published on Sunday, 14 April 2013 15:05
grnc.org
Stop Toomey-Manchin Sellout NOW!

 

– Make calls to sellouts who voted for ‘universal gun registration’

– Show up at Sen. Burr’s district office to voice your displeasure

DEMONSTRATION AT BURR’S OFFICE:

On Tuesday, April 16 at 10:00 AM, GRNC will be holding a demonstration at Senator Richard Burr’s district office in Winston-Salem to deliver the message that his sellout by voting for S. 659 will not be tolerated, and that if he votes for the Toomey-Manchin “compromise” described below, we will work to remove him from office. As always, please “dress for the press” — no offensive signs or clothing. Please note that firearms at demonstrations are prohibited by law. Suggested themes for signs: “Richard Burr: 2nd Amendment Sellout?” and “Burr: Vote ‘NO’ on Toomey-Manchin”. Please RSVP with number of people attending to: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Yes, it’s a work day: BE THERE ANYWAY!

Burr’s office is at:  2000 West 1st St.,  Suite 508,  Winston-Salem, NC 27104. BRING LOTS OF FRIENDS! It you live too far away from this office, visit other district offices, which can be found at:  http://www.burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Update: Vote is on Tuesday

On Thursday, both Senators Richard Burr (R) and Kay Hagan (D) sold out gun owners by voting for the “motion to proceed” which will bring “universal gun registration” bill S. 649 to the Senate floor for debate this Tuesday. Hagan has been doing her best to camouflage her stance on the issue, while Burr had previously said he would support the Rand Paul filibuster, before switching sides and voting to proceed. Burr’s claims that he did so only when promised an open amendment process ring false: The most certain way to kill the bill would have been to deny it a floor vote.

‘See a shrink, lose your guns’

Sen. Harry Reid’s original version of S. 649 would criminalize a huge array of lawful behaviors such as loaning a gun to your mother, loaning a gun to a friend to hunt, or even leaving one at home with your spouse for more than 7 days.

The first amendment to be offered, on Tuesday, is the “compromise” worked out by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Although you’re being told it is “better” because it protections for gun owners, those “protections” have holes you could drive a truck through.

As is invariably the case, this “compromise” defines a process in which you lose slightly less than under the original proposal, but you still lose! Worse, the Toomey-Manchin measure described by  Gun Owners of America as “See a shrink, lose your guns” is a very real threat.

Says “US News & World Report”: “Toomey and Manchin’s legislation clarifies that doctors can enter mental health records into the national background check system without it being a violation of privacy laws.”
Similar measure triggers confiscations in NY

Thanks to the vagueness of Title 18 of the US Code of Regulations, a single doctor’s report could potentially trigger the loss of your gun rights without any type of hearing or due process. If you want to see how that works, check New York State, which recently adopted a similar proposal. As reported by Fox News and others, authorities have begun confiscating guns from lawful gun owners — in some cases, even the wrong gun owners.

 

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

 

Vote likely Tuesday

Burr says he opposes the Toomey-Manchin amendment…but he also said he would filibuster the S. 649 motion to proceed, and we all know how that worked out. Hagan probably wants to vote for it and then claim it as a pro-Second Amendment vote. It is not.

If the Toomey-Manchin amendment passes on Tuesday, it will hurt our chances for killing S. 649. Stopping Toomey-Manchin will probably kill the bill. Accordingly, you need to deliver a LOUD & CLEAR message to both Burr and Hagan (and Republican turncoats from other states) that if they vote for the Toomey-Manchin amendment, they should start looking for a new job.

•    EMAIL & CALL Sen. Richard Burr at: (202) 224-3154 Contact Sen Burr

•    EMAIL & CALL Sen. Kay Hagan at: (202) 224-6342 Contact Sen Hagan

•    CALL: Republican sellouts who voted for the S. 649 motion to proceed

CONTACT INFO

New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte (202) 224-3324

Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss (202) 224-3521

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn (202) 224-5754

Maine Sen. Susan Collins (202) 224-2523

Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake (202) 224-4521

Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson (202) 224-3643

Arizona Sen. John McCain (202) 224-2235

Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker (202) 224-6253 

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven (202) 224-2551

Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk (202) 224-2854

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander (202) 224-4944

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker (202) 224-3344

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey (202) 224-4254

Nevada Sen. Dean Heller (202) 224-6244t

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE   

Suggested Subject: “Stop Toomey-Manchin Sellout NOW!” 

Dear Senator:

Your vote for the motion to proceed on S. 649 will be forever reflected as a vote against the Second Amendment. What happens next is up to you: Either you can mitigate the damage by voting against the Toomey-Manchin sellout, or you can once again betray gun owners and the Constitution.

Understand that I do not consider this “compromise” to be anything other than a sellout of Second Amendment interests. The supposed protections if promises gun owners are false, and its dangers to gun rights are very real. As gun owners have told you before: We will not compromise on this issue.

In fact, if you continue to vote against gun rights, I encourage you to look for another job; in your next election, gun owners will work to remove you. I will continue to monitor your performance via Grass Roots North Carolina legislative alerts.

Respectfully,


Find Your Representatives

NC STATE House & Senate: http://www.grnc.org/contact_reps.htm

FEDERAL Congressman: http://www.house.gov/writerep/


FEDERAL Senators: http://www.senate.gov/

Ron Paul Home School Curriculum Under Attack

Jason Charles
wakethechurch.org
April 14, 2013

It seems once again Ron Paul is being attacked by big publications like the Guardian, even in retirement he simply can’t promote liberty without the internationalists taking issue. So what is the tactic they are using this time? Apparently his Homeschool Curriculum is being written by Evangelical Christians… dun da duuuun!

Ron Paul Homeschool Under Attack

Don’t Change the System, Create a Better One

If you haven’t heard he recently just announced from his brand new radio platform the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum. In his genius he is starting a schooling alternative that totally bypasses the establishment indoctrination camps, mislabeled as public education here in America.

It is no secret he opposes public education as being unconstitutional and a dismal  failure. In fact in the 2012 Presidential Debates he put forth a proposal to cut spending by 1 Trillion Dollars, and in that proposal right at the top was ending the Department of Education. Ron Paul is a purest in every since of the word and his congressional record proves it.

This clip from the 2012 debates demonstrates superbly how far our politicians have gone from the values in the constitution and the oath to office they swore to uphold.

Predators, Probing the Ron Paul Revolution for Weakness, and Exploiting it’s Ignorance

The homeschooling curriculum can be lauded as a masterstroke against the New World Order. There can be no question that internationalist bankers have taken over the minds of our children in this country through the co-opting of finance, government, and the public education system. They know that the vast majority of adults and students that make up the Ron Paul Revolution have gone through the public education system. A system that has absolutely rejected and even mocks the principles of the Constitution and the moral instruction found in the Bible.

Now the majority of these young libertarian/constitutionalists that have been inspired by Ron Paul’s message have un-indoctrinated themselves towards liberty, but they sure have retained their hate for anything resembling Biblical values.

Essentially the tactic is this, we have major media going after some of the writers, mainly Gary North, Tom Woods and obviously Ron Paul for their Christian beliefs. For example the article in the Guardian  is insinuitating that they are embedding Christian fundamentalist beliefs into the educational curriculum, in the form of Reconstructionalism

“Paul’s advocacy of home-schooling is not just about getting kids out of what home-schoolers disparagingly call “government schools”. It’s not just about teaching them that government should be small and largely inconsequential. It’s based on the idea that the government is largely illegitimate, and that one must create a society in which the populace will follow “moral” (that is, biblical) laws, rather than the laws created by an overzealous, tyrannical government.”

This approach is clever because it indicates a thorough understanding of the demographic of the Liberty movement and the people who have aligned themselves ideologically with Ron Paul. Most of them are avowed Atheists and hate Biblical Christianity as the internet flavor of the month.

It is true, but what is ironic is the vast majority of young libertarians will tell you how much they hate the fed, and big government, and even the public educational system, but they will defend the social darwinistic ideals that have been spoon fed them from their youths by public schools. Hand to mouth, shoveling information arranged and codified into our public education system by the very elitist internationists they profess to hate.

This is an example of double think at it’s finest. It demonstrates that even though libertarians everywhere have totally grasped and embodied the finest principles enshrined in the Constitution they refuse to talk about, recognize or even admit that these principles exist because of the Bible and the Reformation.

There simply would never have been an enlightment period with out the Reformation, the two go hand in hand. We would of never had a Lexington Green, Concrod Bridge, American Revolution, Bill of Rights, or Constitution. None of it would exist without a profoundly logical expression of our God given natural rights by that founding generation. See for yourself our founding fathers in their own words time and time again reiterated that Biblical Christianity and moral instruction is foundational to our form of government.

Founders quotes on the religion and government compiled by Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

“Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society. ~ John Adams”

So what the elite are doing is exploiting this ignorance with in the movement. It is nothing more than a divide and conquer tactic. If they can get libertarians to reject Ron Paul’s curriculum on the grounds it has a religious bent then they win and prevent this remarkable idea from taking root as a very real way to assure that liberty principles are taught inside the family for generations to come.

Remaining Loyal to Liberty

The charges in this article are laughable, and show just how desperate the establishment is at disrupting the growing liberty movement.

Ron Paul will remain committed to keeping his religious beliefs private, as he always has you can be assured. Even in the undertaking of writing a homeschool curriculum, I am positive he will maintain neutrality. How one can expound upon ALL of the the principles of liberty and not touch on the impact the Christian faith has had isn’t really possible, but I am sure it will be addressed in an all inclusive way.

If Ron Paul taught us anything it is this, the Constitution and liberty principles is a very big tent that everybody from every walk of life can seek refuge and knowledge in as truth. We, the ones who hold these truths as self evident need to remain loyal to these principles, especially when confronted with information or beliefs that you may not adhere to or like. After all isn’t that what Liberty protects?

Do not fall for this tactic, regardless of how you feel about the Christian religion recognize that the elite love splitting popular movements along religious and ideological lines. Keeping factions at one anothers throat means they can continue to rule unimpeded towards a global tyranny called the New World Order. Let’s simply not give them that pleasure and abandoned public education in favor of homeschooling this next generation of children under the Ron Paul Homeschool curriculum, and take the minds of our children back.

Assault On Gold Update

Paul Craig Roberts
paulcraigroberts.org
April 14, 2013

NOTE: Readers point out that gold weights are based on metric tons and Troy ounces. 500 metric tons of gold would be 16,075,000 troy ounces. This changes the arithmetic slightly but not the point

I was the first to point out that the Federal Reserve was rigging all markets, not merely bond prices and interest rates, and that the Fed is rigging the bullion market in order to protect the US dollar’s exchange value, which is threatened by the Fed’s quantitative easing. With the Fed adding to the supply of dollars faster than the demand for dollars is increasing, the price or exchange value of the dollar is set up to fall.

A fall in the dollar’s exchange rate would push up import prices and, thereby, domestic inflation, and the Fed would lose control over interest rates. The bond market would collapse and with it the values of debt-related derivatives on the “banks too big too fail” balance sheets. The financial system would be in turmoil, and panic would reign.

Rapidly rising bullion prices were an indication of loss of confidence in the dollar and were signaling a drop in the dollar’s exchange rate. The Fed used naked shorts in the paper gold market to offset the price effect of a rising demand for bullion possession. Short sales that drive down the price trigger stop-loss orders that automatically lead to individual sales of bullion holdings once their loss limits are reached.

According to Andrew Maguire, on Friday, April 12, the Fed’s agents hit the market with 500 tons of naked shorts. Normally, a short is when an investor thinks the price of a stock or commodity is going to fall. He wants to sell the item in advance of the fall, pocket the money, and then buy the item back after it falls in price, thus making money on the short sale. If he doesn’t have the item, he borrows it from someone who does, putting up cash collateral equal to the current market price. Then he sells the item, waits for it to fall in price, buys it back at the lower price and returns it to the owner who returns his collateral. If enough shorts are sold, the result can be to drive down the market price.

A naked short is when the short seller does not have or borrow the item that he shorts, but sells shorts regardless. In the paper gold market, the participants are betting on gold prices and are content with the monetary payment. Therefore, generally, as participants are not interested in taking delivery of the gold, naked shorts do not need to be covered with the physical metal.

In other words, with naked shorts, no physical metal is actually sold.

People ask me how I know that the Fed is rigging the bullion price and seem surprised that anyone would think the Fed and its bullion bank agents would do such a thing, despite the public knowledge that the Fed is rigging the bond market and the banks with the Fed’s knowledge rigged the Libor rate. The answer is that the circumstantial evidence is powerful.

Consider the 500 tons of paper gold sold on Friday. Begin with the question, how many ounces is 500 tons? There are 2,000 pounds to one ton. 500 tons equal 1,000,000 pounds. There are 16 ounces to one pound, which comes to 16 million ounces of short sales on Friday.

Who has 16 million ounces of gold? At the beginning gold price that day of about $1,550, that comes to $24,800,000,000. Who has that kind of money?

What happens when 500 tons of gold sales are dumped on the market at one time or on one day? Correct, it drives the price down. Investors who want to get out of large positions would spread sales out over time so as not to lower their sales proceeds. The sale took gold down by about $73 per ounce. That means the seller or sellers lost up to $73 dollars 16 million times, or $1,168,000,000.

Who can afford to lose that kind of money? Only a central bank that can print it.

I believe that the authorities would like to drive the gold price down further and will, if they can, hit the gold market twice more next week and put gold at $1,400 per ounce or lower. The successive declines could perhaps spook individual holders of physical gold and result in actual net sales of physical gold as people reduced their holdings of the metal.

However, bullion dealer Bill Haynes told kingworldnews.com that last Friday bullion purchasers among the public outpaced sellers by 50 to 1, and that the premiums over the spot price on gold and silver coins are the highest in decades. I myself checked with Gainesville Coins and was told that far more buyers than sellers had responded to the price drop.

Unless the authorities have the actual metal with which to back up the short selling, they could be met with demands for deliveries. Unable to cover the shorts with real metal, the scheme would be exposed.

Do the authorities have the metal with which to cover shorts? I do not know. However, knowledgeable dealers are suspicious. Some think that US physical stocks of gold were used up in sales in efforts to disrupt the rise in the gold price from $272 in December 2000 to $1,900 in 2011. They point to Germany’s recent request that the US return the German gold stored in the US, and to the US government’s reply that it would return the gold piecemeal over seven years. If the US has the gold, why not return it to Germany?

The clear implication is that the US cannot deliver the gold.

Andrew Maguire also reports that foreign central banks, especially China, are loading up on physical gold at the low prices made possible by the short selling. If central banks are using their dollar holdings to purchase bullion at bargain prices, the likely results will be pressure on the dollar’s exchange value and a declining market supply of physical bullion. In other words, by trying to protect the dollar from its quantitative easing policy, the Fed might be hastening the dollar’s demise.

Possibly the Fed fears a dollar crisis or derivative blowup is nearing and is trying to reset the gold/dollar price prior to the outbreak of trouble. If ill winds are forecast, the Fed might feel it is better positioned to deal with crisis if the price of bullion is lower and confidence in bullion as a refuge has been shaken.

In addition to short selling that is clearly intended to drive down the gold price, orchestration is also indicated by the advance announcements this month first from brokerage houses and then from Goldman Sachs that hedge funds and institutional investors would be selling their gold positions. The purpose of these announcements was to encourage individual investors to get out of gold before the big boys did. Does anyone believe that hedge funds and Wall Street would announce their sales in advance so the small fry can get out of gold at a higher price than they do?

If these advanced announcements are not orchestration, what are they?

I see the orchestrated effort to suppress the price of gold and silver as a sign that the authorities are frightened that trouble is brewing that they cannot control unless there is strong confidence in the dollar. Otherwise, what is the point of the heavy short selling and orchestrated announcements of gold sales in advance of the sales?

Print This Article

About Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

DHS Suggests Christians, Constitutionalists Should Get Extra Surveillance From Law Enforcement

personalliberty.com

April 10, 2013 by

Big government progressives and collectivists love labels. They seem to come up with a new one almost daily, as they seek to isolate and demonize one small segment of the population at a time that they can identify as “extremist” and then dismiss from any discussion about the country’s direction.

The Department of Homeland Security and the military have, in reports published over the past several years, equated a large segment of the U.S. population with terrorists for simply expressing displeasure of the nation’s course, preparing for disaster or even paying in cash. DHS and the Barack Obama regime are aided in this endeavor by government propaganda arm mainstream media and organizations like the Southern Preposterous Lie Center (aka Southern Poverty Law Center), see here, here and here.

Now, true to its communistic-sounding roots, DHS is becoming exceedingly fearful of Christians who believe the Bible is God’s word, Christian “fundamentalists” (whatever those are), Americans who believe the country was founded on Godly principles and those who believe the Constitution stands as the law of the land. In training materials, DHS has lumped Christians and Constitutionalists in with a group it calls the sovereign citizen movement and identified them as requiring special surveillance by law enforcement.

In a letter to a conservative blogger, Prowers County (Colo.) Undersheriff Ron Trowbridge revealed what he learned during a recent training course conducted by Colorado State Patrol (CSP) Trooper Joe Kluczynski, a CSP analyst for the Colorado Information Analysis Center, (CIAC). CIAC is funded by DHS and run by the CSP, and the training materials Kluczynski used came from DHS.

Here is the letter, unedited and in its entirety:

On April 1, 2013 I attended training in La Junta, Colorado hosted by the Colorado State Patrol (CSP).  The training was from 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm and covered two topics, Sovereign Citizens, and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs.  I was pretty familiar with motorcycle gangs but since we often deal with the so-called sovereign citizen groups I was interested to see what they had to say.  The group consisted of police officers, deputies, and CSP troopers.  There were about 20 people in attendance.

Trooper Joe Kluczynski taught a 2-hour section on sovereign citizens.  Kluczynski spent most of his two hours focusing on how, in his view and apparently the view of Homeland Security, people turn to the sovereign citizen movement.  Kluczynski started off by saying there are probably some sovereign citizens in this room and gave a generalized list of those groups that have sovereign citizen views.  Among those groups, Kluczynski had listed, were those who believe America was founded on godly principles, Christians who take the Bible literally, and “fundamentalists”.  Kluczynski did not explain what he meant by “fundamentalists” but from the context it was clear he was referring again to those who took the Bible literally or “too seriously.”

While Kluczynski emphasized that sovereign citizens have a right to their beliefs, he was clearly teaching that the groups he had listed should be watched by law enforcement and should be treated with caution because of their potential to assault law enforcement.  Kluczynski explained why he believed these groups were dangerous saying they were angry over the election of a black president.  When someone in the group suggested the failing economy was probably much more to blame, Kluczynski intimated that those who are not going along with the changes in America will need to be controlled by law enforcement.  Kluczynski even later questioned some of the troopers present if they were willing and prepared to confiscate “illegal” weapons if ordered to.

Kluczynski’s assignment with the CSP was an Analyst for the Colorado Information Analysis Center, (CIAC).  CIAC is funded by Homeland Security funds and run by the CSP.  Kluczynski said he gets his information from the Department of Homeland Security.  Kluczynski said he was leaving the CSP at the end of that week (March 29, 2013) to begin his new career with Homeland Security.  I thought he was perfect for the job.

Ron Trowbridge
Undersheriff
Prowers County Sheriff’s Office
April 5, 2013

Trowbridge’s boss, Sheriff Jim Faull, issued a news release Monday suggesting CSP suspend and re-evaluate the training program, because: “When an instructor with a state law enforcement agency is teaching their (sic) own employees and other law enforcement agencies that bible (sic) believing citizens and those that do not agree with current political trends are dangerous and should be under the scrutiny of law enforcement, then that agency needs to make some fundamental changes with that particular course.”

Trowbridge said he was surprised and frightened by the amount of attention his letter received, but he stood by it. He issued another letter on Monday responding to those seeking to verify his initial claims.

Understand what is at work here is a concerted effort by the regime to marginalize and demonize Americans, “those who are not going along with the changes” the Marxist Obama regime is making to the country. Demonizing and ultimately dehumanizing the “enemy” is a tried and true propaganda tactic. You will also see this tactic demonstrated in the comments posted to Personal Liberty articles by the regime’s messengers, who have taken to equating the Tea Party with the Taliban and calling them extremists and terrorists. It is a designed strategy based on the Saul Alinsky model.

————————————————————

RELATED ARTICLE

DHS-funded course asks cops if they will confiscate guns from Christians

All Over America Evangelical Christians Are Being Labeled As “Extremists” And “Hate Groups”

Michael Snyder

American Dream

April 8, 2013

All Over America Evangelical Christians Are Being Labeled As Extremists And Hate GroupsAre evangelical Christians rapidly becoming one of the most hated minorities in America?  Once upon a time such a notion would have been unthinkable, but these days things are changing dramatically.  All over the United States, evangelical Christians are being called “extremists” and evangelical Christian organizations are being labeled as “hate groups”.  In fact, as I will detail later on in this article, a U.S. Army Reserve training presentation recently specifically identified evangelical Christians as “religious extremists”.  This should be extremely chilling for all evangelical Christians out there, because as history has shown us over and over again, when you want to persecute a particular group of people the first step is always to demonize them.  And that is exactly what is being done to evangelical Christians today.  Just look at how evangelical Christians are being portrayed on television and in the movies.  Just look at how much hate is being spewed at Christians on the Internet.  The Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU, both of which are considered to be among the most prominent “civil rights” organizations in the United States, are seemingly obsessed with attacking evangelical Christians.  It has become trendy to bash Christians, and that is a very frightening thing.  After they have finished demonizing evangelical Christians, what will the next step be?

A U.S. Army Reserve equal opportunity training presentation entitled “Extremism and Extremist Organizations” actually included “Evangelical Christianity” as an example of “Religious Extremism” in a list that also included al-Qaeda, Hamas and the Ku Klux Klan.  You can find a copy of the entire presentation right here.

Is this how evangelical Christians will be treated in the future?  Will evangelical Christians be treated like members of the Ku Klux Klan or like members of al-Qaeda?

The following is how a Christian Post article described this chilling report…

A U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief describes “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” as examples of “religious extremism,” according to the Archdiocese for the Military Services and the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, who shared a copy of the documents with The Christian Post.

“The number of hate groups, extremists and anti‐govt organizations in the U.S. has continued to grow over the past three years, according to reports by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They increased to 1,018 in 2011, up from 1,002 in 2010 and 602 in 2000,” reads the first page of the slide presentation labeled “Extremism & Extremist Organizations.”

Listed alongside “extremist” groups and organizations like the Klu Klux Klan and al-Qaida, the U.S. Army slideshow has “Evangelical Christianity” as the first bullet, followed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism and farther down on the slide, Catholicism.

Posted below is a picture of the slide entitled “Religious Extremism”…

Religious Extremism

Below that slide there is accompanying text that condemns any religion that believes that it is the only “right way” and that believes that other religions are wrong…

Extremism is a complex phenomenon; it is defined as beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, or strategies of a character far removed from the “ordinary.” Because “ordinary” is subjective, no religious group would label itself extreme or its doctrine “extremism.” However, religious extremism is not limited to any single religion, ethnic group, or region of the world; every religion has some followers that believe that their beliefs, customs and traditions are the only “right way” and that all others are practicing their faith the “wrong way,” seeing and believing that their faith/religion superior to all others.

Well, that is exactly what evangelical Christians believe.  They believe that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is the only payment for sin and thus the only way to be reconciled to God.  Unfortunately, this belief is now enough to be labeled as a “religious extremist”.

And sadly this is far from an isolated incident.  Since Barack Obama was first elected, Christians have been demonized in government report after government report.  In a previous article entitled “Patriots And Christians Have Been Repeatedly Labeled As Potential Terrorists Since Obama Became President” I detailed many of these instances.

But of course it is not just the government that is demonizing Christians these days.

Just look at what the reaction on social media has been to the death of the son of Pastor Rick Warren.

A lot of people out there have decided to use the death of his mentally ill son as an opportunity to spew hatred toward Pastor Rick Warren and his faith.  The following are a few examples of this hate that have been posted on Twitter…

–@Goatyeah Rick Warren compared Gay 2 mental illness/his son just killed himself 4 mental illness..Is Karma paying a visit 2 the ?

–@WagCasey So pastor Rick Warren’s son killed himself? Gee, I wonder what drove him to that?

–@BarberaLaPeters @BryanJFischer well after all the dead gay kids Rick Warren is responsible for, I guess one of his is a small price to pay.

–@SamirPerez Was @RickWarren‘s son gay? Maybe conversion therapy, condemnation and hatred towards gays was too much for matt…

–@War_of_Kings I wonder if Rick Warren’s son was gay and killed himself because of his father’s anti-gay bashing?

–@rashid7053 @BlazePhoenix_ I would’ve committed suicide if my dad was Rick Warren too.

–@GinsburgJobs @marlenan21 Rick Warren has done terrible damage; my first thought was that his son was gay thats why he did it. Its sad for the boy.

–@anyprophet so who else is shocked that rick warren drove his gay son to suicide?

–@TheReallyRick Son of Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren has committed suicide. Place your bets on when its discovered he was gay.

Sadly, those are some of the cleaner examples.  There are many more which include language that is definitely not appropriate for children to read.

So why are evangelical Christians hated so much?  Well, the truth is that they are primarily hated because of what they believe.  Attempts to intimidate evangelical Christians into changing their beliefs continue to become more frightening.  The following are just a few examples…

1 – A student at Florida Atlantic University was recently suspended from class for refusing “to write the word ‘Jesus’ on a piece of paper, fold it up, and step on it.”

2 – A 14-year-old homeschooler in Maryland received multiple death threats after testifying in favor of traditional marriage before the Maryland state senate.

3 – A 14-year-old student at a public school in Texas was suspended from school for saying that he believes that homosexuality is wrong.

4 – A gay activist group that smashed up a church in Oregon says that it hopes that it will “strike fear into the hearts” of Christian leaders…

The group that allegedly smashed up a Portland church hopes its “small act of vengeance will strike fear into the hearts of” Christian leaders who teach traditional sexual morality, according to an e-mail message the group released to the public. A group calling itself “Angry Queers” has claimed responsibility for throwing baseball-sized rocks through nine church windows in Portland’s Mars Hill Church, including two 100-year-old stained glass panes.

5 – A high school teacher in Oregon was recently escorted from his school by police for objecting to the presence of Planned Parenthood in the school.

6 – Some gay activists up in Illinois actually threw concrete brick pavers through the glass doors of one Christian organization in an attempt to intimidate them…

Pro-homosexual activists attacked the Christian Liberty Academy early October 15th – throwing two large, concrete brick pavers through its glass doors with a hate-note attached– and then issued an online statement claiming responsibility for the crime. The attackers demanded that CLA “shut down” a banquet it was hosting later that evening for the “homophobic hate group,” Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH).

7 – All over the country people are being fired from their jobs for expressing their belief in the Biblical view of sexual morality.

8 – Street preachers all over America are being threatened with arrest just for standing on street corners and preaching the gospel.  Here is one recent example from Illinois…

“I did pretty much the same thing: I preached about twenty minutes, and I handed out a few tracts,” Johnson explained. “[W]hen I got in my car to leave, … and as I was getting ready to start the car, the police zoomed up and turned on their lights, and told me to get out of the car.”

“They pretty much said the same thing,” he continued. “They said, ‘You’re not supposed to raise your voice or scare anybody and tell people they’re going to die.’ I said, ‘Well, what if that building’s on fire and I raise my voice and tell people if they don’t leave, they’re going to die? Is that wrong?’”

And the Southern Poverty Law Center is very open about who they consider the enemy to be.  The following are just a few prominent evangelical Christian organizations that the SPLC identifies as hate groups…

The American Family Association

Concerned Women for America

Coral Ridge Ministries

Family Research Council

Anyone that is familiar with any of those groups knows that they are absolutely not hate groups.  In fact, they are filled with tremendously loving people.  The people that make up organizations such as those are the backbone of America.

But these days there are many liberal organizations that will label anyone that does not agree with them as a “hate group” at the drop of a hat.

In another report entitled “The Year in Hate and Extremism“, the Southern Poverty Law Center mentions the following individuals and groups…

Rand Paul

Chuck Baldwin

TeaParty.org

ConservativeDaily.com

Judicial Watch

The Oath Keepers

The truth, of course, is that all of those individuals and organizations are deeply patriotic and are trying to turn America around.  It is the SPLC that is the one that is filled with hate, and they clearly have a very deep hatred for anyone that does not agree with them.

Sadly, what is happening to evangelical Christians in America is just part of a larger trend that is happening all over the globe.  The following is from a recent Reuters article…

About 100 million Christians are persecuted around the world, with conditions worsening for them most rapidly in Syria and Ethiopia, according to an annual report by a group supporting oppressed Christians worldwide.

Open Doors, a non-denominational Christian group, listed North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan as the three toughest countries for Christians last year. They topped the 50-country ranking for 2011 as well.

Persecution of Christians is on the rise, and it is probably only going to get worse in the years ahead.

Remember what happened in Nazi Germany.  There was a long program of demonization against the groups that the Nazis hated before they ever started to round them up and take them off to camps.

In the end, those that are now demonizing evangelical Christians will not just be satisfied with calling them names.  They ultimately want much more, and what we are witnessing now is just the warm-up act.

“Extremism and Extremist Organizations” Original source

RELATED ARTICLES

Army Reserve presentation calls Christians ‘extremists’

Army Labeled Evangelicals as Religious Extremists

Police teach tactics for handling ‘sovereign citizens’

Feds Identify 100,000 to 300,000 Americans as Terrorists

Franklin Graham and Richard Land Advocate Gun Control

By Chuck Baldwin
March 21, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

According to Time magazine, “Rev. Franklin Graham and other leading evangelical figures are publicly backing efforts to require background checks for all gun purchases, providing a shot in the arm to stalled congressional efforts to enact elements of President Barack Obama’s gun control plan.

“Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham and the president of Christian relief organization Samaritan’s Purse, and Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission told TIME they have agreed to back universal background check legislation put forward by the administration in the wake of last year’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“‘As ministers, we agreed together that we could stand on a united front for universal background checks,’ Graham told TIME, noting he had many conversations with civil rights leader Rev. Amos Brown on the subject. ‘We think that’s reasonable and responsible.’”

See the TIME report at; Franklin Graham Backs Universal Background Checks

My disappointment, and even anger, at Mr. Graham’s endorsement of universal background checks cannot be put into words. When America falls into tyranny and oppression it will be with the help and assistance of the likes of Franklin Graham and Richard Land. In fact, it is no hyperbole to say that pastors and Christians all over America are facilitating their own slavery.

Adolf Hitler would never have been able to become the fuhrer of Germany without the collaboration and cooperation of Germany’s evangelical pastors and churches. It is an absolute truth that the blood of Hitler’s victims flows to the doorsteps of Germany’s churches. There were some 14,000 evangelical churches in Germany at the time Hitler and his fellow Nazis were rising to power. Out of those 14,000 pastors and churches, only 800 had the courage and sagacity to oppose Hitler. That equates to about 5%.

Graham and Land are either totally ignorant of the meaning and ramification of “universal background checks” or they are willing participants in America’s subservience to an ever-burgeoning police state. Either way, they are both on the wrong side of the Bible and history.

Let’s be clear about what is being proposed. President Barack Obama and his gaggle of gun-grabbers are trying to accomplish three things: 1) they want to ban all semi-automatic rifles, 2) they want to ban all high-capacity magazines, 3) they want to ban the right of individuals to freely buy and sell their personal firearms.

This third initiative is commonly called “universal background checks.” But what it would actually do is prohibit private citizens from being able to freely buy and sell their own personal firearms. This is an egregious assault against both the right to keep and bear arms and the private ownership of personal property.

Should this universal background check bill become law, it would be a crime for individuals to buy or sell a firearm without filling out a government form similar to the one firearm dealers are required to fill out, which equates to asking the State for permission to purchase a gun. In essence, private citizens would be subject to all the laws and penalties as are licensed gun dealers.

Can you imagine: a father would not be able to freely pass down a cherished family firearm to his children; people would not be able to freely exchange firearms in either gift or purchase form; and anyone attempting to buy or sell a firearm would become an agent of the State.

Furthermore, instituting a universal background check system would create a national database of all firearms bought and sold in America. Ladies and gentlemen, this is nothing more than a back door universal gun registration ploy. Every gun owner in America would be entered into a giant national database akin to the system proposed by Adolf Hitler and virtually every other tyrant and dictator of modern history. And as any honest student of history knows, gun registration is ALWAYS a precursor to gun confiscation. ALWAYS!

Do Mr. Graham and Mr. Land truly understand what they are endorsing? Do they understand that they are cooperating with one of the most devilish attacks against the liberties and freedoms of the American people since before our War for Independence? If they do, they should be totally ashamed of themselves; and they should also be forever identified as traitors to the cause of liberty!

Right now, all three of Obama’s gun-control proposals are facing fierce opposition. Will the endorsement of Franklin Graham (and other evangelical leaders) be the catalyst for all or part of these proposals becoming law? If so, history will look back on Mr. Graham and Mr. Land’s endorsements in the same light as we now look back at the utter gutlessness and stupidity of those clergyman in Nazi-era Germany who rolled over for Hitler’s Third Reich: with the utmost contempt!

I cannot speak for anyone else, of course, but as for me, I have had it up to my eyeballs with these holier-than-thou, constitutionally-naive, politically-correct, compromising, yellow-belly, spineless, sucking-up-to-power preachers. They are selling our liberties into the hands of tyrants. They are as culpable to the death and destruction of the American republic as any big-government politician. No! They are more culpable! They are deceiving tens of millions of Christians into going along with these incessant assaults against our liberties.

In the name of “God is in control,” or “Jesus is coming soon,” or “God hasn’t called me to get involved with politics,” these preachers are facilitating the destruction of America. And when they do decide to “jump into politics,” they are like Franklin Graham and endorse some stupid, big-government, unconstitutional, tyrannical proposal such as the universal background check bill. If they are going to “get involved in politics,” why don’t they read the Constitution first and try to help the cause of liberty once in awhile? But, no! When they do decide to leave their ivory palaces and dirty their lily-white hands with “politics,” they come out in favor of bigger and more intrusive government.

Think about it: if Barack Obama and Franklin Graham have their way, any person who tries to buy or sell a firearm without Big Brother’s oppressive oversight would be treated as a crack cocaine or heroin dealer.

I tell you the truth: it makes a preacher want to cuss!

Franklin Graham is on the wrong side of the Bible, and he is on the wrong side of history.

Think about it: Jesus COMMANDED His disciples to purchase a sword (Luke 22:36). Not only that, it was AGAINST ROMAN LAW for Hebrews to carry the Roman sword when Jesus issued His instructions. Think of it: Jesus COMMANDED HIS DISCIPLES TO BREAK THE LAW AND BUY A SWORD! Plus, at the time Jesus told His disciples to arm themselves, two of them (one of whom was Simon Peter) had already purchased–and were carrying–their personal sidearms. How long had they been carrying these weapons? For all of the nearly four years of Jesus’ public ministry? We are not told. But we do know that two of the disciples were armed before Jesus told the rest of the disciples to get armed; and Jesus knew they were armed and fully approved of their being armed. And you can be sure of this: Jesus was certainly not endorsing a “universal background check” for the disciples, because it was against the law for them to possess such a weapon.

If Franklin Graham and Richard Land properly understood their Bibles and the teachings of Jesus, instead of promoting bigger and more oppressive government via a universal background check system, they would be telling people to go buy a firearm and forget about submitting to any governmental background check.

Are Franklin Graham and Richard Land not familiar with the fact that the presence of a firearm prevents a crime and potentially saves a life over 2.5 million times every year in this country? If they are interested in saving lives and making America a safer place to live, they would be advocating for more and freer gun possession. In the recent killing sprees that everyone uses as justification for more gun control, had someone (or a group of someones) been armed, the causality list would most certainly have been a lot shorter. And the reason that people in those venues were not armed was because there was in place a stupid, nonsensical, asinine governmental law requiring them to be unarmed.

Furthermore, are Franklin Graham and Richard Land not familiar with history? Are they unaware that the tyrants and butchers of history have ALL used gun registration as a precursor to gun confiscation? Are they unaware that gun confiscation ALWAYS precedes genocide and mass murder?

Instead of calling for universal background checks, Franklin Graham should be shouting for government to abandon their “gun free zones” and demand that people be allowed to universally defend themselves. Instead of coming to the aid of big-government zealots who desire to trample constitutional liberties, Franklin Graham should be shouting for the President and members of the US House and Senate (including Dianne Feinstein) to abide by their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and keep their grubby fingers off our gun rights.

I further suggest that Franklin Graham and Richard Land obtain a copy of my new book entitled, “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns,” which is co-written by my constitutional attorney son, Tim. We delve deeply into the Old and New Testaments and conclusively show that nowhere does the Bible teach that Christians (or anyone else) should ever surrender their firearms in the face of any would-be tyrant. And nowhere does the Bible teach gun registration or background checks or anything of the sort. All men (not just Christians) are given an unalienable, God-given, Natural right of self-defense.

To pre-order my new book, “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns,” go to; Keep Your Arms

The book should be released in about four weeks. Orders are coming in quickly, so order now to be assured of getting a first-edition copy of what is sure to be a blockbuster book.

Let’s be clear: any government that tries to infringe upon the sacred right of self-defense is on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of the Constitution, and on the wrong side of the Bible. And so is any preacher who promotes the infringement of that right. And that includes Franklin Graham.

P.S. I regularly write mini-columns and comments on my Facebook page. I also post news and information relating to my work on this page. And, of course, since it is Facebook, you are free to add your comments. To follow me on Facebook, please “LIKE” the following page:

Chuck Baldwin’s Official Facebook Page

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

RELATED ARTICLES

SBC leader Richard Land supports gun control

June 1968 SBC Resolution included gun control

Faith leaders call for tighter gun control

PSA: Faith leaders demand action on gun violence

Roman Catholic Editorial: Repeal the Second Amendment