Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

[American Patriot]

Day before yesterday, Obama complained of the amount of knowledge we gain from reading the internet and listening to the news.

Today, Fox news feeds are shut down at work.

How's that for things moving quickly?

[vector7]

day before yesterday, obama complained of the amount of knowledge we gain from reading the internet and listening to the news.

Today, fox news feeds are shut down at work.

How's that for things moving quickly?

Wow!!!

[American Patriot]

I don't know why it is shut down... but we've some sort of inspection going on this week. Might have something to do with taking up network resources while they are doing network scans.

However, we've had access to Fox news for several years internally. It's been a defacto standard.

Now, it's shut off.

I can NOT WAIT to get to my vacation. 19 days and a wake up.

The day I get back, I start cleaning up my house, painting and prepping it for sale. The day it sells, I'm going to be very, very close to being "done" for good my friends.

I'm sick of the bullshit. I'm sick of arbitrary standards that MUST be followed by some people, but not by everyone. I'm sick of people telling me what I can and can't do. I'm SICK to death of politics, the government taking my money.

Fuck it. I'm going to stop working and paying taxes.

[American Patriot]

Peter King and His Hearings: Why Do Liberals Believe in Scrutinizing Conservatives But Not Islamists?

Posted by Peter Schweizer Mar 8th 2011 at 6:40 am in Congress, Featured Story, Islamic extremism, Terrorism | Comments (83)
The New York Times offers two blasts against Congressman Peter King today for his scheduled hearings on radical Islam. The consistently ridiculous Bob Herbert accuses King of harboring “a fierce unhappiness with the Muslim community in the United States.” And the proposed hearings will “serve to further demonize a group of Americans already being pummeled by bigotry and vicious stereotyping.” In a separate editorial titled “Peter King’s Obsession,” the paper begins, “Not much spreads fear and bigotry faster than a public official intent on playing the politics of division.”

Since when does simply inquiry result in bigotry? The King hearings focus directly on ideology–not on individuals. These are hearings about a belief system. Thousands of individuals around the world are engaging in acts of terrorism based on a certain set of beliefs. Shouldn’t we try to understand them? These hearings will give members of congress a chance to address the ideas behind radical Islam. As Richard Weaver put it, ”Ideas have consequences.” And Islamist ideas have everything to do with understanding the threat we face today.
This has long been the approach of liberals in America: assessing the deep seated motivations and belief systems of our opponents is not acceptable, while putting conservatives under a similar light is A OK. During the Cold War, liberals consistently declared that Marxist-Leninist ideology didn’t matter. When Ronald Reagan quoted from Lenin, they would laugh at him. They pushed the idea that the leadership in the Kremlin was just like us and viewed the world the same way we did. When they invaded other countries or supported terrorist groups it was explained away as being our fault. At the same time liberals championed books attacking conservatives and their belief systems like the “Paranoid Style in American Politics” by Richard Hofstadter which declared that conservatives were motivated by inner psychological fears. In other words, they were willing to look at the belief systems and ideologies of conservatives, but not communists.
The same holds true today. Peter Beinart at the Daily Beast recently wrote that King is displaying “shameful religious intolerance” for simply holding these hearings. And that the hearings represent the “Europeanification of the GOP.” Simply holding hearings represents all of that? But repeated links between terrorist acts and radical Islam….don’t mean anything??

So I say three cheers to Peter King for holding these hearings in the first place. There is no direct political benefit for him. How is this going to garner him more votes? Most political consultants would tell him to stay away from these sort of thorny issues. King’s been criticized by the left who declare that he’s motivated by bigotry. And he’s been attacked from the right by people here at BigPeace for failing to put together the proper witness list. But let’s credit King with taking on a very difficult subject and bringing it to public light. Ideas do have consequences, and until we can understand the Islamist belief system we can’t developed a strategy to defeat them.

[Phil Fiord]

It is a census form. We get those every decade and you may recall the vocal debate in the US two years ago. The census in the US is meant to count people, but has been expanded to include all you posted and so much more. I do not know about Italy, but here it is said you will be fined for failure to complete and return. Many only filled out how many people and ignored the visits from poll takers trying to complete the form. They say it is asking so much to better spend Federal dollars. Maybe. But it also gives a ton of knowledge that is none of their damn business.

[American Patriot]

They threatened Americans too, with a fine or something....

[American Patriot]

Captain Zero is blathering on about how we need MORE regulation (especially of trade in energy).

He wants more "cops" in place, MUCH tougher (10 fold) penalties... he wants to basically give more power to the agency responsible for "regulating energy" to control that produced by private companies.

Where does this guy get off?

Hopefully, somewhere around November.

[American Patriot]

As IF we had to have a POLL to figure this out:


Fox News poll: Nearly two-thirds of voters say government is the problem

By Dana Blanton

Published July 18, 2012

FoxNews.com

By nearly three-to-one, American voters see government as the problem as opposed to the solution in today’s economy. Meanwhile, a majority believes President Obama’s policies are expanding the government.

A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows that 55 percent of voters believe Obama’s policies are making the government “bigger and more expensive.” That’s more than five times as many as say “smaller and less expensive” (10 percent). Another 28 percent say Obama’s policies haven’t changed the size of government.

Most Republicans (88 percent), a majority of independents (55 percent) and a quarter of Democrats (25 percent) say Obama is increasing the size of government.

The poll asks voters which phrase best describes their view of the government’s role in the economy given current economic problems. About one in four says “government is the solution to the problem” (23 percent). Sixty-four percent say “government is the problem.”

Fully 75 percent of voters think Americans rely too much on the government, and another 29 percent think most Americans would prefer living off the government than working for a living. When asked about themselves as opposed to others, just five percent say they would rather live off the government than work for a paycheck.

By a 12 percentage-point margin, more voters say the Obama administration has made the economy worse (49 percent) rather than better (37 percent). That’s a backslide from March, when slightly more voters said the White House was making the economy better (44 percent) rather than worse (42 percent).

In addition, 72 percent of voters think it is a “bad idea” to raise taxes in an economic downturn. That’s up from 63 percent who felt that way a year ago (July 2011). The high was 80 percent “bad idea” in August 2009.

At the same time, by a 10-point margin voters are more likely to support than oppose tax increases on high-income earners. Most Democrats (75 percent) and independents (62 percent) support tax increases on wealthy Americans, while most Republicans oppose the idea (71 percent).

President Obama has proposed stopping the Bush tax cuts for families earning $250,000 or more annually.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 901 randomly-chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from July 15 to July 17. For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz214ykMOru

[Ryan Ruck]

And yet almost half will vote for the Dickbag in Chief again...

[American Patriot]

WILLIAMS: A week of scandals proves the incompetence of liberalism

By Armstrong Williams

Sunday, May 19, 2013

• Enlarge Photo
  Radio host and columnist Armstrong Williams explores traditional values in his book ... more >

Scandals are nothing new in Washington. Just about every president has faced an accusation of misconduct, whether moral or criminal. It should be no surprise that the Obama administration finds itself in the midst of one (well actually three).


Many Republicans have been quick to declare this the end of President Obama, even calling for impeachment. However, these scandals are not the personal failings of Mr. Obama himself, rather they are the failings of the liberal philosophy which he and his entire administration espouse. In case you were out camping without a cellphone last week, here is a brief recap in order of appearance:


• Benghazi: The White House has been criticized for failing to prevent the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate and of misleading the public about it.


• IRS: Conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status were targeted for extra scrutiny, beginning shortly after Scott P. Brown’s special election U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts in 2010 through the 2012 presidential campaign. Also, confidential tax documents of prominent conservatives were leaked to the media.


• TheAssociated Press: The Department of Justice acquired the phone records of AP reporters over two months in an effort to locate an administration leak.


APgate is troubling, but the problem for the Republicans is that acquiring phone records is legal and part of the Patriot Act. Attempts to roll this particular part of the legislation back have been convincingly voted down by both parties. Suddenly, the Republicans realize that an overreaching Patriot Act may not have been a good thing, but that stance looks to be driven by politics rather than ideology.


The IRS scandal is the most relatable and represents the most immediate problem for our country. Only a fool would believe that two to four field workers took it upon themselves to institute a policy of red taping conservative groups. The scandal rises higher, but I seriously doubt Mr. Obama directed such actions.


Benghazi was undoubtedly a tragedy. Was there negligence? Yes. Was there a poor attempt at spin? Most definitely. Were departments pointing fingers at each other? As sure as the sun shines. Is anything that happened impeachable? No. More than anything Benghazi is another example of an administration getting caught flat-footed and stumbling to fudge the facts for fear that Americans could not handle the truth, especially so close to the elections.


And that, my dear readers, gets to the heart of what the week was really about: the competence of a government ruled by a party that thinks the solution to every problem is more government.


This is not about Obama the man, or even about Obama the president. This is not even about Republicans and Democrats. This is about the fundamental failure of progressive liberal ideology.


Logistics alone make it impossible for a government to solve every citizen’s problem. Yet, a bigger government is expected to do just that. Big government is inflexible; it cannot respond to priorities because, over time, there are too many competing priorities. The greater the bureaucracy grows, the more it becomes impersonal, wasteful, over-stretched, and difficult to rein in.


Furthermore, big government does not trust you to know how best to run your life, yet other imperfect beings are somehow capable of properly directing your life as soon as they are employed by the government. People are fallible, and so is the state.


If liberals are right about the role of government, then how did these scandals happen? Do we truly need more government to stop these things from happening?


Regarding Benghazi, should even more officials debated whether to send troops to save our people? Perhaps there should not have been a consulate in a hot zone in the first place, especially one so ill-protected. How effective can an isolated diplomatic post on lockdown really be? It seems more prudent to have a smaller footprint in extreme conflict areas (especially when our military is not in the field), which would save more lives and treasure.


Regarding the IRS, do auditors need more laws and supervisors to prevent such abuse? What happened is already illegal. Then again, maybe a simpler tax code would be the solution. If the law is so simple even a caveman can do it, then fewer IRS agents are needed, or conversely, it would free up existing agents to more quickly process paperwork.


And finally, regarding the AP do we need more Patriot Act provisions to protect the U.S. by suspecting every citizen and stopping potential whistleblowers? Does the government need more power to track everyone’s movements and communications now that modern technology gives them the ability to do so?


I think we need to take a serious look at the Patriot Act and begin rolling it back. Our government was founded on the belief that we are all “innocent until proven guilty” and should be afforded due process.


In order for our republic to function, we must be able to trust the government to faithfully protect our rights and privacy. However, treating everyone like a suspected criminal only weakens our confidence in the government’s willingness to safeguard our liberties. A government dedicated to civil rights is more trusting and less invasive, which compels it to be smaller.


This is not the end of the Obama presidency (unless a bombshell drops), and cries of impeachment by certain Republicans only hurt conservatives who are focused on winning the wars of ideas, not scoring short-term political points against a man who will not be on the ballot in three years.
• Read Armstrong Williams, author of the new book “Reawakening Virtues.” Join him from 4-5 a.m. and 6-7 p.m. daily on Sirius/XM Power 128. Become a fan on Facebook and follow him on Twitter.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2Tq2Ih4jG
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[American Patriot]

It's about time to investigate them.

Americans Back Investigations of Obama Scandals

Paul A Ebeling Jr
paul@livetradingnews.com
Posted on: May 20th, 2013

Americans Back Investigations of Obama Scandals
A new poll found that Americans by a large margin believe that Congress is not overreacting to the growing scandals plaguing the Obama administration.


A CNN/ORC poll found that 54% of Americans don’t believe that Congress is overreacting to the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups, while 42% said that it is. By a larger margin, 59 to 37%, respondents said that Congress is making the right moves on the administration’s actions regarding the Benghazi terror attack.


The poll came as White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer made the round of Sunday talk shows, defending President Obama over charges that he was unaware of the IRS scandal until hearing press reports.
“Here’s the cardinal rule … for all White Houses,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “You do not interfere in an independent investigation, and you do not do anything to give off the appearance of interference in an independent investigation.”


Mr. Pfeiffer said Mr. Obama learned about the IRS scandal on 10 May, the same day as the public, even though Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Rep. Darrell Issa, Rep. CA, were aware of the probe earlier but alert the White House about it while the investigation was ongoing.
HeffCap Global Dividend Focused CFD Fund, great protection in the current economic environment

The White House might not have commanded Internal Revenue agents to target conservative groups, but a “culture of intimidation throughout the administration” made them think it was acceptable, says Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.


The Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC all have targeted groups with a right-wing bent, Senator McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said on “Meet the Press” Sunday.


“What we’re talking about here is an attitude that the government knows best,” Senator McConnell said. “The nanny state is here to tell us all what to do, and if you start criticizing you get targeted.”
The IRS admitted that agents singled out groups with “tea party,” “patriot” and other conservative key words for additional scrutiny when they applied for 501(c)(4) status over the past two years. The status allows the groups not to pay taxes, keep their donor lists private, and engage in some political activity as long as it is not the group’s main focus.


A clip of Senator McConnell on C-SPAN from 11 June 1987 showed him critical of such groups at the time, when he feared liberal organizations could use the status to hide donors who were contributing to political causes. Now, it is clear that the federal government is trying to target people on donor lists to shut them up, Senator McConnell said.


“I was wrong 25 yrs ago; I’ve been right for the last two decades,” Senator McConnell said. “The government should not be trying to intimidate citizens who criticize the government from exercising their First Amendment rights.”

[American Patriot]

Now we know why he doesn't like the Constitution.....

[American Patriot]

Hollywood’s Islam-Free Terrorism, ‘America Is Paralyzed By Navel-Gazing, Hand-Wringing, Moral Confusion’

07/01/2013 ICA Leave a comment Go to comments

[COLOR=#]Rate This[/COLOR]

Although I’ve enjoyed some of the films referred to below, the author does make a valid point. Creating a world were terrorism exists apart from Islam is like making an omlette without the egg. Yes, you can do it, but it’ll never be real …
By Mark Tapson, Frontpage Mag – “The Los Angeles Times reported Friday that terrorism is making a comeback in Hollywood films after a dozen post-9/11 years in which they shied away from dealing with a topic that studios deemed too sensitive. The report credits this new trend to filmmakers attempting to bring to their fictional films some ‘real-world relevance.’ There’s just one problem: Hollywood’s terrorism is still devoid of real-world terrorists.
The Times article points out that the filmmakers of several of the summer’s blockbusters feel safe again to depict acts of terrorism: ‘collapsing skyscrapers, spaceships flying into densely populated cities and bombers run amok… With the terror attacks more than a decade in the past, they say they no longer have to worry about alienating audiences.’
First of all, terror attacks are not ‘more than a decade in the past.’ Sure, they aren’t on the scale of 9/11, but America has continued to endure attempted and successful terror attacks since then, all the way up to the recent Boston bombing. As for alienating audiences, did it ever occur to those filmmakers that movies in which America proudly and unapologetically kicked Islamic terrorist butt might provide audiences with that tremendous collective catharsis that Aristotle noted was the aim of good drama? That movies which affirmed our freedoms and our superior cultural values – that’s right, I said superior –might have united, inspired and empowered those audiences? That such movies might have sent a message to the world that we are unbowed by barbarism?
Instead, when Hollywood did address the clash of civilizations in those post-9/11 years, it pumped out movies disapproving of the CIA and/or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every one of them reeked with the message of moral equivalence that we’re no better than the terrorists. Every one depicted our soldiers as PTSD-ravaged. Every one condemned our presence in Iraq as a Bush lie. And every one of those films about our clash of civilizations bombed, if you’ll pardon the pun, including Syriana, The Green Zone, Stop-Loss, In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, Brothers, Lions for Lambs,Rendition, The Kingdom, Body of Lies, and more. Why did they bomb? Because Americans don’t want to see movies loaded with those defeatist, self-flagellating messages. So Hollywood ended up alienating those audiences anyway.
‘[Y]ou write about the times you live in,’ said James Vanderbilt, screenwriter of White House Down, about an aspiring Secret Service agent protecting the president when the White House is taken over by – wait for it – domestic terrorists. ‘I was always fascinated with the idea of how you could take over the country — who would be able to do that,’ said Vanderbilt.
I have a suggestion: if he wants to write about the times we live in, why not address credible, real-world enemies like Iran, Hezbollah, or al Qaeda and ‘its affiliates’ (as President Obama calls them)? If he wants to imagine who could take over the White House, how about the Muslim Brotherhood, who traffic in and out of the White House now like it’s Grand Central Station? But he won’t because the truth is, too many in Hollywood are multiculturalist cowards who have already chosen to submit to Islam.
The latest Star Trek sequel is ‘about terrorism,’ says the actor who plays Capt. Kirk, ‘about issues we as human beings in 2013 deal with every day, about the exploitation of fear to take advantage of a population, about physical violence and destruction but also psychological manipulation.’ And yet the actor doesn’t explicitly make the obvious connection to those threats from Islamic fundamentalists. (In fact, nowhere in the Times article do the words ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’ appear in any form.)
Nor does Shane Black, director and co-writer of Iron Man 3, whose ‘ultimate terrorist’ called ‘The Mandarin’ ‘has this driving hatred for America which fuels his rhetoric with which he recruits these legions of followers.’ Sounds like a clear stand-in for bin Laden or any number of Islamic terrorist leaders. And yet Black takes the safe route and makes his ultimate villain a vague fantasy figure.
In the new Superman reboot Man of Steel, director Zack Snyder said he was trying to evoke the 9/11 attacks “in a mythological rather than literal sense, using Superman as something like a therapist,” as the Times reporter puts it. ‘[Superheroes are] helping us understand the weird psychological and big horrible events that happen all the time,’ Snyder said. ‘These guys deal with them in a dream-like way that makes it OK. A modern problem — a city getting destroyed — a superhero can help you understand that.’
Are we children who need to be coddled, who need help ‘understanding’ ‘big horrible events’? During World War II Americans didn’t have to wrestle with the concept of Nazism or of Japanese imperialism in metaphorical terms. We didn’t have to undergo therapy to overcome our murky inner fears to confront those ideologies. We simply recognized them as evil and set out to eradicate them by laying waste to our enemies and their war-making capabilities.
As quoted in the Times article, Michael Taylor, chair of film and television production at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts, wishes filmmakers would use their platforms to explore ‘the root causes of terrorism’ and its consequences. ‘Maybe there is a missed opportunity — where they can include an issue of positive social change in the narrative,’ said Taylor, who also founded USC’s Media Institute for Social Change. ‘What can we be doing about terrorism, and how do we feel about it?’
How do we feel about it? This is typical touchy-feely nonsense from the left, whose first response to a terrorist threat is to blame America for it, then to organize a white privilege workshop or a gender-neutral drum circle to work out their deep-seated cultural guilt. Meanwhile Islamic terrorists – not Tea Partiers, not ‘anti-government types,’ not angry vets, not anyone that Homeland Security considers a primary terrorist threat – continue blowing up children on our own soil.
Hollywood movies during WWII reflected an unconflicted confidence in our values and in the rightness of our purpose. Today, thanks in no small part to Hollywood’s deeply subversive cultural influence, it is our Islamic enemies who have that confidence, while America is paralyzed by navel-gazing, hand-wringing, moral confusion – and filmmakers who see their work as collective therapy rather than an inspirational call to arms.” Source – Frontpage Mag.

[Ryan Ruck]

The biggest offender is The Sum Of All Fears which blatantly took a storyline with Islamic terrorists and changed it to white supremacists.

[Phil Fiord]

Sum of All Fears was due to release very close to 9-11-01. It was delayed a couple months or thereabouts. I recall going to the theater to see it and when Baltimore blew up, you could have literally heard a mouse fart in the theater for how quiet it was in the silence after the blast and shock of those watching.

[American Patriot]

Oh my God....

Police will not press hate charges against letter-writer demanding autistic boy be euthanized

23 Friday Aug 2013
Posted by angelforisrael in Crime, Parenting
≈ Leave a Comment

Tags
Autism, Bullying, Crime, Disability, Evil, Karla Begley, Max Begley, Ontario, Parenting, Vile Hate-Filled Letter

H/T oogenhand
From LifeSiteNews
by Peter Baklinski | Tue Aug 20, 2013 15:42 EST

NEWCASTLE, Ontario, August 20, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Police told the family of an autistic boy that they will not pursue hate charges against the anonymous author of a noxious letter submitted to the boy’s mother. The letter called the boy a “nuisance” and a “hindrance to everyone” before suggesting the family move or “euthanize” the autistic 13-year-old.
Durham Regional Police said today that while a criminal investigation is currently underway, the letter did not reach the needed “threshold” to be considered a hate crime.



“Despite the hateful language used, the Crown Attorney’s office has advised that the content of the letter falls below the threshold for a hate crime. However, there are other Criminal Code issues that are being considered,” the press release stated.

The boys father, Jim Begley ,said he was disappointed by the decision and that he will meet with police to hear first hand their reason for abandoning hate crime charges.
“I personally feel it does qualify as a hate crime,” Begley told QMI Agency. He called the police decision “sad news.”
“A person who is that crazy or demented who would fabricate something like that leads me to believe that they are very dangerous,” he told reporters.
13 year-old Max Begley was diagnosed with severe autism at the age of two. The letter signed “One pissed off mother” was delivered on Friday to the house of Max’s grandmother, whom he often visits.
“I also live in this neighborhood and have a problem,” the writer stated in the one page letter. “You selfishly put your kid outside everyday and let him be a [sic] nothing but a nuisance and a problem to everyone else with that noise polluting whaling [sic] he constantly makes!!!”
“That noise he makes when he is outside is DREADFUL!!!!!!!!!! It scares the hell out of my normal children!!!!!!!”
“Personally, they should take whatever non retarded body parts he possesses and donate them to science,” the letter said. “What the hell else good is he to anyone!!!”
The letter ends by asking the mother to move or have her child terminated. “Go live in a trailer in the woods or something with your wild animal kid!!! Nobody wants you living here and they don’t have the guts to tell you!!!!!”
“Do the right thing and move or euthanize him!!! Either way, we are ALL better off!!!”
About 100 people from the neighborhood rallied on Sunday evening in a show of support for the family, many offering to do their part to discover the identity of the person behind the letter.
You may see a photo with the full text of the letter here.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pol...nding-autistic

Also see

• Read the Unbelievably Hateful Letter Sent to Family with Autistic Child: ‘Do the Right Thing and Move or Euthanize Him’

[American Patriot]

FCC to police and question media, websites regarding content

November 1, 2013

We knew this was coming, and it has arrived. An assault via the FCC on bloggers, conservative radio, and any other media that the regime perceives as a threat.There were rumbles of it some years ago, but now, with nothing to lose, the first salvo is launched. Well worth the full read. Here we go:


The Federal Communications Commission is planning a broad probe of political speech across media platforms, an unprecedented move that raises serious First Amendment concerns.


The FCC’s proposed “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which is set to begin a field test in a single market with an eye toward a comprehensive study in 2014, would collect a remarkably wide range of information on demographics, point of view, news topic selection, management style and other factors in news organizations both in and out of the FCC’s traditional purview.

“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers, web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell, who served as a FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller. “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one should be concerned.”

The airwaves regulator would also subject news producers in all media to invasive questioning about their work and content.


For media owners:


“What is the news philosophy of the station?”


For editors, producers and managers:


“Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic ‘beats’? If so how many and what are the beats?”


“Who decides which stories are covered?”


For reporters:


“Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?”

(Followup questions ask the reporter to speculate on why a particular story was spiked.)


Read more: Daily Caller and document can be found there as well.

[American Patriot]

Retired Army Captain Takes To Facebook Warning DHS Preparing For War!

Posted by: Brandon Walker Posted date: October 31, 2013




This comes as dire news. A retired Army Captain has got to the point that he is going viral with information of the gravest nature. He states that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing for war against the American People.


This is not a something to take lightly. He points to all the ammunition being bought up by DHS. He has been reposting this letter since March 2013 and it hit my wall. I went to look and it is indeed a live link Facebook Account. He has updated the status quite often and the last post he commented on was October 31, 2013.

Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of Americ

Dear friends, the following is a copy of my correspondence with Senator Cornyn concerning the arming of the DHS for war against the citizens of our nation. You are each encouraged to copy and properly amend this letter to send to your own senators and members of the U.S. House. Further, I am somewhat overwhelmed at the response to my posts leading up to this letter on this issue. At this point almost 3,000 of you have shared my original post, I have 994 new friends requests, 61 messages, and 70 new comments to process. Please be patient with me and pray that this window of communication remains open to all of us as we respond to this threat against our Constitution and our people. I am awed by you, by your positive response, and your wonderful support. We each have a role to play in standing against this present tyranny. Part of that proper response is sending them a letter like this from YOU, and following it up to make sure it remains a “hot button” issue that must be resolved. God bless you as you honor your oaths and your obligations as citizens of this free nation. May we once again know honorable leadership and peace at home. With all sincerity and respect–Resolved, Captain Terry M. Hestilow, United States Army, Retired.


The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas

United States Senate

517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America.


Dear Senator Cornyn,


It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America. To date, DHS has been unwilling to provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the United States of America.


Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming,


“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.

The Obama administration is deliberately defunding, overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense; the only legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a war mission.


This act of the Obama administration stands as a glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens! This act of the Obama administration can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America! If left unresolved, the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.


The only proper response to this threat against the American people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S. House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD). Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible. One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation. The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!


Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies, supported by Constitutional courts. We stand today at a cross-road. Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we honor our obligations to defend the Constitution against a “domestic” enemy? Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a Marxist leadership at home. You, sir, are our constitutionally elected agent to defend our Constitution at home. We are counting upon you. We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose ourselves as an easy prey to the authors of the destruction of our nation.


I know that this letter demands much of you. We elected you because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and office. We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS.


We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!


Resolved,

Captain Terry M. Hestilow

United States Army, Retired

Fort Worth, Texas~Facebook.com

[American Patriot]

Supreme Court will rule on the continued existence of the United States
Coach Is Right ^ | 11/12/2013 | Doug Book
Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:30:07 AM by IbJensen



In 2012, the National Federation of Independent Business vs Sebelius (ObamaCare) was considered by many to be one of the most significant Supreme Court cases to be heard in decades. On its outcome would depend the continued liberty of the American people. For if our elected officials can force the public to purchase government approved health insurance, what can they NOT demand the American people acquire! The full effects of the unconscionable betrayal of the Constitution and the American public by Chief Justice John Roberts are only beginning to be realized.


If the NFIB decision pronounced an end to our liberty, the Court’s upcoming ruling in Bond vs U.S. has the potential to literally end the 240 year history of the United States. For at issue in this case is the following question: When the United States joins an international treaty, may Congress pass laws toward its implementation which violate the Constitution? The Obama Regime, through Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, says YES. For during oral arguments on November 5th, Verrilli told the Court that “…once a treaty is signed by the president and ratified by the Senate, Congress has the power to pass any law necessary and proper to implement the treaty.” ANY law! The constitutional limits on Congressional power may be ignored at the whim of lawmakers. (1)


As a result, the United Nations would effectively make the laws by which the American people are governed. The UN Small Arms Treaty would, for example, wipe out the 2nd Amendment as international police acquire authority to order–even carry out–the disarming of the American people.


The Bill of Rights will become the former law of the land. Express an opinion insulting to pro-Islamic, UN doctrine and an American citizen could be imprisoned, or, should the terms of a treaty call for it, perhaps even beheaded as an infidel!


The legal history of Bond is a bit involved and not really at issue here. What is of importance is the fact that the terms of a treaty entered into by the president and ratified by the Senate will effectively take precedence over the Constitution. For elected, DC representatives may fashion and pass legislation based solely upon upholding the terms of any treaty with any nation for any purpose.


Imagine a United States in which parents have no right to raise their children except according to accepted, international doctrine; wealth would be subject to “fair and equitable,” forced re-distribution; expression of unacceptable opinions would expose a speaker to fine or imprisonment and everywhere, informers would gain favor with the powers that be by betraying freedom loving neighbors or family members for a carelessly expressed desire for liberty.


A ruling on Bond vs U.S. is expected before the end of the Court’s term next summer. John Roberts has already betrayed the American people by ignoring the Constitution in his decision on the Affordable Care Act. Will this corrupt and cowardly justice now participate in a majority ruling which would put that document to death?

[Malsua]

They may be able to take our guns, but they won't be able to take away the ability for one man to kill another....with fire or rope for example.