Discipline is the bridge between goals and accomplishments!
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Keep an eye on GEGP The Volume has been regular (up and down) for quite a while now, longer than usual.
Probably nothing since there is no news of anything happening (that I know of) but, one can never be sure about these subbies.
Thank you MrGreenPenny. I love The Buzz Board.
Gun Makers Boycott Governments Hostile To Second Amendment
February 16, 2013
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/gun-makers-boycott-governments-hostile-to-second-amendment/#ixzz2L87qEdub
We should ALL fully understand that our Freedom in America is hanging by a thin thread. Meaning; if we do not protect and preserve the 2nd Amendment, all the others will be lost and America will no longer be a free country.
The Downside of Gun-Control
http://www.chuckhawks.com/downside_gun_control.htm
Congressman Reintroduces Law To Require a Warrant For Drone Surveillance
February 16, 2013
http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/congressman-reintroduces-law-to-require-a-warrant-for-drone-surveillance/
Reality Check: Did Law Enforcement Intentionally Set Fire To The Cabin Where Chris Dorner Was Hiding?
Congressman Reintroduces Law To Require a Warrant For_Drone_Surveillance
February 16, 2013
http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/congressman-reintroduces-law-to-require-a-warrant-for-drone-surveillance/
By Congressman Ted Poe
Mr. Speaker, the domestic use of drones is on the way. There will be more eyes in the sky looking over America.
According to the FAA, by 2015, it will allow the use of drones nationwide, and by 2030, 30,000 drones will be cruising American skies – looking, observing, filming, and hovering over America. They will come whether we like it or not. We will not know where they are or what they’re looking at or what their purpose is, whether it’s permitted or not permitted, whether it’s lawful or unlawful, and we really won’t know who is flying those drones.
Sometimes drones are good. We can thank drones for helping us track terrorists overseas and for helping us catch outlaws on the border. Legitimate uses by government and private citizens do occur, but a nosy neighbor or a Big Brother government does not have the right to look into a window without legitimate cause or, in the case of the government, probable cause.
Mr. Speaker, drones are easy to find. I learned from a simple Google search that you can buy a drone on eBay or at your local Radio Shack. It’s very easy. And as technology changes, Congress has the responsibility to be proactive and to protect the Fourth Amendment right of all citizens. The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
It doesn’t take a constitutional law professor to see why legislation is needed to protect the rights of the American people. The right of a reasonable expectation of privacy is a constitutional right. Any form of snooping or spying, surveillance or eavesdropping goes against the rights that are outlined in the Constitution.
Today, I will reintroduce the Preserving American Privacy Act because it’s time for Congress to be proactive in protecting the rights of civilians from private use and government use of drones. This legislation balances individual constitutional rights with legitimate government activity and the private use of drones. We don’t have time to wait until 2030 when there are 30,000 drones in the sky.
This bill sets clear guidelines, protects individual privacy and informs peace officers so they will know what they can do and what they cannot do under the law. Nobody should be able to use drones for whatever purpose they want. This bill will make it clear for what purpose law enforcement and citizens and businesses can use drones.
There will be limits on the government use of drones so that the surveillance of individuals or their property is only permitted or conducted when there is a warrant. This applies to State, Federal, and local jurisdictions, but there are exceptions. Law enforcement could use a drone for fire and rescue, to monitor droughts and to assess flood damage or to chase a fleeing criminal. And of course, the exceptions, called exigent circumstances, which are already in our law, will apply.
This bill includes a clear statement so that it does not prevent the use of drones for border security. The bill also sets guidelines for the private use of drones.
The bottom line of the bill is simple: nobody should be spying on another unless they have the legal authority to do so. The decision should not be left up to unelected bureaucrats to decide the use of drones, so Congress has the obligation to set guidelines, to secure the right of privacy and to protect citizens from unlawful drone searches. Just because the government has the technology to look into somebody’s yard doesn’t give it the constitutional right to do so.
And that’s just the way it is.
Gun Makers Boycott Governments Hostile To Second Amendment
February 16, 2013
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/gun-makers-boycott-governments-hostile-to-second-amendment/#ixzz2L87qEdub
In a turning of the tables, liberty minded gun makers and companies that supply firearms, accessories and ammunition have determined that they have had it with anti-gun governments at the city, state and Federal levels, even if it means lost revenue. Several companies have announced that they will no longer be supplying equipment to hostile governments, police forces or first responders. New York and California have become the prime targets, making an example of out-of-touch politicians who continue to trample upon the Constitutionally protected rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms.
Breitbart compiled a list of statements from several of these companies:
• LaRue Tactical
Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.
• Olympic Arms
Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers.
In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.
• Extreme Firepower Inc, LLC
The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms. Law-enforcement agencies are typically exempt from these restrictions. EFI, LLC does not recognize law-enforcement exemptions to local, state, and federal gun control laws. If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction.
• Templar Custom
We will not sell arms to agents of the state of New York that hold themselves to be "more equal" than their citizens.
As long as the legislators of New York think they have the power to limit the rights of their citizens, in defiance of the Constitution, we at Templar will not sell them firearms to enforce their edicts.
Templar Custom is announcing that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee will no longer be served as customers.
• York Arms
Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York. As a result we have halted sales of rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to New York governmental agencies.
• Cheaper than Dirt
Recently, companies such as LaRue Tactical and Olympic Arms have announced that they will no longer sell prohibited items to government agencies and personnel in states that deny the right to own those items to civilians. It has been and will continue to be Cheaper Than Dirt’s policy to not to sell prohibited items to government agencies and/or agents in states, counties, cities, and municipalities that have enacted restrictive gun control laws against their citizens. We support and encourage other companies that share in this policy.
Alex Newman at The New American writes:
The recent surge in companies refusing to do business with lawless governments hostile to citizens’ rights may have been partly inspired by Ronnie Barrett, owner and CEO of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing. His company, which produces among the most popular .50-caliber weapons in the world, refused to sell the firearms to officials or agencies in California after lawmakers there some years ago banned civilian ownership of the high-caliber guns.
“It’s hard to believe we live in such a dark time that someone has actually banned a single shot rifle. But as you will see, this is the cleverest of all gun bans, and the end goal is civilian disarmament, the confiscation of your tools of liberty, your rifles,” the respected CEO wrote in a piece at the time explaining his company’s boycott. “Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California’s passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution’s 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California.”
Gun rights activists celebrated the decisions of the four companies to stand up for the rights of Americans. Analysts expect more firms to stand up soon, noting that otherwise, gun owners may choose to purchase from other manufacturers in the future. Across America, state governments, sheriffs, and even some city and county governments are working hard to protect the right to keep and bear arms regardless of any unconstitutional federal “laws” or edicts from President Obama to the contrary. Activists say it is time for all gun makers to join the effort or potentially face a boycott themselves.
While the big three manufacturers of firearms that sell to the New York Police Department, Glock, Smith & Wesson, and Sig Sauer have not come on board, Freedom Outpost, as well as, Guns Save Lives encourage them to do so.
Not only is the Federal government out of its mind concerning Second Amendment restrictions, but so are the states, including more Democrats in New Jersey putting together a package of 20 sweeping gun-control bills this week with a vote scheduled for February 21. While some naively think that Christie would veto such legislation, don’t hold your breath. Not only has he called for gun control to be a national discussion, but New Jersey has the second toughest gun control statutes in the country. While not enacting new gun control measures, he has not set out to repeal them either, claiming that the existing laws are sufficient.
Take time to contact gun manufacturers and voice your support for them to stop selling to governments (City, County, State, or Federal) hostile to the Second Amendment rights of citizens.
GLOCK, Inc.
6000 Highlands Parkway
Smyrna, GA 30082
USA
Phone:
770-432-1202
FAX:
770-433-8719
Email them here
SIG SAUER, Inc.
18 Industrial Drive
Exeter, NH 03833
Phone: 603-772-2302
Fax: 603-772-9082
publicsafetysales@sigsauer.com
globaldefensesales@sigsauer.com
Smith & Wesson
2100 Roosevelt Avenue
Springfield, MA 01104
Phone: 1-800-331-0852
Fax: 1-413-747-3317
qa@smith-wesson.com
Additionally, here is the contact information for Remington:
Remington Arms Company, LLC
870 Remington Drive
P.O. Box 700
Madison, NC 27025-0700
TEL: 1-800-243-9700
Fax: 1-336-548-7801
info@Remington.com
Could GEGP pop like this?
Q*GI(Q) was in the low price ranges up and down between the 3rd quarter of 2009 and 2nd quarter (areas) of 2010 of .004 and .0009 and had even dropped to lows of .0003 and .0001
And then, it took-off and started a climb that eventually took it to a high of .58 around 03/21/2011
It is possible for GEGP to do this but, only time will tell.
I made a lot of money on this one (and used some of that profit to purchase GEGP shares) and I didn't even get in near the lows I just mentioned. (sure wish I had)
So, anyone that had been in Q*GI(Q) at say, .001 with $500.00 and got out at say, .21 (conservatively) would have made $105,000.00 or a profit of $104,500.00
or had they got in @ .001 with say $1,500.00 and got out at .21 they would have profited $315,000.00 minus their initial investment and commission.
I'm by no means saying I believe this will happen with GEGP
All I'm saying is; that it does happen from time to time and we never know if it will or won't happen with GEGP
Food for thought.
Sincerely,
Essence of Wealth
Your very welcome MrGreenPenny, also my long time good friend.
Boardmarks soon to be 54+
Hello MrGreenPenny nice board name.
They murdered Dorner. 5th Amendment bypasses again.
No matter what, Every American Citizen is suppose to get Due Process of Law, Not Murdered whether they (suspect) has killing or Not!!!
People should wake the Hell up and know that what we hear about this person is Not necessarily the truth, the fact "IS" the MSM can NOT be trusted. It is the Courts job to decide whether Dorners is guilty or Innocent, not the police.
Another thing, we don't know that Christopher Dorner wasn't set-up to get people accustomed to the use of Armed Drones going after people.
This Dorner assassination could have been a set-up the same as the so-called school shooting, the Theater shooting, Waco and on and on to condition people for Martial Law.
Officers yell "Get the gas, burn it down" during Dorner, police shootout - LIVE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sisVskohj1k
Everyone, please read and sign-up
The link to sign-up to help defeat Gun Control is near the bottom of this article.
And Remember; without the 2nd Amendment, All Constitutional Protection will be GONE.
GOA: Defeat Every Word of Gun Control!
Gun Owners of America today submitted testimony at the request of the Ranking Member of the Senate Constitution Subcommittee. GOA took a strong stance against all the gun control legislation on the table and urged the Senate to put forth real solutions to school violence -- like letting teachers and principals protect their students.
Also, GOA wants to thank all of you who participated in our online poll over the past week. With 20,897 votes cast so far, the poll results indicate that 96% of GOA’s membership OPPOSES “universal background checks” -- and, hence, opposes the very guts of the gun legislation that is expected to move in the Senate.
Now, it's time to talk strategy -- that of the anti-gunners, and of ours, as well.
Within the next three weeks, we expect Senator Patrick Leahy's Senate Judiciary Committee will move a national gun registry bill to the Senate floor.
The Judiciary Committee bill will probably not contain the Feinstein semi-auto gun ban, and it may or may not have a magazine ban which would render most of the nation's guns unusable, at least for the foreseeable future.
But the Judiciary Committee bill will almost certainly ban all private sales of firearms -- or any private exchange where the gun buyer does not first get permission from the FBI. And it’s this background check requirement that will inevitably set up a framework for a universal gun registry.
The Leahy bill will most certainly have a "gun trafficking" section that is based on other legislation (S. 54) that he’s already introduced.
http://www.gunowners.org/AnalysisofS54.htm
This would turn everyone who lives under repressive state gun laws into a federal "prohibited person," as well. Hence, if your state requires a license to possess a gun, you would also become a federal prohibited person. Oh, and the Leahy bill would also send you to prison for 20 years for unknowingly selling a firearm to a marijuana user. So, the next time you're thinking of selling a gun, all we can say is: "Are you felling lucky?"
Anyway, here's Harry Reid's strategy: He has at least eleven Democratic senators running for reelection in pro-gun states in 2014 -- and they don't want to SEEM anti-gun. The eleven Democratic senators in pro-gun states are: Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mark Udall (Colorado), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Al Franken (Minnesota), Max Baucus (Montana), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Tom Udall (New Mexico), Kay Hagan (North Carolina), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), and Mark Warner (Virginia).
All of these Democrats will vote for the national gun registry and gun licensure. And, in exchange, Reid will allow them to vote against the Feinstein gun ban, which will be the sacrificial lamb to the more important gun control which Democrats really want.
But aside from the fact that the Democratic "non-controversial" gun control bill is, in many ways, worse than the "controversial" bills, there are two additional problems.
First, if gun control gets to the Senate floor, all bets are off. There are dozens of horrific gun control proposals that could easily be added on the floor. For example, a Lautenberg amendment -- supposedly intended to "combat terrorism" -- would allow Obama to ban guns for every gun activist in America just by putting their names on a secret "watch list."
Second, if gun control makes it to a House-Senate conference committee, all bets are off. The conference could report a bill which contains a Feinstein amendment, even though neither the House nor the Senate voted for that language. The conference report is unamendable, and, under the recent anti-gun changes in the Senate rules, there is no way to keep a Senate-passed bill out of the hands of an anti-gun conference.
THE SOLUTION TO ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS
First, we cannot allow one word of gun control to move to the Senate floor. NOT ONE WORD.
Second, the way we keep gun control from reaching the Senate floor is to defeat the “motion to proceed” to the Leahy Bill. (The “motion to proceed” is usually offered by the Senate Majority Leader -- in this case Harry Reid -- to bring up a bill for consideration. The Senate quite often brings up legislation under a Unanimous Consent agreement, but if there is not unanimity, the “motion to proceed” can usually be debated, if not filibustered.)
ACTION: Click here to urge your Senators
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/a...ertid=62404746
to vote against the Motion to Proceed to any gun control bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This bill cannot be allowed to get to the Senate floor, or Harry Reid will then have a free-hand to start his “let’s make a deal” game.
NDAA Lawsuit- Hedges v. Obama -Pt. 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFbIGxWEJ7k
The Constitution is The Supreme Law of The Land
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No other laws from State governments may supercede this document's authority
This law is of the people and for the people. It can only be changed by the people. With the ballot box as their sword, the people elect public officials to tend to the business of the country. They must submit to reelection and the scrutiny is intense
The Constitution limits the power of public officials, elected and appointed. The power of impeachment provides a back stop of protections. The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors
Justices of the Supreme Court and Federal Judges are to be free of political influence or favor. These servants of the people are entrusted with a lifetime appointment
Ted Nugent to attend State of the Union address
Feb. 11, 2013, 7:58 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman says he's invited rocker Ted Nugent, who has referred to President Barack Obama's administration as "evil, America-hating," to the State of the Union address.
Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas said Monday on his website that Nugent will be his guest for the president's speech Tuesday night. Stockman has talked of impeaching Obama over his gun-control proposals.
If everyone on this board did this and asked others to do the same, iHub Admin might listen unless, they have a very good reason they won't or can't.
I can't think of any reason they couldn't make it so we can see who is following us.
You make a good point cnvegas; knowing who is following us, keeps them honest.
This is BS. I Hope and Pray the U.S. Citizens go all out after the Government if they (obama and his Nazis) do in fact use Drones to Kill this American Citizen within U.S.A. Boarders without Due Process of the Law(s) of our Constitution.
“The Gun Is Civilization”
By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2011/05/21/the-gun-is-civilization-by-maj-l-caudill-usmc-ret/
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
We should all voice our opinion to iHub Administration to make it so we can see who is following us.
This way, all those who are Indian Givers will be Screwed.
I say this because, new Person Marks from people new to this board seem to drop back off faster than from Person Marks given from people of other boards.
If I'm wrong about that then fine but, prove it if you think I am wrong.
Perhaps, people should say they removed a Person Mark from someone, with an optional explanation why.
Unfortunately, that will most likely never happen.
Obama’s Next CIA Director, Muslim Brotherhood/Islam Convert
Former FBI Counter Terror Agent: “Obama’s Next CIA Director, Muslim Brotherhood/Islam Convert”
February 9, 2013
http://patriotupdate.com/2013/02/former-fbi-counter-terror-agent-obamas-next-cia-director-muslim-brotherhoodislam-convert/
A former FBI Counter Terrorism Agent states that President Obama’s next CIA Director, John Brennan, has been co-opted by the Muslim Brotherhood and has converted to Islam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9S73fkmE0Is
Young People Rising Up Against U.S Military Recruitment?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slEeZEoef8Q
Watched it and sent it out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z7w3ZEbC09k
Live Free or, Die - - as a Slave, because, There is NO Life as a Slave.
Thank you Ecomike
Thank you pINKY pROMISE it is much appreciated.
#74 for you Ecomike
Hit me back
#36 for you pINKY pROMISE
Hit me back
Not really. It's just that people should take a couples seconds to read the boards iBox first, respect the board rules and all will be good.
Plenty of stock shout boards on iHub.
Besides, being here on the "Personmark Exchange Board" and exchanging Person Marks with more people than you might have on other boards, could also mean; since you have more followers, you could also have more people watching what stocks your shouting about on those other boards.
You see, this board is a win win for the people that understand the power of Person Marks.
Take care and have a great weekend.
Sincerely,
Essence of Wealth
This has been the longest
stretch of regular volume for GEGP since the S1,
that I can recall
Obama EOs on Guns Would Spark Mass Resistance
Thursday, 10 January 2013 15:09
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14171-obama-executive-orders-on-guns-would-spark-mass-resistance
As the Obama administration openly vows to use unconstitutional “executive orders” to further infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, gun rights activists, members of the law enforcement community, military personnel, and others are pledging to resist. Everything from an armed uprising and nationwide civil disobedience to legal means of resistance like the courts and nullification is being openly discussed online and even in the establishment media.
“The president is going to act,” pledged Vice President Joe Biden, who is leading an administration task force to further restrict gun rights in the wake of the Newtown massacre. "Executive order, executive action can be taken, we haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the cabinet members, as well as legislative action we believe is required."
The Constitution, of course, reserves all legislative powers to Congress — not to mention the specific prohibition against infringements on gun rights contained in the Second Amendment. But disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder, who is helping develop the “executive action” plot, was caught in the 1990s on video calling for a tax-funded campaign to “brainwash” people against guns. He was also held in criminal contempt of Congress for lying about Operation Fast and Furious, which saw the Justice Department providing thousands of powerful guns to Mexican drug cartels through the ATF.
Appearing on CNN, Gun Owners of America chief Larry Pratt said assaults on the Second Amendment imposed unilaterally by a lawless president would call the legitimacy of the federal government into question. Noting that Obama has already been ruling by decree in realms where he “has no authority” and that Biden is openly discussing “executive action” to deal with firearms, the no-compromise gun rights activist said any such unconstitutional presidential decrees infringing on the Second Amendment would have dire implications.
"That, I think, changes the game and throws into question the legitimacy of the federal government," Pratt told rabid anti-gun CNN host Piers Morgan, a Brit who has come under fire in recent weeks for his oftentimes disrespectful and hostile attitude toward defenders of the Second Amendment. "I would advise Mr. Obama to consider what happened to [King] George the third when he was doing similar things against the American colonists."
Meanwhile, former Congressman and GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, who has millions of ardent supporters across America, suggested to radio host Alex Jones that “executive orders” purporting to ban guns may well spark a second American revolution. Jones himself made similar remarks in a heated interview this week on CNN as well, saying an assault on gun rights would lead to another revolution, drawing praise from his legions of followers but controversy in some conservative and libertarian circles.
During the interview, Ron Paul pointed out the hypocrisy of trying to infringe on the rights of Americans due to the actions of a murderer even as the Obama administration continues killing children all over the world using drones. "It should go without saying that he's gone way too far. It also should go without saying that he's acting with the use of illegal violence, and he becomes the violent person," Rep. Paul explained. "These are dictatorial moves; they are very, very dangerous.”
Still, he did not believe Americans were likely to relinquish their firearms anytime soon. "I don't think the American people will [turn in their semi-automatic guns],” the doctor-turned lawmaker from Texas continued. “I've always assumed that the line in the sand may well be drawn if the federal agent marches in unannounced and they say, 'give me your gun and give me your gold.' I don't think they'll be able to do that calmly. I think the American people will highly resent it and resist."
Among those promising to resist, many have vowed to use the courts or nullification of unconstitutional federal laws to stop the assault. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials at the state and local level all across America are currently exploring legal options to block further infringements on Americans’ rights.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, for example, citing recent Supreme Court rulings, said the proposals being discussed in Washington are unconstitutional. If any were to be approved, the feisty chief law enforcement officer vowed to take the federal infringements to court and have them thrown out. "I've been to the Supreme Court twice," Abbott said in a recent interview with 1200 WOAI. "I can tell you that these laws that try to restrict our gun rights violate the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on this issue twice."
Other law enforcement officials, like numerous state legislatures, are pursuing nullification in an effort to void any unconstitutional statutes within their jurisdictions. Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania, Police Chief Mark Kessler, for example, is asking local lawmakers to adopt the “Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance,” which cites the state and U.S. constitutions to invalidate any further assaults on the unalienable rights of residents in his community.
“Hopefully this will spread like fire throughout the country, and the people will stand up and say, you know what, enough is enough, and under the Tenth Amendment, which grants the power of nullification of unconstitutional laws, we're going to recognize this as unconstitutional, we're not going to enforce it, we're going to make sure this doesn't happen," Chief Kessler told The New American in an interview, adding that the Second Amendment was clear. “We want to do this peacefully, we don't want any kind of violence whatsoever — I'm totally against that — I just want to see a peaceful resolution to this. And under the Tenth Amendment, hopefully we can accomplish this through the nullification process."
Elected county sheriffs are also expected to be on the front line in any potential showdown between an out-of-control executive branch and the American people. Former Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack already has experience protecting residents in his jurisdiction from federal lawlessness. And he says that as the top law enforcement officers in their jurisdictions — with power to arrest federal agents for violating the law — sheriffs have a duty to protect the people and their liberties.
“The sheriffs need to be united in letting the federal government know that we’re not going to allow it,” he told WorldNetDaily in a recent interview. “Out of 200 sheriffs with whom I’ve met, I’ve only had one give me a wishy-washy answer. That one said he would try to take the federal government to court. Most of them have said they would lay down their lives first rather than allow any more federal control. They also said they would do everything they could to stop gun control and gun confiscation.... If the federal government wants to start a new Civil War, all they need to do is go ahead with gun confiscation.”
Gun Owners of America chief Pratt agreed with Mack. “The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties,” he explained. “This is a defensible idea. He can deputize people to serve since they are the ones who voted for him to represent them. A lot of citizens would stand up for their Second Amendment rights if they were protected by the sheriff.”
Countless other analysts and activists have also warned that Americans would be engaging in peaceful resistance — refusing to register their firearms regardless of any new, unconstitutional statutes or executive edicts purporting to require it, for example. A group of law enforcement and military personnel known as Oath Keepers has all of its members pledge to uphold their oaths to the Constitution and never enforce unconstitutional orders — including assaults on the right to keep and bear arms.
The people themselves will almost certainly resist, too, insist experts. "The anti-gun hysteria and other crapola coming out of Washington could lead to massive civil disobedience throughout the United States," gun rights lobbyist and former National Rifle Association editor John Snyder was quoted as saying in the Law Enforcement Examiner. “They're out of touch. It is time for the House of Representatives to slash the ATF budget or eliminate the agency."
More than a few commentators have taken it a step further, promising armed resistance in the event federal authorities ever attempt to confiscate firearms — an unlikely prospect, for now at least. In a blog post that quickly went viral and appeared on countless sites around the internet, one gun rights activist even argued that citizens have a constitutional duty to resist any potential confiscation effort in the future by using force.
“If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty,” wrote Dean Garrison with The D.C. Clothesline in a controversial blog post that has since gone viral online, garnering hundreds of thousands of readers, maybe millions. “To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.”
Of course, nobody wants to see violence, as virtually every prominent gun rights activist and supporter of the Constitution has said on numerous occasions. However, judging from the increasingly brazen assaults on the Second Amendment and the defiant attitude among firearm owners, who are buying weapons in record numbers, it has become clear that any and all efforts to further infringe on gun rights will be met with fierce opposition. First, political and legal means will be used. If those resistance strategies become futile, though, where this conflict might lead remains a
GMO Giant Monsanto Joins Big Business Coalition for UN Agenda 21
http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/14409-gmo-giant-monsanto-joins-big-business-coalition-for-un-agenda-21
Corporate giant Monsanto, known for its controversial business model, lobbying, and its widely criticized genetically modified organisms (GMOs), has officially joined the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, a group of powerful interests including major banks and Big Oil backing the United Nations “Agenda 21” scheme for so-called “sustainable development.” Critics, however, expressed alarm over the announcement, saying the global “sustainability” push is really a transparent plot to centralize power in the UN and enrich special interests at the expense of private property rights, national sovereignty, and individual liberty.
Despite the widespread suspicion and criticism plaguing both Monsanto and the global Big Business alliance pushing the UN’s Agenda 21, the company and the coalition celebrated the move in a recent press release. According to the announcement late last month, the biotech behemoth will be rolling out a “sustainability” course for its employees all over the world. Chairman and CEO Hugh Grant will represent the GMO company as a “Council Member” in the global “sustainable development” coalition.
Even though Monsanto has become probably one of the most controversial companies in the world, it is extraordinarily well connected in the halls of power, and the global business alliance for “sustainable development” celebrated the firm’s decision to sign up. “In joining the WBCSD, Monsanto is taking an important step along a continuum towards developing a more sustainable agriculture system — one that improves our daily lives, respects our global environment and recognizes the importance of the world’s small-holder farmers,” claimed council President Peter Bakker in a statement posted on the group’s website.
Farming and global agriculture must change, the WBCSD continued. “We must find new ways to protect soils, enhance ecosystems and optimize land use in ways that are environmentally sound,” Bakker added in the press release. “And we must move towards a future vision for agriculture where absolutes become as out of place as a one-size-fits-all approach to farming.”
Indeed, the WBCSD’s website is rather candid about its aims and its “One World vision,” explicitly touting the UN Agenda 21 and its radical plan for transforming human civilization. “The One World vision is the ultimate stage of a conceptual evolution that started decades ago,” the council notes on its site. “This evolution produced several paradigm shifts that combine how we comprehend our world, and, as a result, how we try to deal with it.”
Meanwhile, even as opposition to the UN’s vision of so-called “sustainable development” continues to surge worldwide, the controversial biotech giant also publicly celebrated its decision to join forces with Big Business “sustainability” proponents. The press release publicly announcing the move claimed that a growing population would put a strain on natural resources and that “new agriculture systems” would be needed for “sustainability” purposes.
“At Monsanto, our company vision for sustainable agriculture strives to contribute to meeting the needs of the growing population, to protect and preserve natural resources, and to help improve lives,” said Jerry Steiner, the biotech firm’s executive vice president for sustainability and corporate affairs. “We are excited to join the WBCSD and connect with a global coalition of more than 200 companies that advocate for progress on sustainable development.”
Monsanto, of course, has come under heavy criticism recently — particularly last year when a French university study found that its genetically engineered “frankenfood” products were associated with serious health concerns such as cancer. In the wake of the explosive research findings, which the company itself criticized as flawed, the Russian government actually banned the import or sale of Monsanto’s NK603 genetically engineered corn. European authorities considered similar measures as well.
Also widely criticized is the corporate giant’s business model itself — patenting genetically engineered DNA and using the force of government to protect what it calls its “intellectual property,” even when that DNA ends up contaminating an unwitting farmer’s crops. The U.S. government, in particular, is filled with former high-ranking Monsanto figures, and it plays a key role in pushing the firm’s dubious products worldwide. When governments or scientists express concerns about the health or economic impacts of GMOs, official documents have revealed, American authorities stand ready to exert overwhelming pressure to crush any resistance.
Aside from the numerous controversies surrounding genetically engineered food and Monsanto in particular, the whole concept of “sustainability” has also attracted a firestorm of criticism and outrage. Still, key members of the so-called global “establishment” — the UN, Big Business, taxpayer-funded “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs), the Obama administration, the mega-wealthy, among other powerful forces — have been promoting what they misleadingly tout as “sustainable development” for decades.
The ultimate UN plan, known as “Agenda 21,” was outlined and agreed to by national governments and dictatorships worldwide at a 1992 UN summit in Rio de Janeiro. “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment,” the UN admits on its website, sparking suspicions from analysts who point out that virtually every aspect of human existence has some “impact” on the “environment.”
In essence, under the guise of environmentalism and, more recently, alleviating poverty, the global scheme calls for reducing consumption, further empowering the UN and national governments, more central planning in the economy, a gradual erosion of private property rights, and much more. The global entity’s own documents, as The New American has documented extensively, reveal the scope of the plan. Indeed, in recent years, the UN has become increasingly candid in discussing its goals, saying last year that even human thought would be targeted under the radical agenda.
While the U.S. Senate never ratified the UN scheme, both Democrat and Republican administrations, working with state and local officials, have been busy implementing it across the United States for decades. Using grants and federal pressure, presidents from George H.W. Bush, who originally signed on to Agenda 21, to Obama most recently, have been busy pushing and implementing the controversial UN plan within America.
However, as public awareness of the plan has grown in recent years, opposition to the whole scheme has been steadily increasing as well. Numerous states and local governments, for example, have adopted bi-partisan resolutions condemning UN Agenda 21 as a “socialist” and “communist” plot completely at odds with the U.S. Constitution, American traditions of self-government, and even fundamental liberties. That trend of resistance is accelerating.
As The New American reported in June of 2012, Alabama became the first state to officially and completely ban the dangerous UN plan in an effort to protect private property and due process, with the bill passing unanimously in both chambers of the legislature before being signed into law by Gov. Robert Bentley. Other states are also working on similar laws as opposition to the controversial global agenda surges nationwide — especially at the grassroots level.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) and numerous state Republican parties, meanwhile, have also urged GOP officials at all levels of government to battle the UN scheme. More than a few Democrats have also urged opposition to the global plan. And across America, local government meetings have been increasingly swamped by concerned citizens demanding an end to their elected officials’ cooperation with the agenda and its myriad tentacles — especially ICLEI, a Germany-based, UN-backed organization working to implement the plan formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives.
Monsanto joins a wide range of other international mega-corporations as part of the global “sustainability” alliance for businesses that includes Big Banks, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and more. Some prominent examples include Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Chevron, Petrobras, Shell, Novartis, and Coca Cola. Hundreds of other major corporate players are members as well.
As The New American reported last year from the most recent UN Conference on Sustainable Development, known as “Rio+20,” the global alliance pushing Agenda 21 is wide-ranging. Ruthless dictatorships — a top Chinese Communist Party official chaired the whole UN summit, for instance — have joined forces with Big Business, NGO front groups for the establishment, and powerful interests worldwide in the quest for global government. “Sustainability” is simply the buzzword used to conceal the increasingly transparent real agenda.
What Is Agenda 21? After Watching This, You May Not Want to Know
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/19/what-is-agenda-21-after-watching-this-you-may-not-want-to-know/
DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
Agenda 21 Bills Call For Virginia To Oppose Sustainability Program
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/virginia-agenda-21_n_2497163.html
Agenda 21 In New Hampshire: State Lawmaker Seeks To Keep Out Sustainability Program
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/agenda-21-new-hampshire_n_2198466.html
Stop Agenda 21
http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/stop-agenda-21
Agenda 21 is another wording for New World Order (NWO) or a One World Order (OWO) in-which the Elite want to eliminate all but 500 Million People World Wide.
See; Georgia Guidestones
They (Elite) don't do something like this if they aren't serious about carrying it out.
IMO; Flu shots are another means of eliminating the population because they first get people used to getting them and scare us into believing the Flu Shot is necessary and then they use it to make us sick and eventually to kill us.
Think I'm wrong, that is everyone's right, but, look-up what is in a Flu shot and ask yourself, "How many people have died throughout History without getting a Flu Shot vs the amount of people that have Died from getting a Flu Shot"?
Here's just one site to read and if you disagree then your not alone.
The Flu Shot: Everything You Need To Know
http://saveourbones.com/flu-shot/
People that get a Flu shot regularly most likely won't believe any of this anymore than people that smoke cigarettes believe cigarette smoking is really bad for them.
Drone strikes on Americans = Act of War
by obama on American Citizens.
obama and his administration are NOT the law of the land of these United States of America and it's Citizens, the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme law of the land of these United States of America.
Any Drone strike(s) on Americans, either on or off American soil is a Violation of the Americans rights = Act of War on Americans by obama.
http://cdn.teaparty.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/holder-obama.jpeg?84cd58
http://www.teaparty.org/19764-19764/
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/
I'm your #43 pennystockmentor
Hit me back and; don't hit the back or forward browser button or it will remove the Person Mark (usually).
Follow-up to: A Small Town in Arkansas Shreds_4th_Amendment
Paragould, AR Mayor Told His Actions Will Violate His Oath To US & AR Constitutions
January 9, 2013
I informed you in December about the mayor of Paragould, Arkansas and his police chief determining to violate the Constitution and send armed SWAT teams in full fear to stop, detain and question people without any probable cause. Well, now a letter has been drafted to call Mayor Mike Gaskill, as well as, Police Chief Todd Stovall to honor their oath of office and desist from implementing this type of Gestapo tactics on their citizens.
Dan Johnson from PANDA (People Against The NDAA) and Oath Keepers have sent a letter to Mayor Mike Gaskill. The following is the letter in its entirety and is signed by many, including yours truly.
Mayor Mike Gaskill
P.O. Box 1175
Paragould, AR 72451-1175
cc: Chief of Police Todd Stovall
Arkansas Attorney General McDaniels
Sheriff Dan Langston
Mayor Mike Gaskill:
Your recently proposed actions will violate your Oath of Office to defend the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, by violating the following specific provisions of the U.S. and Arkansas Constitutions:
U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV
Arkansas Declaration of Rights, Article II, Section 4
Arkansas Declaration of Rights, Article II, Section 15
Arkansas Declaration of Rights, Article II, Section 21
Arkansas Declaration of Rights, Article II, Section 29
According to the Paragould Daily Press, the Paragould, Arkansas Police Department will be deploying a new “street crimes unit” to patrol on foot and “clean up the streets” in high-crime areas. This unit would be deployed in full “SWAT gear” and carry “AR-15’s around their neck.”
While patrolling a neighborhood with this type of military-grade weaponry is itself an extreme measure, Police Chief Todd Stovall’s next statement regarding the unit’s duties goes beyond an extreme measure and is blatantly in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution Article II Section 15, among others.
Police Chief Stovall stated:
“If you’re out walking, we’re going to stop you, ask why you’re out walking, check for your ID…We’re going to do it to everybody.”…. “Criminals don’t like being talked to.”
It is apparent by these statements that the special “street crimes unit” fully intends to search and check the ID of any person, whether or not there is probable cause or even a reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in crime or is a witness to a particular crime. In fact, Chief Stovall confirmed that members of the task force would not be required to be looking for a specific suspect.
“Anyone that’s out walking, because of the crime and the fear factor, [could be stopped],” he said.
Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall.
In fact, even if a person refused to offer identification, your officers would not back down:
“I’m hoping we don’t run across [any] of that,” stated Police Chief Stovall. “Will there be people who buck us? There may be. But we have a right to be doing what we’re doing. We have a zero-tolerance. We are prepared to throw your hind-end in jail, OK? We’re not going to take a lot of flack.”
Police on the streets demanding “Show me your papers, please” of anyone and everyone is something that happens in a dictatorship like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or Communist China – not in America. In fact, one of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “general warrants” known as Writs of Assistance which empowered British customs agents to search anyone, anywhere, and anytime they wanted, without a showing of probable cause that a particular person, place, or thing was involved in a crime. And it was to prevent a recurrence of such abuse that our Fourth Amendment was written.
After taking a lot of public flak, and rightfully so, the Paragould “Friendly City” Police Department issued a press release attempting to explain its proposed actions entitled “Armed Patrol” Clarifications, which thoroughly explains the purpose of this “street crimes unit,” and provides more specifics on how the program will be administered.
This clarification confirms that the concerns about this program are justified and accurate. Far from reassuring the public that the constitutional protection of citizens’ rights shall be respected, this release specifically admits three things that are in violation of those rights:
a) The Paragould Police Department will be asking anyone and everyone out walking, for identification, without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that that particular person is engaged in a crime;
b) This “street crimes unit” will be questioning any person outside between the hours of 11pm and 5am, and
c) The unit will record any and all contact with persons encountered between 11pm and 5am.
Finally, this press release requests more citizen participation. “Our hope is for you to attend one of the remaining two meetings this week to hear our plans and so that we may get your input.”
That would be a step in the right direction.
However, in a press release titled “Cancellation of Town Hall Meetings,” the Paragould Police Department decided to discontinue holding town meetings on the new unit:
“In the interest of public safety, we have elected to cancel the remaining Town Hall Meetings.”
It then goes on to state “As the police department, it is our duty to protect ALL residents and non-residents from harm. We feel that with the strong feelings on both sides of the Street Crimes Unit issue, a safe and productive meeting would not be the probable outcome.”
First of all, your primary duty is to defend the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, as you swore to do when you assumed office. In addition, your police department appears to be attempting to avoid the lens of public scrutiny by hiding behind the excuse of public safety, which is ironic, given that your rationale for violating the people’s rights, which has caused so much concern in the first place, is also public safety.
The Constitution, and in particular, the Bill of Rights, strikes the proper balance between liberty and safety. It is your oath sworn duty to abide by it, not rewrite it.
If this “street crimes unit” is put into effect with the currently proposed powers, and takes the actions you have planned, you, Police Chief Stovall, and any officer in that unit will have violated their respective Oaths of Office begging the question of their fitness to serve. These powers are in direct violation of several provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including the 4th Amendment, and Arkansas Declaration of Rights which, according to Section 29, “shall forever remain inviolate.”
Paragould, Arkansas may have a serious crime problem. If so, many measures can be taken to reduce that crime without violating Constitutionally protected rights. In fact, we support officers walking the beat as they used to, and getting to know everyone in the neighborhood, just as friendly officers did in the past, but in a way that respects their rights and treats them like citizens, not subjects, and certainly not by treating everyone like a criminal suspect. What Chief Stovall needs to do is win the hearts and minds of the people in those crime-ridden areas and see them as allies, not suspects. This type of rhetoric and unconstitutional tactics will not win cooperation of the citizens in those areas, who are your best asset in securing the public safety.
Can the taxpayers of Paragould afford the lawsuits that Chief Stovall has opened you, himself and the city of Paragould up to with this plan?
The residents of the “Friendly City” deserve better than this.
More:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/paragould-ar-mayor-told-his-actions-will-violate-his-oath-to-us-ar-constitutions/
A Small Town in Arkansas Shreds the 4th Amendment
Follow-up to: A Small Town in Arkansas Shreds the 4th Amendment
2012-12-18
Paragould, Arkansas' Mayor Mike Gaskill and Police Chief Todd Stovall Shred the 4th Amendment for all their toy gifts for their department to slowly help obama destroy our Constitutional rights and to enact the NWO.
People of that area should Sue Mayor Mike Gaskill and the Police none-stop everytime they demand I.D. since it was declared Racist to ask people for their I.D. when they have done nothing wrong.
Why Is an Arkansas City Deploying Police With AR-15s to Demand Citizens Show I.D. on the Streets?
That is right NYBob and Ron Paul
"We the People" ARE Human Beings and Not Farm Animals as the disgusting Elite think we are.
Great News NYBob. People like this engineer need to keep the momentum going.
The more the better.
These Constitution/Amendment Violations must be stopped ASAP and people everywhere need to wake the hell up and fight these violation and Stop acting as if we can't do anything about them.
Constitution/Amendment Violations Cannot continue as long as the people "together" refuse to let it continue.
We all Must Fight, Fight, Fight.
Engineer Files Law Suit Against NY Street Body Scanners
Machines violate Fourth Amendment, and can “unzip” DNA
according to studies
http://www.prisonplanet.com/engineer-files-law-suit-against-ny-street-body-scanners.html