The system is described as a “massive online data repository system that contains a wide variety of data sources both historically and current that can be utilized in support of investigations and backgrounds.”

According to the ATF’s official web site, the system will be utilized by staff “to provide rapid searches on various entities for example; names, telephone numbers, utility data and reverse phone look-ups, as a means to assist with investigations, and background research on people, assets and businesses.”

An overview of the solicitation states:

• Staff will utilize “a number of internal databases as well as external sources to provide timely and relevant information and intelligence products to law enforcement agencies at the federal, state and local levels.”
• The system “provides a means to rapidly check records across the country” and is “necessary in assisting investigators, agents and analyst to find people, their assets, relatives, associates and more.”

Discover The Only Way Back To True Freedom And Liberty In America…

The ATF says they will use this system to provide information to intelligence analysts, special agents, inspectors, financial investigators, and law enforcement. The investigative system will allow ATF to “obtain exact matches from partial source data searches such as incomplete social security numbers, address, VIN numbers, etc.” The system will also have the ability to “link structured and unstructured data to find connection points between two or more individuals.”

According to the request for proposals that was issued last month, the database for ATF’s Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information would allow it to provide “timely and relevant information and intelligence products to law enforcement agencies at the federal, state and local levels.” The office already provides such information, but it is often manually collected and therefore takes more time to produce.

ATF spokeswoman Ginger Colbrun said the new database would not be used to analyze gun purchases, but instead would be used to gather publicly available data without requiring agents to go to multiple sources. However, Wired reports, “it could still help agents track you down a lot faster than they could before — along with finding out everything else about you.”

While some law enforcement agencies are seeking technology to find patterns in existing data, others are clamoring for access to even more data on the web. New York police officials have said they want to scour the web for chatter that could identify a gunman to prevent another mass shooting. In a speech last month, the FBI’s general counsel said the bureau’s “top priority” in 2013 is to modernize surveillance law so that authorities can monitor in real time the web activities of Americans suspected of committing crimes.

The question to ask, however, is how far will they take this new power?

Today’s America is no different when it comes to the human condition and our unfortunate capacity to blindly empower evil people.  So, when the U.S. government moves into action using the same modus operandi as previous governments that had engaged in genocide in the last century, it might be a smart idea for liberty lovers pay close attention to the actions of the powers-that-be.

One such questionable action taken under the Obama administration is the creation of the FEMA Corps.  Essentially, the FEMA Corps is a body of youth (ages eighteen to twenty-four) that are primarily concerned with disaster relief efforts and community service – quite admirable at face value.  The FEMA Corps is under the President’s direct control, since FEMA is a White House department and does not answer to elected lawmakers.  This civilian force has many eerie similarities to something that we’ve seen before.  An article from Tony Oliva of Gun Owners of America gives us a brief review of the past:

As a paramilitary organization, the Hitler Youth could be and were used as an armed auxiliary force to perform a variety of duties such as being active in fire brigades and assisting with recovery efforts from natural disasters and later Allied bombings.  The Hitler Youth also assisted in such organizations as the Reich Postal Service, fire services, Reich radio service and served among anti-aircraft defense crews.

Well, that doesn’t seem so bad, right?  These kids in the Hitler Youth were used to bring relief in the event of disasters and foreign attack.  The FEMA Corps just so happens to be a force that is used in the exact same way.

Also, both groups are comprised of highly impressionable youth, which have a tendency to fawn after father-figure leaders.  Considering the fact that Barack Obama won the youth vote by 67 percent in the November 2012 election, it’s easy to see that youngsters like the guy.  And an impressionable army that acts without question can be quite useful in the hands of a tyrant.

They Refused to Believe… And It Cost Them Their Lives.

But the why do we jump to the idea that the FEMA Corps is anything other than a benevolent community service organization? The controversy surrounding the FEMA Corps arises from Barack Obama’s speech in 2008:

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

The belief is that the FEMA Corps is this paramilitary civilian force.  However, the FEMA Corps we are seeing today is completely unarmed, just like the Hitler Youth.  The common misconception among patriot thinkers is the idea that such a paramilitary civilian force must have firearms in order to be used as a tool for tyrannical action and martial law against the law-abiding citizenry of the U.S.  They cite the news reports, which shed light on the fact that several federal government bureaucracies have recently bought billions of hollow-point rounds.  Once such bureaucracy is the Social Security Agency, as reported on Infowars.com:

A solicitation posted by the SSA on the FedBizOpps website asks for contractors to supply 174,000 rounds of “.357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point pistol ammunition.”

This report may not have much to do with the FEMA Corps, but it does matter in the grand scheme.  We will revisit this in a bit.

Now, to make sense of what might be happening here, one must have a conceptual understanding of military logistics.  Folks who have experience in the armed forces understand that very few soldiers actually ever experience the war on the front lines.  A military is a giant organism, which does more than just fire bullets and missiles at the enemy.  A military must run on logistics, which means that it must carry out other tasks in order to function properly.

During a potential armed conflict within the U.S., the federal government’s military (or UN “peacekeeping forces,” for that matter) are going to be bogged down just trying to keep federal or UN control intact.  Between rampant crime problems, refugee dispersal, civilian insurgency, rogue faction military resistance, and even the possibility of foreign aggressors, they are going to need all the logistical support they can get.  This is where the President’s paramilitary civilian force comes into play.

Simply put, having this force not only provides the federal government with a pool of willing draftees, but it also allows the government to use these kids for unarmed logistical support.  Also, they would be terribly useful for deep undercover intelligence work (i.e., ratting on the townsfolk).  This was one of the most infamous functions of the Hitler Youth, and we are watching this same scheme unfold before our eyes yet again, less than one century later.

Here’s where things get interesting: many of the U.S. government bureaucracies that are buying up hollow-point rounds don’t employ armed, trained personnel.  To put it simply, the Social Security Administration has absolutely no use for 174,000 rounds, as it doesn’t do any policing and it doesn’t have any kind of military function.  So why do they actually need these rounds?

One prevalent theory comes from an understanding about what the U.S. government is currently doing in the Middle East.  Essentially, the reason why certain factions with special U.S. backing take power when a Middle Eastern regime falls (Egypt) is because U.S. intelligence was already supplying them with arms and ammunition.  The New York Times divulges a glimpse of this fact (while glossing over the important parts, courtesy of the mainstream media):

A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

So, why does the Social Security Administration need 174,000 rounds?  It could be that they don’t intend to fire them.  No, they intend to supply the faction that offers the U.S. government the most strategic opportunity.

But, how will the powers-that-be disperse the ammunition to their favored faction?  Well, that sounds like a job for the FEMA Corps.

The important lesson to take from this is a simple understanding: the government is obviously preparing for some kind of armed conflict or cataclysmic event.  But, rather than making preparations to keep Americans safe and free, their actions indicate that this event will be their golden opportunity to erect tyranny in the Home of the Brave.  It happened before in Germany, and it can happen again in America.

The best defense against such a scheme is a strong family that teaches the little tikes about the blessings of freedom and law.  Only then, will they see through the devices of the “father leader,” calling the scheme for what it truly is: a lie from just another power-hungry crook.

When ruling institutions are able to inculcate their subjects with fear and paranoia, convincing them that some terrible danger is lurking or imminent, it becomes possible to control people in a subtle and highly efficient way. Get people to do what serves your interests voluntarily, based on their fear of the consequences if they don’t, and you will never have to worry about trying to force anyone to do anything against their will, which can be a messy way to go about your business.

The news media/entertainment complex is another powerful interest that has learned how to exploit and promote fear and paranoia for its own benefit. The old axiom from the news industry about how “if it bleeds it leads” is based on the recognition that the public, in their heart of hearts, are obsessively concerned about crime, and when news programs feature stories about murder, rape, child abduction, carjackings, drive-by shootings, and so on, they know it will mean higher ratings every time. With the advent of the twenty-four-hour cable news channels, the situation has gotten even worse, as we now have entire programs dedicated to publicizing the latest horrific crime perpetrated against some helpless victim. Meanwhile, the entertainment industry saturates the big and small screens alike with graphic images of death, crime, and destruction, taking advantage of the public’s apparently insatiable appetite for this kind of fare. At the end of these TV programs and movies, the good guys usually come out on top, but not before prodigious amounts of blood have been spilled and the bodies have been stacked up into the rafters.

All of this emphasis on violence and death generates tremendous profits for the producers, directors, writers, reporters, and other assorted personnel associated with the creation of this type of programming. But there is a price to be paid for the media’s preoccupation with the darkness that lies hidden in the human heart, a kind of collateral damage if you will. By sensationalizing violent crime for the purposes of viewership and profit, news and entertainment media have helped to create a nation of 300 million fearful souls who are convinced that serial killers, sexual predators, child molesters, and violent criminals of all types are hiding behind every bush and in every shadow, just waiting for the chance to pounce upon any helpless innocents who are unfortunate enough to cross their paths. The climate of fear and paranoia that has been engendered among the American public by the media is largely responsible for one of the newest trends in law enforcement – parents being interrogated by police or even arrested for committing the heinous crime of allowing their children to play outside during the daytime all by themselves.

Yes, you read that right. Something that many of us spent hundreds of hours doing when we were children, playing outside with our siblings and our friends with no adults around to supervise, is now considered a crime in many parts of the United States.

When Fools Rush In…

The phenomenon of parents being arrested for allowing their kids to go outside on their own to have fun recently received national publicity when Tammy Cooper of La Porte, Texas, a quiet and safe community of 33,000 located near Houston, was removed from her home in handcuffs and hauled off to the local jail. And what, you ask, was her crime? It was something truly dastardly – she actually allowed her two children, ages six and nine, to go out to play on their scooters on a quiet street in front of her home while she watched them from inside through the window.

As punishment for this shocking behavior, Mrs. Cooper was arrested and charged with felony child abandonment and endangerment. The police only found out what was going on because a busy-body neighbor called them to report a crime when she saw the Cooper children playing outside without an adult hovering over them and watching their every move. One would have thought that after the police officer sent to investigate had talked to Mrs. Cooper and gotten the real story, he would have dismissed the incident as so much nonsense and gone on his way. But instead, he arrested Tammy Cooper and took her off to jail as her “abandoned” children were screaming and crying and begging him to please leave their mommy alone.

Fortunately, charges were dropped once the court realized how ridiculous the case was. But this did nothing to erase the trauma that the Cooper children and their mother had already experienced, and it did not prevent Child Protective Services from sticking their noses in the Coopers’ business by forcing the family to come in for an interview. The Coopers have been stuck with a $7,000 legal bill as a result of this farce, but they are now suing the La Porte Police Department, their busy-body neighbor, and the officer who made the arrest, so with any hope, the people responsible for this outrage will be the ones who have to pay in the end.

On first impression, this probably seems like one of those isolated anecdotes that gets a lot of publicity, but really isn’t indicative of any larger pattern of behavior. But if that is what you are thinking, then you need to think again.  All over the United States, parents who choose to let their children play outside without adult supervision, in totally safe environments, are being harassed and persecuted by the police and Child Protective Services after being turned in by neighbors who apparently believe that leaving a child unaccompanied outdoors in any environment automatically exposes them to grave danger. And rather than using their own common sense in such instances, the police are actually placing these parents under arrest, and local prosecutors are choosing to press charges against moms and dads whose only crime is believing that their kids should have the freedom and independence they need to grow and develop in a healthy, natural way.

The following incidents have all been reported in the last eight months alone, and they provide just a sampling of the kind of abuse that parents all across the country are being forced to endure because they have refused to indulge the hysterical idiocy that passes for common sense these days:

• In suburban Virginia, a couple have been questioned by police on four occasions and had two visits from social services because they have allowed their four children, who range in age from five to early teens, to play outside alone in locations very near their own home without an adult being physically present. The childrens’ mother described one of the family’s brushes with the law thusly:

“I allowed all four of my children (they were all together) to go play in the field adjacent to my house. I could literally see them outside my kitchen window. My ten-year-old ran home to tell my husband and I that a cop had stopped and was interrogating my oldest daughter… No, this was not after dark, it was at 4 p.m. on a Saturday. So my husband walked out to see what was going on, and the police officer even wrote up a report, stating that the children were left outside unsupervised.”

Neighbors have apparently been responsible for much of the trouble this family has been experiencing, and the mother was told by one that “it just isn’t safe to let kids play alone outside anymore.” In fact, it is perfectly safe, and the neighborhood where this woman lives has not had any reported incidents involving strangers even approaching, let alone abducting, children.

• In Manchester, Connecticut, a mother was charged by prosecutors with putting her two children, ages seven and eleven, at risk of injury for sending them out alone to walk down the street to get a pizza. This abominable crime, which used to be referred to as “running an errand,” occurred during daylight hours and required the two youngsters to walk about a half-mile from their home. There is no word yet on whether prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty.
• A Johnson City, Tennessee woman was arrested and charged with child abandonment after sending her five- and eight-year-old children off to play at a nearby park with friends. The problem started because the kids left the park and went to a neighbor’s home without telling anyone, and when the mom sent someone to check on them, it was discovered they were missing. Mom herself actually called 911, but the neighbor whose home they were visiting walked the kids back home shortly after, and when the cops arrived they decided Mom deserved to be hauled away to jail for her grotesquely criminal actions. In the old days, the kids would have been scolded for leaving the park on their own and no one would have thought of punishing Mom, but in the insane asylum that twenty-first century America has become, an incident like this is considered to be child abuse.
• A suburban Pittsburgh father of two children, ages six and nine, was arrested and charged with child endangerment for letting his kids play unattended at a neighborhood park for approximately two hours while he did some shopping and showered at a nearby fitness club. The father was turned in by a neighbor who knew the kids, saw them alone, and decided that a crime was taking place. In the past, it was of course common practice for parents to let their kids play in safe locations where everyone knew everyone, but now this is considered child abandonment.

If we actually lived in a society like the one we see on TV, where children were constantly being kidnapped, raped, murdered, or sold into prostitution by evil predators, these parents might very well deserve criticism, and the actions of the neighbors, police, and prosecutors might seem justified. But in fact, American children are now safer than they have been at any time since the 1950s; statistically speaking, for any child living in the United States in 2012, their chances of being abducted and killed by a stranger in any given year are about one in 1.4 million – in other words, it simply isn’t going to happen except once in a very blue moon. A child in America is three times more likely to be struck by lightning than he or she is to be kidnapped by a stranger, and for every child who is killed by someone he or she doesn’t know, there twenty-six kids who die in car accidents each and every year. And yet, parents are so afraid of strangers abducting their sons or daughters that they now routinely drive them to school instead of allowing them to walk, even though the American Pediatric Association has released statistics that show taking a kid to school in a private automobile is by far the least safe way of getting them there.

Crime rates – and most especially violent crime rates – have been going down steadily since the early 1990s, and confounding the pronouncements of liberal sociologists who blame crime on poverty, even the latest recession has not slowed this downward trend. But polls reveal that most Americans believe crime is going up and not down, and the overprotective style of parenting that is so intolerant of moms and dads who let their kids go out alone is a direct result of the fear and paranoia that arises from people’s belief that they are living in a land where violent maniacs are running loose everywhere. That’s the way it is on Criminal Minds, CSI, and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, so that must be the way it is in real life, too.

The High Price of Overprotectiveness

Some might suggest that even if the risk to kids allowed to go out alone is slight, as long as it is not completely non-existent it is better to be overprotective and not take any chances. The problem with this line of thinking, though, is that it overlooks the fact that kids need some freedom and independence if they are going to develop and grow in a whole and healthy way. When children are given the opportunity to spread their wings, without any interference or direction from adults, it does wonders for their self-esteem, self-confidence, and sense of independence, and it helps them learn to be more creative in their play and self-sufficient in all aspects of their lives.

Conversely, the overprotective style of parenting has been shown in numerous studies to be detrimental to the physical and psychological health of children. Those youngsters unfortunate enough to grow up in households where Mom and Dad are absolutely determined to keep them inside or under their thumbs as much as possible in order to protect them from any kind of risk are likely to suffer some very negative consequences as a result of this fear-driven behavior.

Some of the documented harmful effects of overprotective parenting include:

• Dependency, manifesting in the inability of children to make decisions on their own
• Decreased creativity and spontaneity
• Decreased empathy
• Immaturity
• Higher rates of depression (rates of depression among children have skyrocketed in the last two decades, and 15 percent of all college students are now suffering from this disabling disorder)
• Inability to problem solve or negotiate disputes that develop during interactions with peers
• Obesity (look at any group of kids playing outside during recess on any school ground anywhere in America, and the shocking levels of obesity among modern youth will become readily apparent)
• Addiction to video games, computers, and television (the average American child between the age of six and eleven now spends twenty-eight hours a week indoors immersed in virtual/digital environments)
• Poor self-esteem
• More allergies and less resistance to disease
• Higher rates of suicide (more young people will die by their own hand in the course of a week than will die at the hands of strangers during a whole year)

The bottom line is, keeping kids locked up inside all of the time to keep them “safe” is damaging them in profound and important ways. Overprotective parenting could almost be called a form of child abuse, and it is leaving behind many, many more victims that deviant predators ever will.

What Justice Demands

As for the stance of the legal system, it is certainly important to protect children from abuse at the hands of those who are supposed to love and care for them. No one would argue that parents who are actually harming their children either physically or emotionally are perpetrating truly despicable crimes; they deserve no mercy for their actions, and if it is possible to prosecute them, it should be done. But letting your kids play outside on their own, the way children have been doing everywhere forever, is the exact opposite of child abuse. The irrational fear that is turning hysterical, overprotective parenting into the norm is hurting our children, and it is also hurting responsible parents who are doing the right thing by trying to let their kids experience everything that should go with a healthy and happy childhood.

In the name of “protecting” children, fairness, justice, and common sense are being sacrificed on the altar of paranoid imagination, and those moms and dads who are being harassed and persecuted by law enforcement officials and other functionaries of the state for letting their kids do what comes naturally are being victimized by a witch hunt that will do an incalculable amount of harm if we allow it to continue.

©2012 Off the Grid News

The Case

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing a case that will help guide copyright policy in terms of selling used goods. For over a hundred years, our court and copyright system have operated under a “first sale doctrine,” meaning that items are subject to copyright the first time they are sold (by the company or manufacturer). When an item is resold, it is not subject to the same kind of limitations. The first sale doctrine primarily applies to goods made and manufactured in the United States, but little substantial law regarding the subject has ever been established in terms of foreign made goods. Because first sale doctrine has yet to be applied to goods produced abroad, it technically may not be legal for individuals to purchase and re-sell goods if they are manufactured abroad.

In this test case, a company produces one type of (expensive) textbook for buyers in the United States and a cheaper version for consumers overseas. Supap Kirtsaeng, a University of Southern California student, had relatives overseas ship him copies of the cheaper textbook, and he sold that version to fellow students. Over time, Kirtsaeng cheated the company out of a fair amount of profits by decreasing sales of the expensive textbook in the United States. If Kirtsaeng had been selling textbooks manufactured in the U.S., his actions would have been protected under the first sale doctrine. However, a second-circuit appellate court ruled in favor of the publisher, claiming that the “first sale” doctrine only applies to goods made in the U.S. One judge on the appellate court dissented, writing that as long as the good was legally manufactured, it is covered by the same provisions of copyright laws no matter where it is manufactured.

In order to sell any used item, you would have to look for a copyright logo or “Made in U.S.” stamp before selling the item. If the item was made overseas, you have to apply for a license to sell the item. This would greatly limit the ability of citizens to dispose of their property as they wish. This is the perfect example of a law interpreted too literally by our judicial system; no common sense was applied in the instance of the second appellate court’s ruling. The truth is that individuals are unlikely to stop selling used goods when they have no use for them: a ruling in favor of the publisher will create more criminals, not more compliance with complicated copyright laws.

Case Law Ramifications

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the publishing company, there are three areas that will suffer major restrictions. First, individuals trying to sell used goods will be in danger of prosecution or fines. Second, second-hand stores will have to re-evaluate their entire business premise, as it is unlikely that they will be able to afford the rising business costs involved with filing paperwork to be able to sell items produced overseas. Third, there is a substantial risk that companies will move their manufacturing processes overseas in order to maximize profits. Not only will we lose our ability to sell used goods, we may be losing an entire sector of jobs.

When individuals sell used items (currently), the money that they receive is not always a net profit. It is usually simply an attempt to recoup the money that you originally spent on the item. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the first sale doctrine applies to goods manufactured abroad, there is a valid constitutional argument to be made that this violates the constitutional right of an individual to be owed governmental compensation if property is seized.

An entire industry will be plunged into chaos. The particulars will be left to Congress to legislate, meaning that it is unlikely that this issue will be clarified for years. With issues like the national debt, healthcare, and partisan infighting consuming Washington, copyright issues are unlikely to make it back on anybody’s priority list, meaning that any company that makes a business by selling used goods would likely have to shut down- at least until they went through each item, checking its manufacturing location. Stores like Goodwill, housing thousands of for sale items, would have to track the history of each item before they would actually be allowed to sell it, and that does not include the money they would lose while closed to complete that process.

Companies have, over the past few decades, begun moving manufacturing centers overseas in order to optimize cheap labor that is not subjected to strict labor oversight laws. If there was a legal process by which these companies could profit not only from the first sale of an item, but each reselling, it makes sense that these companies would send more manufacturing overseas. Every time and iPod or iPad is re-sold, Apple would receive profits in addition to the original, full price of the item. In addition to being unable to recoup as much money from a used item as you usually would, the price of goods would universally rise, as each portion of each good would be manufactured abroad, and the goods would be assembled abroad.

In short, this law has the potential to send our entire manufacturing sector into purely profit-frenzied chaos. This is an instance when the Supreme Court should consider not only the letter of the law, but the likely practical outcomes of such a ruling. With Justice Kagan still on the court, who has previously stated that the first sale doctrine should not apply to foreign made goods, however, there is a worrisome possibility that Craigslist will begin to suffer from the same scrutiny as the fake goods market.

©2012 Off the Grid News

In the aftermath of 9/11, the architecture of the police state has been steadily moving from blueprint to implementation. The Patriot Acts I and II, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, indefinite detention of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, spy drones on American soil, the NSA’s Pinwheel database of emails intercepted from US citizens, warrant-less surveillance by local, state, and national law enforcement agencies,  the collection of DNA samples from everyone suspected of any crime, the unprovoked hostility and abuse from agents of the TSA, ATF, FBI, FDA, etc. – the list goes on and on, and it is getting longer each day.

They Refused to Believe… And It Cost Them Their Lives.

All of this has been in response to the grave threat we allegedly face from international terrorists, who supposedly will stop at nothing in their insane quest to hurt innocent American citizens because they hate our freedom, or something like that. But given the government’s proven inclination to treat the word “terrorist” as if it were synonymous with “troublemaker,” it was absolutely 100 percent inevitable that any organized campaign to protect us against real terrorist threats would eventually devolve into a repressive program designed to squelch the activities of those looking to foment peaceful revolution from within.

Of course, this is exactly how a democratic republic is supposed to operate. Citizens unite peacefully and legally to express their preferences for change by voting, protesting, giving speeches, handing out leaflets, going door-to-door, and so on; and if or when these activities achieve a critical mass, our institutions will then evolve accordingly in response. But for the elected officials, bureaucrats, corporations, financial institutions, and media elites who profit so enormously and have so much power under the current arrangement, a constitutionally-based representative democracy actually functioning the way it is supposed to would represent a much graver threat to their hegemony than Osama bin-Laden ever did. For this reason, it was a foregone conclusion that the Department of Homeland Security would eventually shift its focus from international threats to “domestic terrorists,” which is now beginning to happen in earnest.

So who are these domestic terrorists, specifically? To satisfy inquiring minds everywhere, the DHS just recently released a document that clarifies the issue greatly by listing thirteen different categories of American citizens who should now be viewed as potential terrorist threats.

The Lexicon Of Oppression

The Department of Homeland Security published the Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown Violent Extremism Lexicon on November 10, 2011. To quote the DHS directly, questionable grammar and all, the lexicon was created “to assist federal, state, and local government officials with the mission to detect, identify, and understand threats of terrorism against the United States by facilitating a common understanding of the terms and definitions that describe terrorist threats to the United States.” This document, which was emailed to law enforcement officials around the country on November 14 by the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis, is a study in vagueness and imprecision, and it is likely that many of those who received it are more confused than ever about who or who might not be considered a terrorist, terrorist enabler, or terrorist sympathizer. Of course, this is not accidental; by including a certain amount of ambiguity in their choice of descriptive language, the DHS has given itself the flexibility to adjust its definition of who or who is not a terrorist as it sees fit.

Answers At A Time When Socialism Is On The March In America

As of now, the officially recognized categories of domestic terrorist include:

• Anarchist extremists – those who believe that capitalism and corporate globalization should be opposed at every turn and that all forms of government are inherently oppressive (note the conflation of “capitalism” and “corporate globalization” here, as if it were impossible to have one without the other).
• Animal rights extremists – those motivated to action against people, businesses, or government entities perceived to be abusing or exploiting animals (businesses and government entities are included here along with people because DHS wants to characterize acts of vandalism against property and the theft or release of captive animals as examples of “terrorism”).
• Anti-abortion extremists (‘cause, you know, that guy Eric Rudolph, who set off bombs at abortion clinics and at the Olympics back in the 1990s, he was against abortion, so all anti-abortion activists must be crazy like that— it’s only logical).
• Black supremacist extremists – African-Americans who oppose integration or who just flat out don’t like white people very much.
• Environmental rights extremists – again, actions against people, businesses, and government entities are all given equal billing, which is necessary because most of the “terrorism” committed by environmental radicals has involved vandalism and property damage.
• Homegrown violent extremists – wannabes who admire foreign terrorist organizations and decide to get in on the fun by doing something crazy/stupid all on their own (the news media loves these guys, most of whom are pathetic losers who couldn’t blow up a balloon on their own, let alone blow up a subway station or an airplane).
• Lone offenders – lone nuts who act entirely on their own for reasons that are obscure (the man who shot Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona would be an example of such a person).
• Militia extremists – opponents of the government who believe America is degenerating into a fascist police state (you mean it isn’t?). Can usually be recognized by their interest in acquiring more firearms than the government has decided they should be allowed to have.
• White supremacist extremists – groups like the KKK and various neo-Nazi organizations, which of course have been around forever.
• Racist skinhead extremists – a subgroup of the previous category; tend to be even more angry and prone to violence than their older counterparts in the white supremacist movement. These are some legitimately scary dudes—there is no doubt.
• Sovereign citizen extremists – people who don’t like authority and don’t play well with others, especially if those others are somehow connected to the government.
• Facilitators – not terrorists per se, but rather people who give aid and comfort to terrorists; some examples of that aid and comfort could include setting up bank accounts for those suspected of terrorism, helping them make travel arrangements, sending them money, enabling electronic communications on their behalf (letting them use your email, in other words), and producing false IDs to help them hide their real identities.
• Unwitting co-optees – those who help terrorists without realizing what they are doing (how exactly a law enforcement officer is supposed to tell the difference between a facilitator and an unwitting dupe is not clear, which of course means that everyone will be presumed guilty and will need to prove their innocence if they are going to be released).

Do You See The Parallel Between The “Separation Of Church And State” And The Beginning Of America’s Moral Decline

It is important to emphasize that the DHS is not just concerned with those who actually commit violent acts against human beings. In addition to the vandals, the anti-government activists, and the accidental helpers, the DHS definitions also make it clear that those who “facilitate” or “support” terrorist acts committed by the prescribed groups are also to be considered terrorists. It is clear that a weasel word like “facilitate” can be twisted around to mean just about anything, so if the DHS decides that facilitate should mean “guilt by association” (i.e. your cousin is a sovereign citizen extremist, so therefore you must be too), then that is what it will mean and no one will be able to argue any differently.

…And Then They Came For Me

Through the clever use of vague language, the DHS has given itself an extraordinary amount of wiggle room to define a terrorist in just about any way it sees fit. Of course, some of the groups identified here do have a history of disturbing violence (racist skinheads and homegrown violent extremists, for example), but to suggest that Earth Firsters who put sand in the gas tanks of bulldozers, or anti-abortion activists who stand on the lawns of abortion doctors, or patriot/militia folks who are mainly concerned about surviving societal collapse should be considered terrorist risks is stretching the concept of “terrorist” right up to the breaking point. If the plan is to include acts like vandalism or trespassing or illegal possession of a particular type of firearm under the “terrorism” umbrella, then it is obvious that the federal government intends to grant itself the authority to abuse, denigrate, and harass anyone of any ideological or political bent who isn’t willing to slouch meekly into obeisance at the feet of the ruling elite.

Make no mistake about it – if you are someone who is concerned that we are drifting into totalitarianism, or if you are involved in supporting some sort of cause that threatens the control of the wealthy and powerful, you could someday end up being labeled as a facilitator or supporter of “terrorism,” no matter how committed you are personally to non-violence. And if you should happen by some chance to own a gun, and you have made it clear that you are willing to use it to defend your freedom and your Constitutional rights if necessary, then all we can say is, God help you.

©2012 Off the Grid News

Every since President Harry S Truman made the fateful decision to sign the National Security Act of 1947 that gave birth to the Central Intelligence Agency, secrecy has been spreading like a runaway cancer metastasizing throughout the body politic. Accountability to the people is one of the fundamental hallmarks that distinguishes a democratic society from the darker alternatives, and when this principle is compromised, what is left behind is the illusion of democracy only. When bureaucrats, elected officials, and political appointees are placed in a position where they are free to use the machinery of government to pursue their own agendas without any checks and balances, abuse of power will inevitably run rampant.

The CIA and the other intelligence organizations of the U.S. national security state-within-a-state ostensibly exist to gather information that can help protect our nation from threats that originate from outside our borders. But almost immediately following its creation, the CIA morphed into an institution that was involved in far more than simple fact-finding. Under the leadership of ambitious men who relished the game of high-stakes poker between East and West that defined the Cold War era, the CIA, along with the intelligence arms of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, expanded their activities well beyond the gathering of intelligence. Essentially, these institutions came to function as the elite forces of an aggressive campaign of covert warfare, where nothing was considered off-limits in the battle against the spread of communism.

Not everyone accepts the idea that the actions of the CIA during the Cold War and beyond have been motivated mainly by a fear of the “enemy” (whoever the enemy happens to be at the time). Many see the CIA as the guardians of American corporate and financial interests, while others are convinced the CIA is a rogue organization that has been pursuing its own sinister agenda for quite some time. While there is evidence to support all three views, what happened under CIA sponsorship in the 1950s and 1960s at a Montreal psychiatric hospital called the Allan Memorial Institute really defies easy rationale or explanation. The fact an institute of the United States government actually supported the events and insanity we will be examining shortly, which took place there between 1957 and 1964, is profoundly disturbing and does not bode well for our future if the national security state as it currently exists is allowed to continue in its present form.

Mind Control and the Evolution of MKULTRA
During the Korean War, American POWs in the hands of the communist North Koreans suddenly began making statements confessing to war crimes and denouncing the policies of the United States. Intelligence analysts concluded (correctly) that these men had been the victims of mind control, which they believed (correctly, again) was being studied and practiced by both the Russians and the Chinese, the latter of whom were closely allied with the communist government in North Korea. Learning more about the possibilities in this area came to be seen as an imperative, and the agents of the national security state soon decided they should have a mind control program of their own.

In 1950, Project Bluebird was launched by the CIA. Bluebird’s mission was to study how drugs, hypnosis, and psychological warfare could be used to break the minds and spirits of enemy captives, leaving them open to manipulation and behavioral control. In 1951, Bluebird was replaced by a CIA/Army, Navy, and Air Force cooperative venture called Project Artichoke, and in 1953 the program was reorganized again under the auspices of the CIA and renamed Project MKULTRA. It was in its latter form that the government’s program of research into mind control went into full acceleration – and amazingly, a good amount of the research they funded was hidden in plain sight. Over a 20 year period, CIA front organizations such as the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology at Cornell University funneled money for mind control research – although it was of course never openly labeled that way – to approximately 185 researchers associated with 80 different private, non-governmental organizations around the world, including universities, non-profit foundations, hospitals, clinics, and penal institutions.

The CIA was particularly attracted to any research that involved the use of drugs or psychological deprogramming to alter mental states. Given this orientation, it is hardly surprising that one of the researchers whose work came to receive heavy supporte was a Scottish-born American psychiatrist named Donald Ewen Cameron.

The “Science” of Psychic Driving
After rising through the psychiatric ranks in New York during the 1930s and early 1940s, Dr. Cameron ultimately set up shop across the Canadian border at Montreal’s McGill University, where he headed up a psychiatric hospital called the Allan Memorial Institute from 1943 to 1964. Over time, Dr. Cameron developed a theory of the mind that saw the human brain as an information-processing machine, similar perhaps to a very simplified version of the modern computer. Staying with the computer analogy, Cameron essentially believed mental illness could be cured by erasing the bad programming recorded in the mind of a poorly functioning individual and replacing it with good programming, and his attempts to find a way to do this eventually led him to develop a technique he called ‘psychic driving’.

New documentary offers answers at a time when socialism is on the march in America…

The first step in the psychic driving procedure used drugs, electroshock therapy, and sensory deprivation to shatter a patient’s existing mental states and coping mechanisms. Once the minds of Dr. Cameron’s patients had been sufficiently scrambled and emptied of any organized content, they would then be placed in a drug-induced coma for periods of time ranging from one week to several weeks, depending on the severity of their previous mental illness. While in the coma, headphones would be placed over the patients’ ears and they would be forced to listen to an endless loop of simple audio messages played over and over again for hour after hour each day. These messages of health, happiness, and wellness were supposed to reprogram the subconscious until all of the faulty beliefs of the past had been replaced with sunny and happy thoughts of the future, and after patients were awakened they would be magically cured of their mental disorders and free to leave and return to their normal lives.

To the surprise of absolutely no one with even an ounce of common sense, Dr. Cameron’s pseudo-scientific crackpot theories and methodology never cured a single soul. But the first part of the psychic driving procedure, where drugs and electroshock torture were used to break down people’s existing sense of identity and memory, proved to be an extremely effective way of taking people with mild psychiatric disorders like depression or anxiety and turning them into catatonic shells no longer capable of functioning in the real world.

In a sane world, Dr. Ewen Cameron would have been arrested and put on trial for crimes against humanity. But from the murky perspective of the CIA, Ewen Cameron’s work was groundbreaking and important, and just the sort of thing they were interested in sponsoring as a part of their ongoing research into the prospects of mind control. An article about his work written in 1956 is what supposedly first brought Dr. Cameron to the CIA’s attention, and at the encouragement of the Agency, he submitted a grant proposal to the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology in 1957. This grant was approved, and for the next seven years, his research into methods for controlling and manipulating the human mind received covert funding through the CIA’s MKULTRA program.

Or at least, this is the official story. In fact, Ewen Cameron’s connections to the world of intelligence actually went back to World War II, when he worked with an organization called the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which was the forerunner of the CIA. He was involved in helping the OSS develop techniques for prisoner interrogation, and he was also called in to consult on the Nuremberg trial of the famous German war criminal Rudolph Hess, who many felt acted so peculiarly that he may have been a victim of mind control at some point. Cameron’s decision to leave the U.S. and stay in Canada for as long as he did is also interesting, since the CIA has clear rules against operating on American soil. Also intriguing is a paper Cameron wrote for an academic conference in 1953, in which he discussed the situation with the American POWs during the Korean War and also made other references that showed his awareness of and interest in the whole subject of mind control.

Based on pieces of information like this, and knowing how the Agency works, many have concluded that Ewen Cameron was probably connected to the CIA’s mind control program in some way well before they officially started funding his work in 1957. If this it true, then Cameron’s psychic driving procedure may have been about mind control all along, and his poor patients may have been nothing more than human guinea pigs sacrificed to the ruthless, amoral interests of a secret national security state that does not really believe in concepts like democracy or basic human rights.

Learning to Fear the National Security State
The horrors perpetrated by Dr. Ewen Cameron are only one example of the mind control projects that were undertaken by the CIA during the Cold War era. In this case, what happened was made possible because the victims of Cameron’s research had mental and emotional problems that left them vulnerable and unable to protect themselves, or to speak to anyone about what was happening to them. But at least in this case the truth eventually came out; for the most part, we can only guess at what kind of grim and terrible things might have taken place under the auspices of MKULTRA.

While it would be nice to believe things like this could never happen again, after 9/11 and under the guise of fighting terrorism, the government has used the World Trade Center attack as an excuse to push through repressive anti-constitutional legislation such the Patriot Act and the recent National Defense Authorization Act. These initiatives have given the government new and expanded powers to detain people indefinitely without charges ever being filed, or with the accused having any chance to defend him or herself in a court of law. When elected officials, bureaucrats, and members of the military and intelligence organizations are given the power to make people disappear into the bowels of the secret government on the slightest whim, once again a situation is being set up where abuse becomes not just possible, but inevitable.

“Secrecy and a free, democratic government don’t mix.”

Truer words than these have never been spoken. Unfortunately, the president who made this observation, Harry S Truman, did not realize the full truth of this statement until after he had made the mistake of signing the bill that allowed the CIA to come into existence. Intelligence gathering is of course important for any nation, and no one would seriously suggest that we give up this practice completely. But the national security state is not about intelligence, it is about secrecy, and until we can rid the body politic of this cancer, democratic government and the rule of law will remain little more than a dream, or a memory of something we lost long ago.

Catholic bishops in New York say their dioceses won’t abide by the new federal regulation requiring Catholic hospitals, charities and schools to provide birth control coverage in their health insurance plans. And they aren’t alone.

Numerous religious groups have condemned the mandate, saying it violates their First Amendment right to religious freedom because it would compel them to provide contraceptives to their employees despite the fact that they have religious convictions that see contraception and sterilization as immoral.

The DSCC sees this as an opportunity to draw battle lines for the coming national election. The email labels opposition to the Obamacare mandate an “attack” on women’s health.

“Our right-wing opponents continue to launch attack after attack against women’s rights, women’s health, and women’s economic security — and we’ve got to fight back every single day,” the email says. “The next battle over the Obama administration’s decision to make contraception more affordable under the new health care law is already underway.”

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has created what it calls a new grassroots effort, Standing Strong for Women Project, “to combat the Republican war on women.” Since a large majority of Catholics are registered Democrats it would seem the “grassroots effort” has a lot more to do with politics than women’s rights.

The DSCC urged supporters to give money in support of the mandate. “It’s hard to believe that in the 21st century we have to fight for access to birth control, but that is the fact — and there will be many more fights in the weeks ahead.”

The email also cites the liberals’ “victory” in forcing the Susan G. Komen foundation to reverse its decision to defund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms yet somehow feels it is entitled to funds from a foundation established for providing them.

“Our opponents tried to defund Planned Parenthood, in the federal budget and in many states, “said the DSCC. “They tried to destroy our Medicare and Medicaid lifelines, which would be particularly devastating to women. They tried to get the Susan G. Komen Foundation to cut off support for Planned Parenthood. Enough is enough. We may have won this latest round, but our opponents aren’t going away. They’re launching endless attacks against women every single day, and we need to rise to the challenge.”

Lost in the political theatrics is yet another attack on the Constitution itself. The First Amendment’s guarantee of protection from the intrusion of the government into church matters is fundamental to the formation of this country. The majority of the Founders of this country came here with a determination to ensure separation of the church from state control. They would, no doubt, be up in arms over yet another attempt by the federal government to dictate what the church can and cannot do.

Update: The White House announced earlier today that instead of requiring religious organizations to provide contraceptives and abortifacients in violation of their beliefs, that insurance companies will now be required to provide these services free of charge. The shell game this administration uses to achieve its goals is astounding. In the end, either the taxpayers will be required to foot the bill or increased insurance premiums paid by religious organizations will fund the mandate. Despite this attempt at smoke and mirrors, the majority of Americans realize full well there is no free ride. Someone ultimately pays the price.

This PreCheck program being tested by the Transportation Security Administration’s is only for a limited segment of airline passengers. Specifically it will be offered for select airlines frequent-flier programs and by busy international travelers enrolled in a federal registry.

Authorization to take advantage of the express lanes is determined by embedded information in the bar code of a boarding pass. TSA agents at designated check-in stands will scan boarding passes and send approved passengers to the appropriate line. Travelers qualifying for PreCheck will not know in advance if they qualify for a speedier security check.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the PreCheck program will “increase our security capabilities and expedite the screening process for travelers we consider our trusted partners.”

The PreCheck program first began in Dallas, Detroit, Miami, Atlanta, Los Angeles and Las Vegas last year and has screened more than 336,000 fliers. PreCheck is now expanding to Olrando, Tampa, Charlotte, N.C., Fort Lauderdale, New Orleans and 23 other airports.

Bombshell New Book Reveals… How To Survive The Coming Martial Law In America

Up to this point, fliers have qualified for the program through existing federal Trusted Traveler programs. Qualification for the PreCheck program has come through application fees or, in the case of American and Delta airlines, from among their frequent-flier memberships. United Airlines, US Airways, and Alaska Airlines will join the program later this year.

Carolyn Fennell, an airport spokeswoman said it could help move all passengers through security more quickly. “We certainly are very pleased at being chosen for this,” Fennell said. “Any process that expedites a certain volume of passengers will increase the capacity for other travelers who need more attention.”

TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz said that, as the program expands, frequent fliers will be invited by participating airlines to sign up. Participation will be limited to the airlines that fliers enrolled with and to the airports where the service is offered. TSA officials, however, emphasized that random checks will continue even among those fliers enrolled in PreCheck.

“Good, thoughtful, sensible security by its very nature facilitates lawful travel and legitimate commerce,” Napolitano said.

TSA Administrator John Pistole called it a “move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to a more-intelligence-driven, risk-based transportation-security system.”

The irony of this program is that Homeland security is presenting this program as a privilege being offered to select fliers. While a move in the right direction, this still does not address the basic problem with the TSA. Rather than allowing selected profiling of likely terrorists it is still taking the approach that all fliers are considered suspects.

Those who live off the grid or on a homestead know how important animals are. They provide you with meat, milk, wool, eggs, and they do jobs like plowing, guarding, and pulling. If you raise and co-exist with animals, you know that doing so creates a bond between humans and animals. And if you want them to thrive and provide you with what you need, then you need to treat them well. Those who don’t live on a farm or homestead may not understand the connection that you make with your animals. A recent event in Washington State illustrates this fact.

The News Story

According to reports in the Kitsap Sun, the Kitsap Humane Society seized 173 animals from Simon and Rosalind Bailey of Olalla on November 10^th. They were removed for allegedly being hoarded by the Baileys. The Baileys were accused of not only hoarding, but also of failing to provide sanitary living conditions and adequate water for the ducks, chickens, rabbits, quail, and alpacas.

The Humane Society first contacted the Baileys in April of 2011 after an anonymous complaint. The Humane Society visited the Bailey’s five-acre residence and determined that the property was poorly maintained and littered with junk. They described the animal enclosures as being improvised and veterinarians claimed that some of the animals were matted and had sores. However, photographs of these supposedly mistreated and ill-fed animals show fat, plump, healthy specimens, hardly the abused, malnourished creatures the Human Society claims.

The couple and their lawyer state that their animals were well cared for and healthy, in spite of the fact that their farm did not appear to look perfect. The Baileys both grew up on farms and say that they know very well how to care for animals. The Humane Society sited a dead cow found on the property. The Baileys say that the cow died from overeating after they were told by Humane Society workers to leave food out for it at all times.

The Baileys were blind-sided by the seizure in November. They said that they complied with all Humane Society demands since they first visited their farm in April. This included selling several animals at auction to reduce their overall numbers. Since the seizure and news stories about it, the Baileys have suffered threatening phone calls and harassment when out in public. They also miss their animals and are now being charged with second degree animal cruelty. This carries a possible $1,000 fine and up to 90 days in jail.

What is the Real Story?

The Baileys and their lawyer claim that this is a case of gross over reach by the Humane Society and law enforcement. The Baileys freely admit that their farm is far from picture perfect, but they deny all allegations of animal abuse. They loved their animals and cared for them well. With the seizure, they not only face legal charges and public humiliation, they have also lost a major food and income source.

So why would the Kitsap Humane Society bother the Baileys and take away their companions and food animals? Perhaps they have the animals’ best interest at heart, but maybe there is something else at work here. In late 2010, the Central Kitsap Reporter published a story about the Kitsap Humane Society. In September of 2010, the Humane Society announced that they would devote all of their efforts to fighting cruelty cases. That sounds reasonable, right?

This represented a change for the Humane Society. They actively decided to move away from simple nuisance cases, say a dog bite or a stray dog running around a neighborhood, and only act on high profile cases of animal cruelty. The shift came as the organization lost a chunk of funding from the county. While the Humane Society claims that the change means that they will be able to prioritize better for the welfare of animals, the fact is that individual tickets to owners of nuisance dogs just doesn’t bring in much money.

It would seem the Baileys are an early victim of this new policy. With over 100 animals on their property, the Baileys represent a possible source of revenue. If the Humane Society can charge and convict the Baileys and others like them, they can get some of their funding back.

There may be two sides to this story. Maybe the Baileys had a few more animals than they could handle. But, the fact that they sold some to reduce the numbers at the Humane Society’s request should have settled the issue. At one visit to the small farm, Humane Society workers found that there was not enough food for the animals for more than a day. That justifiably raises concerns, but perhaps they should have listened to the Baileys. Simon and Rosalind live very close to a feed store and have limited space at their farm. They bought feed each day because they did not have storage for it.

The bottom line in this case is that the Humane Society and law enforcement have overstretched their authority. It would seem that they could find actual cases of cruelty and leave small farmers like the Baileys alone. While caring for their animals and living off the land, the Baileys were the victims of a greedy government looking for more funding and accolades from the public.

The nature of the gun control/gun freedom debate basically centers around two questions: does the Second Amendment really protect the individual right to own a gun, and does private gun ownership actually make us safer or put us in greater danger?

The Second Amendment

The precise wording of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is as follows:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Controversy over the real meaning of this Amendment has been stimulated by the first two sections, which would seem to indicate that the right to own a gun is contingent upon the need for a militia. Since we now have a regular, standing military presence in the United States, as well as a National Guard that could be seen as the modern equivalent of a militia, it has been argued that restrictions on individual gun ownership can now be justified, since a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of the state. Up until 2008, the most recent Supreme Court decision that had addressed this question, U.S. vs. Miller (1939), accepted the contingency argument, and ruled that the Second Amendment did not really protect the right of the individual to own a gun in any absolute way.

The problem with this interpretation is that it completely ignores what the Founding Fathers meant with the second part of their conditional phrase, “being necessary to
the security of a free state.” The reason why the Founders placed so much faith in the militia is because they had experienced repression at the hands of the British government’s standing army, and they did not want to risk having the same thing happen again. In other words, the Founders of the United States feared the possibility of a standing army being used against the people and against freedom, even if its alleged reason for existing was to protect the nation from outside invasion. Therefore, as an alternative to a standing army they preferred a militia, so the people would be able to protect themselves from tyranny and oppression no matter what the source.

So if the creation of a standing military was potentially a vehicle for oppression, then how could the creation of such a force at some point in the future possibly negate the people’s right to bear arms and defend themselves and their freedom? Just because militias have now fallen out of use does not mean that they are gone forever. If economic calamity or environmental disaster or terrorist attack in the future should cause chaos and collapse, the people may need to organize militias again for the purposes of self-protection. The necessity of militias is perpetual, not conditional, and therefore the Second Amendment does indeed guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms permanently and unconditionally—just as the Supreme Court has now correctly ruled in the 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller decision that struck down a District of Columbia law banning certain kinds of handgun ownership.

Unfortunately, now that the Court has finally come down firmly on the side of the people’s unconditional right to bear arms, there are some trying to do an end run around the Second Amendment. In March 2011, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan issued a ruling declaring that the names of everyone possessing a gun permit in the state should be made publically available.

According to the Attorney General, the public has a “legitimate interest” in having access to this information. Certainly, burglars and other assorted felons would be very interested in obtaining this information, but besides that, it is difficult to ascertain what exactly this public interest could consist of. As usual, we are always left to speculate. Perhaps the real idea is to somehow try and stigmatize or shame people who have chosen to buy guns to protect themselves. After all, we’re always depicted as gun totin’ crackpots. Or perhaps it is meant to make things easier for a future police state (my personal guess), which might declare some sort of “state of emergency” in the event of societal collapse and use those circumstances as an excuse to round up everyone’s guns in the name of public safety.

The rationale and the potential for abuse with something like this is clearly off the charts, and it helps to show just how dangerous the mentality behind gun control can be when it is allowed to run wild. We know why we own guns and we are all law-abiding citizens. Unless an individual has shown him or herself to abuse this right, why on earth should we all have to take part in this exercise? We aren’t out there being Jesse James or robbing liquor stores or popping off our shotguns in public places. We simply want to protect our families, which is not far fetched, given the state of things now and the potential for things to get worse as the economy continues to take its downward spiral.

I am no conspiracy theorist, but seriously, what’s next?

In Self-Defense

Between 1990 and 2009, the percentage of Americans who believed the country needed more restrictive handgun laws dropped from 78% to 39%. What this reveals is that the clear majority of American citizens believe anyone who wants to purchase a gun for the purposes of personal protection should be able to do so. Of course, there is always debate over whether or not all types of guns should be legal and disagreement here has been used as a rationale for government control of gun sales in the form of regulation, registration and the banning of certain types of weapons.

While it has been shown that homicide rates are higher in countries with less-restrictive gun laws, a clear cause-and-effect relationship has never been established. So it is quite likely that the reason why gun ownership is higher in countries with high rates of violent crime is that people are rightly afraid and are buying weapons to protect themselves. This is of course a perfectly rational response, and it is hard to argue that any law-abiding citizen who chooses to carry a gun for the purposes of self-protection should not be allowed to do so.

And once again, we come back to the same situation we mentioned before— what if, for whatever reason, there is a total societal collapse and chaos reigns in the streets? In circumstances such as these, what we would need to defend ourselves against what could be something far more threatening and dangerous than a home burglary or attempted mugging on the street. In circumstances such as these, we may need weapons that are far more powerful and can provide far more protection than a handgun or a shotgun. Therefore, we need to think very carefully about whether or not we should support “common sense” restrictions on certain types of firearms. In the end, we must be prepared to defend ourselves and our families in all circumstances, including those that are the most dire and extreme.

Conclusion

While we can, to a certain extent, respect the sincere intentions of those who believe that gun control laws can help prevent violence and make us all safer, we also have to beware of those who would take those weapons in order to dominate the populace even further. In the end, we must reject those good-intentioned arguments as short-sighted and naïve. No one, of course, should have to buy a gun if they don’t want to, and they should be free to try and persuade you not to buy one, either. But if you finally decide to buy a gun, or several guns, of whatever type, in order to protect yourself and your loved ones from whatever dangers you believe are coming, then you should be entirely free to make that decision for yourself, with no government interference whatsoever. After all, if we follow the letter of the law to obtain a permit, why then would we turn around and use the gun for anything other than protection?

____________________________________________________________
Red Alert Warning! Bombshell New Book Reveals…
How To Survive The Coming Martial Law In America
____________________________________________________________