Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Category Archives: Constitution

James Holmes: Front Man for CIA False Flag Op?

Mike Adams: Colorado Batman shooting shows obvious signs of being staged

More and more, this shooting is looking like a deliberate plot staged by the government itself much like Operation Fast and Furious pulled off by the ATF which helped smuggle tens of thousands of guns into Mexico for the purpose of causing “gun violence” in the USA, then blaming the Second Amendment for it.

James Holmes

James Holmes (Photo credit: seatonsnet)

One of my first thoughts, expressed in my initial posting here on Friday morning, was the possibility of a link between the Aurora shooting and the UN treaty in New York. I wrote it, but I was skeptical, thinking it was a bit of a reach.

I don’t think so now, after reading Mike Adams’ article which explores in detail the possibility of the shooting being a false flag event.

He notes:

His behavior doesn’t add up

His behavior already reveals stark inconsistencies that question the mainstream explanation of events. For example, he opened fire on innocent people but then calmly surrendered to police without resistance. This is not consistent with the idea of “killing everyone.”

Furthermore, he then admitted to police that his apartment was booby-trapped with explosives. If you were really an evil-minded Joker trying to kill people (including cops), why would you warn them about the booby trap in advance? It doesn’t add up.

“Holmes was taken into custody shortly after the shooting, police said, adding he didn’t resist when he was arrested,” reports a local CBS news affiliate.

“After his arrest, Holmes told police about ‘possible explosives in his residence,’ Oates said. When police searched his apartment, they discovered it was booby-trapped and evacuated surrounding buildings, police said. Oates said bomb technicians are determining how to disarm flammable or explosive material in the third-floor apartment. He said police could be there some time.”

None of this checks out. If you’re a killer bent on causing mayhem, why tell the police about your surprise bomb waiting for them back at your apartment?

Adams thinks it’s the FBI. I think the CIA is the more likely culprit:

This is not your run-of-the-mill crime of passion. It was a carefully planned, heavily funded and technically advanced attack. Who might be behind all this? The FBI, of course, which has a long history of setting up and staging similar attacks, then stopping them right before they happen. See four documented stories on these facts:

http://www.naturalnews.com/035849_domestic_terror_plots_FBI.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/034325_FBI_entrapment_terror_plots.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/033751_FBI_terrorism.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/035757_FBI_terror_plots_false_flag.htm

The one party not mentioned by Adams is the BATFE, which is run by an avid anti-gunner appointed by Obama. But that doesn’t matter. The real emphasis is on generating sufficient anti-gun fervor to force the UN Arms Control Act into and get it passed by the Senate.

Even Forbes.com wrote about this quite extensively, warning readers about the coming gun confiscation effort related to the UN treaty. The story was authored by Larry Bell and says the UN treaty could “override our national sovereignty, and in the process, provide license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.”

In other words, this has all the signs of Fast & Furious, Episode II. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover someone in Washington was behind it all. After all, there’s no quicker way to disarm a nation and take total control over the population than to stage violence, blame it on firearms, then call for leaders to “do something!” Such calls inevitably end up resulting in gun confiscation, and it’s never too long after that before government genocide really kicks in like we saw with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and other tyrants.

Here’s the big difference. More than 100 million Americans already own guns. Those poor souls under Stalin, et al, were unarmed.

Stay tuned to see if this false flag conjecture gets legs.

The Ignored Aurora Shooting

On April 22 of this year a convicted felon, just out of jail, went to an Aurora, Colorado, church and shot and killed a member of the congregation before being killed himself by a congregant carrying a gun.

On July 20, following the horrific shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, President Obama offered his condolences to the victims of the more recent tragedy. “Our time here [on Earth] is limited and it is precious,” the president said. “And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things which so often consume us and our daily lives. It’s about how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another.”

Obama then led his supporters at a rally in Fort Myers, Florida, in a moment of silent prayer “for all the victims of less publicized acts of violence that plague our communities every single day.”

No doubt the president was unaware of the other, less-publicized lethal shooting that took place earlier in the year in Aurora, when there was only one victim, thanks to the quick thinking and action of a responsibly armed individual. Aurora police spokesman Frank Fania asked rhetorically: “Who knows what would’ve happened if the [church member, an off-duty police officer] had not been there? It certainly could have been a lot worse.”

How much worse? Could the killing spree have been as bad as the shooting at the movie theater, where a dozen victims lost their lives? Thankfully, we’ll never know. 

Keep reading…

Aurora Shootings: More Questions Than Answers

With 12 dead and at least 38 wounded, some seriously, the shootings in Aurora, Colorado, 10 miles west of Denver, have so far raised more questions than answers.

On July 20 at 12:30 a.m., James Egan Holmes, age 24, set off some kind of explosive smoke bomb, presumed to be a tear gas bomb, inside the Century Aurora 19 movie theater that was showing the new Batman movie The Dark Knight Rises, and then began systematically shooting customers as they fled from the theater.

Local police cordoned off the area as injured patrons were taken to local hospitals. More than 100 FBI agents swarmed the area. Holmes was found hiding behind a vehicle in the parking lot and was taken into custody without incident.

As might be expected, President Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney expressed their shock and surprise, and each indicated that they were praying for the victims and their families.

There appeared to be few parallels to the 

Keep reading…

Rogue Cops are Rare

StarTribune: Minneapolis SWAT team leader faces first-degree assault charge

Minneapolis police Sgt. David Clifford, a SWAT team leader once lauded by the United Nations for the “highest level of dedication and professionalism,” was charged with first-degree assault Tuesday in an off-duty incident last month that left a Ramsey man temporarily on life support.

North Penn Tactical Response Team of Montgomer...

SWAT Team (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let’s be clear about one thing. I don’t really care that Clifford sports commendations from the United Nations or the State Department or has a wall full of plaques for valor and service above and beyond. The guy is a thug.

He has a history of blowing up. The city of Minneapolis has already paid out over $1 million to settle police brutality claims because of this thug.

His downfall was striking a man in the face in an unprovoked incident while it was being video-taped. After the attack the thug ran from the scene. He might have gotten away with it except for the video tape. When the newspaper got a hold of the video, it was game over for this thug. He’s going to jail and the city is going to pay another fine. This time it could be in the millions—that’s plural.

That’s going to be small comfort for the victim who has had three brain surgeries as a result of the attack.

But there’s a warning here. When I first read about this my blood started to boil. I began to think about a thug like this, wearing a badge, attacking me or my family. I know what I would do.

The danger is thinking that all cops are thugs. That just isn’t so, but it plays into the hands of those who are trying to discredit local police. 99 percent of them are good guys, well-trained, respectful. And they should be concerned about rogue cops like Clifford because it puts their own lives in danger.

If more and more citizens buy into the idea that no cop can be trusted, then cops will be on the defensive. They will view their positions as adversarial rather than assistive. That will divide the citizens from the cops—into two warring camps. And that can’t be good.

Don’t paint this thug Clifford with too broad a brush.

Woody Guthrie, Hard-Core Communist

Mark Steyn: Your Land is My Land

Elsewhere on National Review Online [NRO] this fine morning, Lee Habeeb has a terrific column on Woody Guthrie and “This Land Is Your Land,” a song I have always loathed, mostly on musical grounds—the consciously childlike melody, and the stiltedness of its central rhyme (“this land is my land … New York island”). I especially dislike it at my town’s Memorial Day ceremony when it intrudes on the Fifth Graders’ otherwise splendid repertoire of “God Bless America” and “You’re a Grand Old Flag.”

But Lee reminds us there are other reasons to loathe it. From Inauguration Day 2009:

Hope and change were in the air that cold winter day, and Seeger and Springsteen figured it was time for America to hear the rarely performed stanza.

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me,
A great big sign there said, “private property”;
But on the back side, it didn’t say nothin’;
That side was made for you and me.

No wonder we’ve never heard that stanza. It changes Guthrie’s song from a celebration of America into a bitter indictment of a nation built on unjust private-property rights.

English: Woody Guthrie, half-length portrait, ...

Woody Guthrie, half-length portrait, seated, facing front, playing a guitar that has a sticker attached reading: This Machine Kills Fascists Türkçe: Woody Guthrie, üzerinde “Bu makine faşistleri öldürür” yazan gitarıyla birlikte (8 Mart 1943). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mark Steyn “loathes” this song but spends precious little time on the hard-core communist who wrote it. On the other hand, Joe Klein did, and here is a little piece of his biography on Guthrie that should suffice for any skeptics or doubters about Guthrie:

It was also in California, that Woody was first introduced to the Communist Party by Ed Robbin on KFVD who was a correspondent for [the] Communist Party’s paper, People’s World, and by actor, Will Geer. He played at countless labor strikes, union meetings, migrant camps, and Communist Hollywood parties with actor, Will Geer, and wrote for The Light, another Communist paper, and People’s World.

Shortly after leaving KFVD, The Light sent Woody back out on the road to investigate the conditions of the migrant Okies. According to Klein, the migrant culture Woody found this time was different: bitter, hardened, angrier, and more open to the action proposed by the union men who were seeking them out. Woody was angered, himself, by what he saw and…“having spent most of the 1930’s on the sidelines, Woody finally was spoiling for a fight. And, as he looked around, the people who seemed to be fighting hardest for the things he believed in were members of the Communist Party.”

I too loathe his song “This Land…” but for different, and perhaps more important, reasons than Steyn’s.

The “Necessary and Proper” Clause Needs Reigning In

Mike Rappaport: The Necessary and Proper Clause

Since the New Deal, progressive constitutional lawyers have argued that the [Necessary and Proper] Clause provides an additional step, or two, or three, beyond the enumerated powers of Congress.  Moreover, they have also argued that Congress’s judgments about these matters are entitled to great deference.  Both of these arguments have won favor in the Supreme Court.

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. R...

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It was my privilege last week to spend time with Professor Rob Natelson, referred to by Mike Rappaport in his article, in considering the impact of the recent decision on Obamacare in relation to the Necessary and Proper Clause’s new restrictions in that decision.

Natelson was one of the first constitutional scholars to blow the whistle on Obamacare’s unconstitutionality, and was understandably disappointed in Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to uphold the mandate on the flimsy grounds of it being a tax and therefore it is ok.

What Natelson did, however, was express his delight in the court’s reining in, after lo these many years after Wickard v. Filburn was decided in 1942 that Roscoe Filburn’s raising wheat on his farm for his own personal consumption somehow impacted interstate commerce. He called it a “signal accomplishment” with which he personally had much to do. In his brief to the court Natelson spelled out, clearly and persuasively, that the Wickard decision was wrong, and the court’s majority bought his argument.

Natelson uncovered a clear exposition on the matter, a pamphlet written by one of the founders, Josiah Quincy, and Rappaport quoted Natelson’s comments on it here:

Perhaps the most interesting part of the pamphlet illustrates why, as has been documented extensively, the Founders understood the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) to be a mere recital, and not an affirmative grant of power to Congress. At that point, Quincy was discussing the Boston Port Bill’s requirement that the Town of Boston reimburse the East Indian Company for the tea tossed into the harbor. Quincy pointed out (page 18-19) that it would be illegal for Boston to pay the Company, because another Parliamentary statute limited Town expenses to “maintenance and support of the ministry, schools, the poor, and defraying other necessary Town Charges.”

“Will any now say,” Quincy wrote, “that the monies appointed to be paid to the East-India [Company], come within the words of ‘necessary town charges?’ When did the town contract the debt, or how are they subject to it?”

This is perfect. The Necessary and Proper Clause has been conveniently stretched out of all proportion to meet the goals of the Supremes in the past to expand greatly the power of the central government. This recognition by the present court is a watershed moment. It’s too bad more light hasn’t been shed on the subject.

My First Job

John Stossel: First Jobs

I stuck pieces of plastic and metal together at an Evanston, Ill., assembly line. We produced photocopiers for a company called American Photocopy.

I hated the work. It was hot and boring. But it was useful. It taught me to get good grades in school so I might have other choices.

Canada Dry

Canada Dry (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My first job was working as a “helper” on a Canada Dry truck. Although the company was union, in the summer there usually weren’t enough union guys available to help deliver the hundreds of cases of soda pop, especially on hot days.

There was a “shape up” at 6:30AM which determined if I would be a helper that day, or not. That meant I had to get up at 5:30AM to get ready and then drive over to the plant about 15 miles away. I had just gotten my driver’s license (so I was just 16) and mother let me borrow her car.

I learned so many things. It was my entry into the “real world” of hard work, paychecks, showing up on time, and learning to put up with other people’s agendas and schedules.

I remember the first day on the job. The driver had figured out the system. He was paid by the route, not by the hour, and so the faster he could deliver the cases, the sooner he could quit for the day.

He drove like crazy. He went to the first stop where we were to drop about 100 cases. Remember, these were glass bottles in wooden cases and weighed a lot – perhaps 20 pounds, maybe more. He stood on top of the truck (the cases were stacked up against the sides of the truck, not inside like they are now), and threw the cases off the top of the truck to me. I was expected to catch them before they hit the ground, and then stack them.

It wasn’t the first case that surprised me. It was the second! It was already in the air when I finished stacking the first one! We dumped those 100 cases in about 20 minutes – one of the most frightening 20 minutes of my life!

I learned how Social Security theft worked. I earned $20 per day. By the end of the first week I had worked five days and I expected to see $100 in my paycheck. I even dreamed out it. $100 was a lot of money in 1956, especially to a teenager who filled up mom’s car with gas that cost only $.25 a gallon!

Imagine my surprise when I got my first paycheck: it had “change” inside. I could hear the coins rattling around. I opened the envelope and found that someone had gotten into my paycheck before me: the government! My “net” check was something like $91 and change.

That was a revelation to me. And the beginning of a lifetime of growing awareness and activism against the state which was, and still is, continuing to take things from me.

So, no, John, I didn’t hate my first job. I loved it. It was my first introduction to life!

Theater Shooting: Where Were the Armed Citizens?

The Washington Times: Police: 14 dead in Colorado theater shooting

AURORA, Colo. — A gunman opened fire early Friday at a suburban Denver movie theater, leaving 14 people dead and at least 50 others injured, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said.

Photo by: Karl Gehring (Associated Press/The Denver Post)

There are precious few details in this story although they will likely come to light later on today. For now, we know that the attacker acted alone. He acted deliberately. He knew that there would be big crowds in the theater at 12:30 in the morning. He knew most of them would be young. He had a rifle and at least one handgun. And he had lots of ammunition.

He also had the time to shoot and kill or injure more than 50 people.

Aside for the horror and anger and frustration that I immediately felt, I had a couple of other reactions. One, the press is going to have a field day with this. Watch and see. Second, they will play their “anti-gun” tunes until we’re deaf. Thirdly, expect the Brady gun control freaks to jump on this. Fourth, there’s a chance Obama might get involved, saying something like “Yup, we need that treaty from the UN to be signed into law, to keep this from happening again.” Maybe that’s a stretch. But the O-man wants our guns, that’s certain.

What I want to know is: how did this criminal have the time to shoot 50 people? It takes time to commit a crime of this dimension. Especially when the first few went down and others started screaming and heading for the exits. He had to have time to shoot, reload, shoot, and reload again.

Where were the security guards? Nothing said about that. How long did it take for police to arrive? Nothing said about that.

But also: where were those responsible citizens who have their concealed handgun permits? Where there none in the theater? None nearby?

One of the strongest cases for the Second Amendment is that when responsible people carry, crime goes down. The statistical evidence on that is overwhelming and goes back many years.

And so: where were they? Did the theater prohibit gun owners from exercising their rights by posting those little “no guns allowed” signs around? Nothing was said about that. If so, those little “no guns allowed” signs make it safe for a shooter to shoot and kill or injure 50 people because he knew there would be no resistance, no one returning fire. Those little “no guns allowed” signs make a theater, or anyplace else posting such signs, a gun-free zone, just what a criminal likes to see.

Good questions. I hope we find some good answers after the dust has settled and the anti-gun propagandists have had their say.

11 Reasons to Carry a Gun

Godfather Politics: Reasons Why I Carry a Gun

  • I don’t carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
  • I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
  • I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
Walther P22 Handgun

Walther P22 Handgun (Photo credit: Anas Ahmad)

Aside from the 11 reasons at the link above, I think there are other important reasons to carry a gun. I have a list of some of them on the wall of my office. Some are frivolous, some are serious, and some reflect my responsibilities as a sovereign citizen. Here are some of my reasons:

  • A policeman is too heavy.
  • I carry for personal protection.
  • I carry because it is my patriotic duty.
  • I carry because I can. (I saw a bumper sticker recently that said: “It’s OK. It wasn’t exercising those rights anyway.”)
  • I carry a gun because when seconds count, police are minutes away.

Here are some more from the article:

  • I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
  • I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I especially like what Massad Ayoob, author of “In the Gravest Extreme,” said about the matter: “Deadly force is justified only when undertaken to prevent imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

DHS Preparing for War Against the American People

Kurt Nimmo: DHS Adds High Powered Battle Rifle to Arms Build-up

On July 5, the Department of Homeland Security announced on the FedBizOpps.gov website that it plans to buy thirty-six Colt LE901 rifle systems. The latest DHS purchase follows a solicitation issued on July 13 for the purchase of .223 Caliber Remington Enhanced Performance Ammunition…The Colt assault weapons are designed to accept the .223 ammunition.

English: Ruger Mini-14/F30GB semi-automatic ri...

Ruger Mini-14/F30GB semi-automatic rifle

I saw the original announcement that DHS had ordered some 450 million rounds of .223 ammo. It concerned me because I immediately thought they were preparing for war on Americans. The ammo is not allowed under the Geneva Convention and it certainly isn’t “practice” ammo.

And now this?

The weapon is much more than your typical .223 Ruger Mini-14. It will allow “the DHS…foot soldier [they have foot soldiers?] to go from assault rifle to picking off “terrorists” [who would they be, exactly?] at a distance [how far away? 1,000 yards? 2,000 yards?] by only changing the upper receiver.” In other words, it’s a sniper rifle that DHS is ordering, designed to pick off terrorists at a distance.

The article also noted that DHS is ordering bullet proof booths of some kind—9,300 hundred of them, so far—that are being planned for “checkpoints” inside the United States.

As Inforwars says: “It looks like the DHS and the feds are gearing up for something big…”

Where are the Congresspeople on this? Where are the questions? The investigations? The hearings? The explanations? The silence is eerie.

Police Lie – What a Surprise!

William Grigg: “Asset Forfeiture” in D.C.: Cops Steal Your Car, the Judge Demands Ransom

TheNewspaper.com reports that D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Jeremy Bank stopped Virginia resident Frederick Simms on May 29, 2011 for supposedly making an illegal right turn on Martin Luther King Boulevard. In keeping with the standard script, Banks lied by claiming that he smelled the aroma of marijuana. A search of the car revealed a handgun. Simms was arrested and his car impounded.

Good Cop, Bad Cop, OK Cop

Good Cop, Bad Cop, OK Cop (Photo credit: zeeitgeist)

In an outrageous miscarriage of justice, Will Grigg, writing for the Republicmagazine, claims that Officer Banks lied. One of his readers took Grigg to task for such a statement: “So you were there? You must have been, since you state that the officer lied about smelling marijuana and therefore perjured himself…[that’s] shoddy journalism!”

Grigg’s response is revealing:

He’s a police officer; he was trained to lie, and expected to do so:

“Police lie. It’s part of their job. They lie to suspects and others in hopes of obtaining evidence. These investigative lies cover a wide web of deception—a web that can get tangled.”

This was the opening sentence of the first article in a two-part series for Officer.com entitled “Training Cops To Lie,” by former prosecutor and police consultant Val Van Brocklin: http://www.officer.com/article/10233095/training-cops-to-lie-pt-1

Truth is a perfect defense against a charge of libel. Officer Bank claimed something for which no evidence existed in order to invent a pretext to seize the car. He belongs to a social caste that is trained to lie, expected to lie, and granted both legal and social permission to do so. He is a professional liar and, when occasion presents itself, a thief. He is also a coward. I happily invite him to sue me, either individually or in my professional capacity, for expressing those manifestly sensible opinions.

I’m of two minds on this. There are rogue police just as there are rogues in any profession. They should be exposed and punished. But they should never be considered the “norm.” It’s unsettling that Grigg suggests that Banks lied as part of departmental policy. That changes the entire conversation. If we can’t trust the police, who can we trust? And doesn’t this set us up for a national police force, since the “locals can’t be trusted”? Another definition of national police force is Gestapo—look it up—and we all know how respectful they were of peoples’ rights.

Makes me nervous.

Mandatory Vaccination Battle Heats Up in California

Dr. Schreiber of San Augustine giving a typhoi...

When Dr. Richard Pan’s bill, AB 2019, was debated in a public hearing before California’s Senate Committee on Health, Dawn Richardson, Director of Advocacy for the National Vaccination Information Center (NVIC), showed up to explain why she and her organization opposed the bill. If the bill is enacted into law, Richardson says, it will in effect forced mandatory vaccinations onto children even when their parents have decided it’s in their best interest to deny them. Under current law, parents may file a “personal belief exemption” which allows their children to attend public school without vaccinations. But under Pan’s bill, a doctor must sign off on the parents’ decision first, and most of them won’t.

The idea is that the government has a vested interest in making sure that the parents are making the right decision, have full and complete information before making that decision, and consequently mandates that parents have that “medical conversation” before filing the exemption. The only problem is that it’s difficult to find a doctor that is willing to have that conversation and then sign off on the parents’ request. A young couple who remained anonymous in their report to NVIC had an incident not uncommon in the medical profession: 

Keep reading…

Real Battle to Repeal Obamacare is in the Senate

Rush Limbaugh’s brother David makes some good points here. But I think the real battle to repeal Obamacare is in the Senate.

34 Senators are up for reelection in November and 22 of them are Democrats. At last reading, at least 9 of them are in trouble. Since the Democrat majority at present is so slim, if just 3 or 4 of those Democrats lost to Republicans, then Republicans retake control of the Senate.

But that’s just the beginning. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he plans to use the strategy of budget reconciliation to bring Obamacare to the floor. It can be, he says, defunded with just 51 votes. Shakespeare said there’s many a slip ‘twixt cut and lip. Since the Senate doesn’t have a budget, and hasn’t had one for nearly 1000 days, just what will Obamacare be reconciled with, exactly? I don’t know.

And ole Mitch wants to repeal and replace Obamacare. With what, exactly? I don’t know that either.

Who Ever Heard of the OECD?

Here’s an eye-opener! Who ever heard of the OECD? It has morphed into an interventionist tool of the insiders, as Rahn explains.

I have the greatest respect for writers like Rahn, a senior fellow at Cato. His discovery is important.

Verizon Challenges FCC on Net Neutrality

Verizon: Paying Politicians to Rule the Air (g...

On Monday, July 2, telecommunications giant Verizon Communications filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia challenging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s right to mandate “net neutrality” behavior on the Internet.

Verizon claimed that the FCC isn’t allowed to rule on the Internet as it is an “information” service and not a “telecommunications” service. As a result, claims by the FCC that it has such power are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

The new rules were created by the FCC following its loss in the Comcast case back in April 2010, when the same court ruled that the FCC did not have authority over Comcast’s Internet service, and censured the FCC over its bogus claim of authority.

The FCC claims that it is just doing its job by monitoring behavior of Internet service providers (ISPs) to keep them from charging fees based upon various levels, or “tiers,” of service. But such monitoring is not only illegal, claims Verizon, but unnecessary. Proponents of the FCC position are nervous that a big ISP like Verizon might use its market power to restrict or slow down access to competitors using its networks in order to favor its own. For example, Verizon offers an Internet streaming service, Xfinity, which competes with Netflix, and so net-neutrality proponents are nervous that Verizon will unfairly restrict Netflix users, forcing them to switch to Xfinity instead. The fact that there is no proof of such discrimination doesn’t matter to the FCC: Verizon might, and that’s enough for them.

The FCC rules being challenged by Verizon mandate that all ISPs, including Verizon, may not block websites or slow down connections to content or services that compete with their own products. These rules were established by the FCC regardless of the court’s decision in 2010, proving once again that the battle for

Keep reading…

The Pauls Introduce Their New Internet Freedom Manifesto

WASHINGTON - JUNE 22:  U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-...

With Ron Paul’s bill H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, headed for a floor vote in the House in the next two weeks (and likely success at passage with 263 sponsors), he and his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are now focusing on the Internet.

His Campaign for Liberty (C4L), started in 2008 with some four million dollars of campaign funds from his unsuccessful run for the White House that year, has issued its manifesto to continue the fight: “The Technology Revolution: A Campaign for Liberty Manifesto.”

Starting with his first term as a member of the House of Representatives from Texas in 1976, Paul has led the fight to expose the secret machinations of the Federal Reserve, making that his primary theme in the freedom fight. That theme can be traced to the publication of his The Revolution: A Manifesto in 2008 to his End the Fed in 2009, and finally to his latest book, Liberty Defined, published in January this year.

But with his campaign for the presidency likely to fail at the Republican Party’s convention next month and his decision not seek reelection to his House seat, Paul is passing the torch to his son. As explained on the C4L website: 

Keep reading…

ObamaCare Putting Squeeze on Health Savings Accounts

English: Barack Obama signing the Patient Prot...

In anticipation that the Supreme Court might rule in favor of ObamaCare, Avik Roy wrote inForbes magazine that Health Savings Plans (HSAs) would be negatively impacted and possibly forced out of existence.

HSAs were first allowed under law as part of President George W. Bush’s prescription drug program passed in 2003. At the time it seemed a common sense answer to a sticky problem: over usage of health insurance benefits and the consequent rising costs to pay for that over usage.

Most of the health insurance offered by employers featured low-deductible, high-premium plans with some form of cost-sharing between employers and the covered employees. The premium for a family of four, for instance, might run $14,000 a year for insurance with a $200 deductible. The reason the premium was so high was because the plan covered nearly everything that could be crammed into the definition of “health care”: regular checkups, coughs due to colds, elevated temperatures, minor scrapes, and so forth.

Plans with much higher deductibles, however, began to gain acceptance. That same family of four would have a premium of just $8,000 annually if their deductible were, say, $2,000 instead of $200. There were several obvious advantages: Aside from the $6,000 in annual savings in premiums, the plan rarely was used except for truly major medical expenses: serious illnesses, horrific accidents and the like. The deductible was paid by the family out-of-pocket, which meant that family was much more prudent about deciding if a doctor’s visit was really necessary.

HSAs amplified the advantage by allowing employees to deposit some of that $6,000 savings into a plan with some tax benefits: Those deposits were “before-tax” and monies could be withdrawn from the plan, when needed, without incurring a tax penalty. It was like paying medical expenses on a pre-tax basis. Additionally, any amounts not used up in a year were allowed to accumulate tax-free, and could, upon retirement, be used for other purposes, with taxes levied the same as withdrawals from an IRA.

The only trouble with HSAs was that they were slow to catch on, and even after five years into the new law, only about half of those employees who had the option of creating their own HSA did so. This, of course, outraged those in government who know better what people should do with their money than the people who earned it. As Stanford economist Victor Fuchs put it, “The main effect of putting more [responsibility] onto the consumer is to reduce the social redistribution element of insurance.”

Something had to be done. 

Keep reading…

McConnell Promises to Repeal Obamacare

McConnell meeting with President Barack Obama.

On Tuesday evening, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), was asked about repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as Obamacare, if Republicans take back control of the Senate in November. Said McConnell:

Repeal of ObamaCare will be the first item up in the Senate if I am Majority Leader…

Our goal will be to get it off the books. In my view, it is the single worst piece of legislation that has been passed in modern times…

Just because the Supreme Court has decided it is constitutional doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do…

What I can tell you with certainty is that there is no higher priority with me, and the presidential candidate [Mitt Romney] has made it perfectly clear that he would sign any repeal legislation that we sent to him.

In the House McConnell has a lot of support for repeal. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling last Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that decision “underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the American people.” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced that the House will

Keep reading…

Obama Credited with Gun Industry Boom

President Barack Obama talks with FBI executiv...

According to the National Shooting Sports Federation (NSSF), the trade association that represents nearly 7,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, and others involved in the gun industry, the economic impact of that industry has grown by 66 percent since the start of the Great Recession. In 2008 the total impact (direct and indirect) was $19 billion. Last year it exceeded $31 billion. Jobs and taxes it generated also jumped a similar amount. Jobs directly connected with the industry increased from 75,000 to nearly 100,000 last year, while federal, state, and excise taxes (which support wildlife conservation) increased from $3.1 billion to $5 billion.

So strong has been demand for firearms that Sturm, Ruger & Company saw a 50 percent increase in sales for the first quarter of 2012 over a year ago, forcing the company to stop accepting orders from March until May in order to catch up. Smith & Wesson said last month that they had a firearms-order backlog of almost $500 million, up an astonishing 135 percent from the same period a year ago.

This coincided with the FBI’s report that 16 million background checks (considered a proxy for gun purchases) took place through its National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NCIS) in 2011, up by more than 11 percent from 2010. The NSSF reported that its members requested 1.2 million background checks in March of this year, up by 20 percent from a year ago and the 22nd straight monthly increase.

At the same time, reported levels of violent crime continue to

Keep reading…

Obama Could Bypass the Senate to Ratify the UN Arms Trade Treaty

Indoor Shooting Range at Sarasota, Florida, US...

A week ago both Mississippi Republican senators, Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker, announced their support of S.B. 2205—the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012—that would allegedly protect American citizens from any abrogation of their Second Amendment rights if the UN Arms Trade Treaty was signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in July. That makes a total of 17 senators who are supporting the bill.

The bill, identical to one offered in the House, would “prohibit funding to negotiate a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that restricts the Second Amendment rights of United States citizens.” The bill notes the threat being imposed by the Obama Department of State and its secretary, Hillary Clinton:

Congress makes the following findings:

  1. In October 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced the United States support and participation in negotiating the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to be finalized in 2012, signaling a shift in United States policy.
  2. An Arms Trade Treaty that regulates the domestic manufacture, possession, or purchase of civilian firearms and ammunition would infringe on the rights of United States citizens protected under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

It is the sense of Congress that the sovereignty of the United States and the constitutionally protected freedoms of American gun owners must be upheld and not be undermined by the Arms Trade Treaty.

No funds may be obligated or expended to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States, in connection with negotiations for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to restrict in any way the rights of United States citizens under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or to otherwise regulate domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, use, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, or related items, including small arms, light weapons, or related materials.

Senator Cochran said, “This legislation sends the Obama administration a very clear signal that

Keep reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2021 Bob Adelmann