WAKE UP AMERICA! Before the Gestapo knocks down your door!

WA gun bill includes police searches without warrants

posted at 8:41 am on February 19, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Oh, let’s not call them searches.  Let’s call them inspections, just a small price for gun owners to pay for exercising a right explicitly protected in the Constitution, and without any probable cause apparent for a crime being committed.  After all, we know that will convince criminals not to keep weapons, right?  Right?
Even gun-control activists in Washington are embarrassed by this, er, mistake (via Instapundit):

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

Most of us aren’t wondering.  As for this being a “mistake,” the description from Danny Westneat in the Seattle Times makes it sound like a pretty deliberate error:

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

A mistake is a typo or forgetting to insert or remove a key word in legislation; that happens from time to time, with embarrassing but not usually substantial consequences.  This was obviously a deliberate part of the bill, intended to intimidate gun owners into giving up the exercise of their rights, again with the meaningless rubric of “assault weapons.”

By the way, yet another study shows that an “assault weapons” ban will have no impact on crime.  Did it come from the NRA?  No, it came from the Department of Justice, which has held it close to the vest for the last six weeks:

Justice Department researchers have concluded that an assault weapons ban is “unlikely to have an effect on gun violence,” but President Obama has not accepted their report as his administration’s official position.

“Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence,” the DOJ’s National Institute for Justice explains in a January 4 report obtained by the National Rifle Association. “If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.” That idea is also undermined by the acknowledgement that “a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”

The research in that report didn’t stop Obama denouncing “weapons of war” during his State of the Union speech on February 12.

The number of homicide victims from all rifle types is about 3% of all homicide victims on an annual basis.  They are far outstripped by victims from cutting weapons or even “personal weapons” — hands and feet.  

Anyone who paid attention to the impact (and lack thereof) of the 1994 ban already knows this.  However, this current hysteria makes for a wonderful opportunity to frighten law-abiding citizens with threats of random police searches while doing nothing about the criminals, who will benefit from the redirection of law-enforcement resources.

Total Destruction of the U.S - Our Rapidly Deteriorating Education System

Posted by National Director, Dee on February 19, 2013 at 3:55am

If your church's new pastor had a long and well-known history of atheism, contradicting church doctrine, or fire-bombing churches, would you trust him to serve the church community in good faith, and to do everything in his power to uphold the church's principles and practices?  More to the point, would you continue to attend that church, and to take your children there?

If people dedicated to the complete destruction of the United States as a constitutional republic became power-players in the public school establishment, would you expect them to build an education system that fostered and preserved the tenets of republican citizenship as understood by America's founders?  Would you continue to support the public schools, and send your children there?

For a hundred years, the main intellectual force behind America's educational establishment has been John Dewey, a socialist and open critic of the Enlightenment, American individualism, and American constitutional government.  What kind of education system should people have expected Dewey and his admirers to promote?  Should anyone be surprised that the public school establishment built largely according to his theories has become an anti-American cesspool of collectivism, irrationalism, and immorality? 

Today, the educational insanity has reached new heights.  The public school establishment has devolved from following the wisdom of men who hoped to remodel America in a Marxist image to following men who have actively sought to instigate violent revolution.  The church leadership, as it were, has devolved from atheists to fire-bombers.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/total_destruction_of_the_us_...

Emperor Obama Redefines America

Obama has begun his second term in a confrontational manner, starting with his Second Inaugural Address in which Obama made an open declaration of his socialist beliefs.

 

Obama made three key statement at the beginning of the address that look like an open endorsement of the free enterprise system, but on closer analysis not endorsement, but critiques, in which Obama argues free enterprise only works when modified by central government planning.

Consider the following Obama claims from the Second Inaugural:

• “Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.
• “Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.
• “Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.”

What Obama is saying in the first statement is that the private economy depends on government to provide the infrastructure of transportation systems plus public school education; the second statement is a thinly covered argument for government regulation, while the third statement argues for government-funded social welfare system.

“Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm,” Obama concludes, assigning to government, not to private enterprise, the responsibility to create a cradle-to-grave system of government-funded benefits and intervention into the private economy.

In this week of February in which we celebrate “President’s Day,” we need to contemplate that Obama sees government intervening into every corner of our lives – from providing government-funded contraception designed to intervene into the most private confines of the bedroom, to new gun legislation exploiting the grief millions of Americans felt at the Newtown school shooting, to now suggesting police can compromise the First Amendment by demanding journalists to hand over information from confidential sources, including whistleblowers.

Constantly suggesting he will implement by executive order what he cannot obtain through Congressional action, Obama laments that he does not have the power of an emperor.

Having implemented key provisions of the DREAM Act with the stroke of a pen in a boldly calculated move to obtain Hispanic votes, the White House has now leaked key provisions of the Obama administration’s plans for comprehensive immigration legislation with a plan designed to ignore Congressional wishes to secure the border, suggesting instead that illegal immigrants could obtain a “Lawful Prospective Immigrant” visa right away, provided no criminal record is detected.

The White House suggests the Keystone Pipeline may be held up as a hostage to Obama’s continued insistence global warming demands the nation implement a carbon tax, the purpose of which will be to generate revenue for an all-powerful federal government Obama shows no limit to expanding.

In the process, Obama has suggested he will crush the Republican Party unless the White House gets nearly unlimited authority to increase the national debt, without having to negotiate first meaningful cuts to federal spending.

House Speaker John Boehner told a group of Republicans attending a closed luncheon sponsored by the Ripon Society, “Given what we heard yesterday [in the Second Inaugural Address] about the president’s vision for his second term, it’s pretty clear to me that he [Obama] knows he can’t do any of that as long as the House is controlled by Republicans.  So, we’re expecting over the next 22 months to be the focus of this administration as they attempt o annihilate the Republican Party.”

To emphasize this point, Boehner added, “And let me just tell you, I do believe that is their goal – to just shove us into the dustbin of history.”

Still, a compliant Obama-loving mainstream media works overtime to hide from the American public Obama’s attempt to bring “fundamental change” to the nation, acting more and more as if he could declare himself emperor as easily as he can issue an executive order.

Now, the nation is slipping back into recession, while the mainstream media minimizes the importance that the nation experienced negative growth in the fourth quarter, with the possibility negative growth in the first quarter 2013 will be enough to confirm the economy has entered the second dip of the current prolonged economic downturn.

Under Obama’s presidency, poverty is up, chronic unemployment is reaching new post World War II highs, gasoline costs are once again rising, and some 7 million people are going to lose their health insurance because Obamacare is being implemented.

But instead of “focusing like a laser beam” on creating jobs, the White House is making sure the USA is safe or drones – one more indication Obama intends to redefine the USA into not only a massive social welfare state but also a massive police state, all accomplished through the powers Obama assumes not by fulfilling his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, but by seeing how far his imperial presidency can get disregarding the Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is the founder of the 1776 Nation and chief writer for the Tea Party Research Team of TeaParty.org. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.

http://www.teaparty.org/emperor-obama-redefines-america-20300/

 

Wake up America. If you think this can't happen, think again.

Levin: US preparing for societal collapse by buying up billions of rounds of ammo

On Friday’s night broadcast of his radio show, Mark Levin speculated that the federal government is stockpiling ammunition to ensure the rule of law in the event of a total societal and economic collapse.

On Feb. 8, Investor’s Business Daily editorial writer Andrew Malcolm penned a piece about the Department of Homeland Security amassing what he called “sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times –including illegal immigrants,” or more than 1.6 billion bullets.

“I’m going to tell you what I think is going on,” Levin said. “I don’t think insurrection. Law enforcement and national security agencies — they play out multiple scenarios. They simulate multiple scenarios. I’ll tell you what I think they’re simulating: the collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence, looting, killing in the streets, because that’s what happens when an economy collapses.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/16/levin-u-s-govt-preparing-for-civi...

You might want to take a look at the National Intelligence Council's Global Trends report!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/115962650/Global-Trends-2030-Alternative-...

 

Economist Peter Schiff predicted and economic crisis to hit in 2013:

What do you do when one of the very few economic analysts to predict the financial crisis would strike in ’07 or ’08 says another, even more catastrophic economic collapse will hit the United States economy in 2013 or 2014?

Do a YouTube query for “peter schiff was right” and you’ll find dozens of videos with montages of the investment broker and financial commentator making accurate predictions about the financial crisis that struck in 2007 while other analysts not only disagree, but insinuate that Schiff’s predictions were completely nuts.

In one particular video, uploaded in November of 2008 and clocking in at over 2 million views, it’s easy to see what an independent voice Peter Schiff is in the realm of economic analysis and forecasting. Schiff– a Republican who sought out his party’s nomination during Connecticut’s 2010 U.S. Senate race, a self-described capitalist who believes in free-market economics, and who says he’s proud to be a member of “the 1%”– spends most of that particular video montage arguing with many respected Republican analysts as they deride his predictions and say that the economic boom would continue with no end in sight.

Our Treasonous POTUS and our Treasonous Liberal Media

February 15, 2013

 

Confirmed: Obama Made No Calls, Took No Action During Benghazi Attack

By Guy Benson

2/15/2013

 

Last week, Lindsey Graham's unrelenting line of questioning compelled Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to confirm under oath that not a single military asset was deployed to help rescue besieged US personnel in the course of a terrorist raid in Benghazi, Libya.  The September 11, 2012 attack lasted nearly eight hours, during which four Americans died, including our sitting ambassador.  Multiple requests for increased security in the weeks and months leading up to the massacre were denied.  Urgent warnings that the Benghazi consulate couldn't withstand a sustained attack were ignored.  (The compound didn't even meet minimum security standards for American diplomatic outposts anywhere in the world).  An eleventh-hour cable accurately predicting an imminent attack resulted in...nothing.  Explicit calls for help during the prolonged raid went unheeded amidst a flurry of "stand down" orders.  One of many lingering questions regarding this outrageous episode is what our Commander-in-Chief was doing throughout the ordeal, during which America's real-time response was evidently paralyzed by chaotic indecision.  Yesterday, the White House finally shed some light on this question by releasing a letter describing what President Obama was not doing as American diplomats' lives hung in the balance:

President Obama didn’t make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday. “During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama’s defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released. Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster. The White House has said Mr. Obama was kept up to date on the attack by his staff, though after being alerted to the attack in a pre-scheduled afternoon meeting he never spoke again with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin E. Dempsey or then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And there's this, which (a) re-confirms what we've known for some time, and (b) begs the question of why the administration approved false talking points for public consumption:

Mr. Panetta told Congress last week that he knew immediately the attacks were a terrorist assault, though the White House downplayed that notion in the first five days after the attack.

Who conceived of the false talking points and why were they employed at all, let alone for days?  Why were requests for security upgrades repeatedly turned down, especially since our intelligence knew of at least ten active jihadi groups operating in Benghazi at the time?  If the Commander-in-Chief wasn't in contact with his top people throughout the raid, and if he wasn't ordering the full might of the United States military into motion to protect the lives of our diplomats (which he's claimed is his "number one" priority), what was he doing over those eight hours?  Our only clue is a campaign rally in Las Vegas the next day, which the president attended as scheduled -- having blown off another daily intelligence briefing, which was a habitual occurrence.  That these questions have not been sufficiently answered -- or even asked, in some cases -- is less a product of masterful White House stonewalling as it is a profoundly vexing indictment of our media.

But hey, "what difference does it make?"

(Editor's Note: This item is cross-posted at HotAir.com's Green Room).

Guy Benson

Guy Benson is Townhall.com's Political Editor. Follow him on Twitter @guypbenson.

Our Coward-in-Chief - no interest in stopping the slaughter of 4 brave Americans - IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!

Obama made no phone calls on night of Benghazi attack, White House says

President Obama didn't make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.

"During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama's defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.

Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.

The White House has said Mr. Obama was kept up to date on the attack by his staff, though after being alerted to the attack in a pre-scheduled afternoon meeting he never spoke again with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin E. Dempsey or then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mr. Panetta told Congress last week that he knew immediately the attacks were a terrorist assault, though the White House downplayed that notion in the first five days after the attack.

Republican senators said they will still push for more information on who changed the talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who went on the Sunday talk shows after the attacks and blamed protests against an anti-Islam video.

Mr. Graham said he will block the president's nominee to head the CIA until he hears more details about what Mr. Obama was doing.

Sen. John McCain said the White House's reticence in releasing information contrasts poorly with the flood of details the White House put out about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, which has spawned two movies.

"We still don't know what the president of the United States was doing the night of the attack and who he was talking to. We know who he wasn't talking to," Mr. McCain said.

© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/14/white-house-no-phone-calls-benghazi/#ixzz2KydNrGAg

Our Country is Besieged by Crises as Obama Fiddles

Obama Can’t Outrun Culture of Crisis He Helped Create

By Chris Stirewalt

Power Play

Published February 14, 2013

FoxNews.com

“What I will concede is that we were looking and the Republicans were looking for a trigger around which to build a mechanism to get us out of default possibility and the sequester was one of the ideas put forward, yes by the president's team.”

-- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on “Special Report with Bret Baier” on Tuesday talking about automatic, across-the-board cuts to federal spending enacted as part of a 2011 debt-limit deal.

President Obama heads to Georgia today to again pitch his proposal for a new federal program that would begin guaranteed public education at age four instead of age five.
This is a long-sought goal for Obama, who proposed something similar in his first address to a joint session of Congress four years ago, and for two generations of American liberals.

If a man were behind four months on his mortgage and was talking to you about his plans to build an addition on his home you would think him daft and delusional. But in Washington, ignoring a current crisis to discuss grand dreams is called “boldness” and “vision.”

“Cradle-to-career” education appeals to the left not just because it is widely believed by Democrats that earlier government intervention will help children of low-income families do better in school but also because it favors the most important part of the party’s base: government worker unions.

Obama Democrats say that the price of increasing the number of four year olds in taxpayer-funded schools from the current level of just over a quarter to something more like the 90 percent rate for other school-aged children is a worthwhile investment. They believe that earlier intervention will make for better students, healthier children and, eventually, a better workforce. The billions spent today would be recouped in later generations, goes the argument.

Maybe so, maybe not. Conservatives argue that earlier government intervention doesn’t lead to more successful students and that a more robust economy and less government dependency can better address the most important factor in determining the educational and economic fates of children: the strength and wealth of one’s family.

It makes for an interesting panel discussion at a think tank, but why is a president presiding over what is arguably the most dysfunctional government since the years before the Civil War out on the campaign trail talking about such a thing?

A government that can’t produce a budget for the current year and stands ever on the brink of partial shutdown doesn’t seem like a very good candidate for enacting a long-sought, sweeping, expensive liberal program.

In fact, the government is only 15 days away from the next fiscal crisis in which automatic spending cuts agreed to as part of a 2011 deal to avert an earlier fiscal crisis will go into effect. The so-called “sequester” is universally agreed to be a bad thing, since it cuts military spending indiscriminately.

In his State of the Union address, Obama denounced the practice of drifting from one “manufactured crisis to the next.” But it was his team that manufactured this one, offering the automatic cuts up as a guarantee to distrustful Republicans that the cuts promised in the 2011 deal would actually occur.

The cuts, of course, did not occur since a bipartisan panel appointed to recommend more palatable cuts, of course, failed in its work. The convoluted, three-step process looked destined to fail from the start, but at least offered a way out of the crisis of that moment.

So the president now denounces the imposition of the penalty his team created, warning of the direst of consequences to the cuts – something like $120 billion a year out of annual federal outlays of about $4 trillion – and demands that Republicans defuse the bomb by agreeing to his call for additional tax increases on top earners.

That dead-on-arrival proposal having been tendered, Obama is back to the business of building the future society of his dreams. These current troubles are beneath the scope of Obama’s ambitions for a transformative second term.

Such detachment may be a coping mechanism for a president who is facing down a second term that promises endless fiscal warfare, a continually weak economy and his own fast-approaching status as a lame duck.

If a man were behind four months on his mortgage and was talking to you about his plans to build an addition on his home you would think him daft and delusional. But in Washington, ignoring a current crisis to discuss grand dreams is called “boldness” and “vision.”

Obama is also watching his second-term cabinet appointments languish, and has fallen far behind the pace of his recent two-term predecessors in getting a new team together. He may also blame this on Republicans, but it does not change the reality.

The essence of the president’s strategy for dealing with his current woes is to mostly ignore them, believing that the consequences will mostly fall on Republicans and will return to him full Democratic control of Congress in next year’s elections.

Meantime, Obama will assign blame for the problems, citing unreasonable Republicans, and talk about what the country ought to be doing, if only it could be governed. If only Congress were all Democratic again. If only lawmakers agreed that the key to lower deficits later were higher deficits now.

Democrats thrilled and Republicans panicked when Obama rolled out his new bold brand for a second term. His re-election still fresh in the mind of the political class, Obama’s plan to drive his enemies to ruin on the current crises and then transform the nation sounded plausible.

But it’s increasingly looking like Obama 2.0 has the same glitch as Obama 1.0: An inability or disinterest in the humdrum work of governance and grubby deal making.

And Now, A Word From Charles

“It used to be called tax and spend liberalism.  But after losing time and time again in the early '80s and '90s to Republicans, the Democrats decided to change the language. You don't tax anymore. It's all revenues. And you never spend, you only invest. This is the Obama message.”

-- Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”  

Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News, and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on FoxNews.com. Catch Chris Live online daily at 11:30amET  at  http:live.foxnews.com.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/obama-cant-outrun-culture-crisis-helped-create-523665467/#ixzz2KuXLrD7t