Liberty Activists, Constitutionalists To Be Treated Same As ISIS Terrorists

Kiss the Founding Fathers, your freedom of speech, religion and due process goodbye.  There are growing calls for the removal, restriction and banning of ideas, speech and history the State considers ‘dangerous’.

No point to adding any comment to the following news stories, which are the fruits of Fundamental Transformation, except to say that the massive support for the self-admitted Fabian Socialist/Communist Bernie Sanders makes sense when you come to grips with the fact we have lost the country.

The Founding Fathers Considered Domestic Extremists Today

 

Liberty activists and ISIS will be treated as identical threats

What First Amendment?  The State will tell you what is permitted speech from now on.

Government Arrests Radio Talk Show Host over his comments against FBI abuse at Oregon Wildlife Refuge

Not only has free speech become a four-letter word—profane, obscene, uncouth, not to be uttered in so-called public places—but in more and more cases, the government deems free speech to be downright dangerous and in some instances illegal.

The U.S. government has become particularly intolerant of speech that challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation and prosecution: hate speech, bullying speech, intolerant speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, incendiary speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, right-wing speech, extremist speech, etc.

Yet by allowing the government to whittle away at cherished First Amendment freedoms—which form the backbone of the Bill of Rights—we have evolved into a society that would not only be abhorrent to the founders of this country but would be hostile to the words they used to birth this nation.

Don’t believe me?

Conduct your own experiment into the government’s tolerance of speech that challenges its authority, and see for yourself.

Stand on a street corner—or in a courtroom, at a city council meeting or on a university campus—and recite some of the rhetoric used by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Paine without referencing them as the authors.

For that matter, just try reciting the Declaration of Independence, which rejects tyranny, establishes Americans as sovereign beings, recognizes God as a Supreme power, portrays the government as evil, and provides a detailed laundry list of abuses that are as relevant today as they were 240 years ago.

My guess is that you won’t last long before you get thrown out, shut up, threatened with arrest or at the very least accused of being a radical, a troublemaker, a sovereign citizen, a conspiratorialist or an extremist.

Try suggesting, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties, and you might find yourself placed on a terrorist watch list and vulnerable to being rounded up by government agents.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Observed Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

Better yet, try suggesting as Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, John Adams and Patrick Henry did that Americans should, if necessary, defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights, and you will be labeled a domestic extremist.

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government,” insisted Paine. “When the government violates the people’s rights,” Lafayette warned, “insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.” Adams cautioned, “A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.” And who could forget Patrick Henry with his ultimatum: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Then again, perhaps you don’t need to test the limits of free speech for yourself. One such test is playing out before our very eyes in Portland, Oregon, where radio “shock jock” Pete Santilli, a new media journalist who broadcasts his news reports over YouTube and streaming internet radio, is sitting in jail.

Santilli, notorious for his controversial topics, vocal outrage over government abuses, and inflammatory rhetoric, is not what anyone would consider an objective reporter. His radio show, aptly titled “Telling You the Truth…Whether You Like It or Not,” makes it clear that Santilli has a viewpoint (namely, that the government has overstepped its bounds), and he has no qualms about sharing it with his listeners.

It was that viewpoint that landed Santilli in jail.

In early January 2016, a group of armed activists, reportedly protesting the federal government’s management of federal lands and its prosecution of two local ranchers convicted of arson, staged an act of civil disobedience by occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon. Santilli, who has covered such protests in the past, including the April 2014 standoff in Nevada between the Bundy ranching family and the federal government over grazing rights, reported on the occupation in Burns as an embedded journalist, albeit one who was sympathetic to the complaints (although not the tactics) of the occupiers.

When asked to clarify his role in relation to the occupation, Santilli declared, “My role is the same here that it was at the Bundy ranch. To talk about the constitutional implications of what is going on here. The Constitution cannot be negotiated.”

Well, it turns out that the Constitution can be negotiated, at least when the government gets involved.

Long a thorn in the side of the FBI, Santilli was arrested by the FBI following its ambush and arrest of key leaders of the movement. He was charged, along with the armed resistors, with conspiracy to impede federal officers from discharging their duties by use of force, intimidation, or threats—the same charge being levied against those who occupied the refuge—which carries a maximum sentence of six years in prison.

Notably, Santilli is the only journalist among those covering the occupation to be charged with conspiracy, despite the fact that he did not participate in the takeover of the refuge, nor did he ever spend a night on the grounds of the refuge, nor did he ever represent himself as anything but a journalist covering the occupation.

Of course, the government doesn’t actually believe that 50-year-old Santilli is an accomplice to any criminal activity.

Read between the lines and you’ll find that what the government is really accusing Santilli of is employing dangerous speech. As court documents indicate, the government is prosecuting Santilli solely as a reporter of information. In other words, they’re making an example of him, which is consistent with the government’s ongoing efforts to intimidate members of the media who portray the government in a less than favorable light.

 

…That the government is choosing to target Santilli for prosecution, despite the fact that they do not recognize new media journalists as members of the mainstream media, signals a broadening of the government’s efforts to suppress what it considers dangerous speech and stamp out negative coverage.The message is clear: whether a journalist is acting alone or is affiliated with an established news source, the government has no qualms about subjecting them to harassment, arrest, jail time and trumped up charges if doing so will discourage others from openly opposing or exposing the government.

You see, the powers-that-be understand that if the government can control speech, it controls thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

Where the government has gone wrong is in hinging its case against Santilli based solely on his incendiary rhetoric, which is protected by the First Amendment and which bears a striking resemblance to disgruntled patriots throughout American history.

Here’s what Santilli said: “What we need, most importantly, is one hundred thousand unarmed men and women to stand together. It is the most powerful weapon in our arsenal.”

Now compare that with the call to action from Joseph Warren, a leader of the Sons of Liberty and a principal figure within the American Revolution: “Stain not the glory of your worthy ancestors, but like them resolve never to part with your birthright; be wise in your deliberations, and determined in your exertions for the preservation of your liberties. Follow not the dictates of passion, but enlist yourselves under the sacred banner of reason; use every method in your power to secure your rights.”

Indeed, Santilli comes across as relatively docile compared to some of our nation’s more outspoken firebrands.

Santilli: “I’m not armed. I am armed with my mouth. I’m armed with my live stream. I’m armed with a coalition of like-minded individuals who sit at home and on YouTube watch this.”

Now compare that to what George Washington had to say: “Unhappy it is, though, to reflect that a brother’s sword has been sheathed in a brother’s breast and that the once-happy plains of America are either to be drenched with blood or inhabited by slaves. Sad alternative! But can a virtuous man hesitate in his choice?”

And then there was Andrew Jackson, a hothead if ever there was one. He came of age in the early days of the republic, served as the seventh president of the United States, and was not opposed to shedding blood when necessary: “Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms.”

This is how freedom rises or falls.

There have always been those willing to speak their minds despite the consequences. Where freedom hangs in the balance is when “we the people” are called on to stand with or against individuals who actually exercise their rights and, in the process, push the envelope far enough to get called out on the carpet for it.

Do we negotiate the Constitution, or do we embrace it, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel, no matter how hateful or ugly it gets, and no matter how much we may dislike its flag-bearers?

Comedian Lenny Bruce laid the groundwork for the George Carlins that would follow in his wake: foul-mouthed, insightful, irreverent, incredibly funny, and one of the First Amendment’s greatest champions who dared to “speak the unspeakable” about race, religion, sexuality and politics. As Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff attests, Bruce was “not only a paladin of free speech but also a still-penetrating, woundingly hilarious speaker of truth to the powerful and the complacent.”

Bruce died in 1966, but not before being convicted of alleged obscenity for challenging his audience’s covert prejudices by brandishing unmentionable words that, if uttered today, would not only get you ostracized but could get you arrested and charged with a hate crime. Hentoff, who testified in Bruce’s defense at his trial, recounts that Lenny used to say, “What I wanted people to dig is the lie. Certain words were suppressed to keep the lie going. But if you do them, you should be able to say the words.”

Not much has changed in the 50 years since Bruce died. In fact, it’s gotten worse.

What we’re dealing with today is a government that wants to suppress dangerous words—words about its warring empire, words about its land grabs, words about its militarized police, words about its killing, its poisoning and its corruption—in order to keep its lies going.

As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, what we are witnessing is a nation undergoing a nervous breakdown over this growing tension between our increasingly untenable reality and the lies being perpetrated by a government that has grown too power-hungry, egotistical, militaristic and disconnected from its revolutionary birthright.

The only therapy is the truth and nothing but the truth.

Otherwise, there will be no more First Amendment. There will be no more Bill of Rights. And there will be no more freedom in America as we have known it.

Speaking against the government is now an act of terrorism according to the Federal Government.

Constitutional advocates, Extremist groups motivated by a range of U.S.-born philosophies present a “clear and present danger” to the country says Obama’s Justice Department.

Many of us saw it coming a long time ago — increasing confrontation between liberty proponents and the corrupt federal establishment leading to increasing calls by political elites and bureaucrats to apply to American citizens the terrorism countermeasures designed for foreign combatants. It was only a matter of time and timing.

My stance has always been that the elites would wait until there was ample social and political distraction; a fog of fear allowing them to move more aggressively against anti-globalists. We are not quite there yet, but the ground is clearly being prepared.

Economic uncertainty looms large over our fiscal structure today, more so even than in 2008. Global instability is rampant, with Europe at the forefront as mass migrations of “refugees” invade wholesale. At best, most of them intend to leach off of the EU’s already failing socialist welfare structure while refusing to integrate or respect western social principles. At worst, a percentage of these migrants are members of ISIS with the goals of infiltration, disruption and coordinated destruction.

With similar immigration and transplantation measures being applied to the U.S. on a smaller scale (for now) the ISIS plague will inevitably hit our shores in a manner that will undoubtedly strike panic in the masses. I believe 2016 will be dubbed the “year of the terrorist,” and ISIS will not be the only “terrorists” in the spotlight.

While scanning the pages of mainstream propaganda machines like Reuters, I came across this little gem of an article, which outlines plans by the U.S. Justice Department to apply existing enemy combatant laws used against ISIS terrorists and their supporters to “domestic extremists,” specifically mentioning the Bundy takeover of the federal refuge in Burns, Oregon as an example.

“Extremist groups motivated by a range of U.S.-born philosophies present a “clear and present danger,” John Carlin, the Justice Department’s chief of national security, told Reuters in an interview. “Based on recent reports and the cases we are seeing, it seems like we’re in a heightened environment.”

“Clear and present danger” is a vital phrase implemented in this statement from Carlin and he used it quite deliberately. It refers to something called the “clear and present danger doctrine or test,” a doctrine rarely used except during times of mass panic, such as during WWI and WWII. The doctrine applies specifically to the removal of 1st Amendment rights of free speech during moments of “distress.”

What does this mean, exactly? “Clear and present danger” is a legal mechanism by which the government claims the right not only to prosecute or destroy enemies of the state, but also anyone who publicly supports those same enemies through speech or writing.

Recently, the prospect of allowing the Federal Communications Commission to target and shut down websites related to ISIS has been fielded by congressional representatives. Many people have warned against this as setting a dangerous precedent by which the government could be given free license to censor and silence ANY websites they deem “harmful” to the public good, even those not tied to ISIS in any way.

Of course, overt hatred of Islamic extremism amongst conservatives is at Defcon 1 right now, and with good reason. Unfortunately, this may lead constitutional conservatives, the most stalwart proponents of free speech, to mistakenly set the stage for the erasure of free speech rights all in the name of stopping ISIS activity. The greatest proponents of constitutional liberties could very well become the greatest enemies of constitutional liberties if they fall for the ploy set up by the establishment.

The Reuters article outlines the future implications quite plainly:

The U.S. State Department designates international terrorist organizations to which it is illegal to provide “material support.” No domestic groups have that designation, helping to create a disparity in charges faced by international extremist suspects compared to domestic ones.

It has been applied in 58 of the government’s 79 Islamic State cases since 2014 against defendants who engaged in a wide range of activity, from traveling to Syria to fight alongside Islamic State to raising money for a friend who wished to do so.

Prosecutors can bring “material support” terrorism charges against defendants who aren’t linked to groups on the State Department’s list, but they have only done so twice against non-jihadist suspects since the law was enacted in 1994. The law, which prohibits supporting people who have been deemed to be terrorists by their actions, carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.”

The Justice Department goes on to explain that they are “exploring” options to make “material support” charges more applicable to “domestic extremists.”

So what constitutes “material support?” Well, as mentioned earlier, John Carlin just told us. His use of the phrase “clear and present danger” denotes that 1st Amendment speech will be restricted, ostensibly because some speech will be labeled “material support” of terrorist organizations. The liberty movement, likely in the near future, is about to be outwardly defined by the establishment as a terrorist movement, and those who support it through speech will be designated as material supporters of said terrorism.

To be utterly clear, this could apply to any and everyone who promotes anti-government sentiments online, and will likely be aimed more prominently at liberty analysts and journalists. The argument for this move is rather humorous in my view — bureaucrats and others complain that it is “not fair” that Islamic terrorists are being treated more harshly than “white rural domestic extremists” and that material support laws should be enforced against everyone equally.

Yes, that’s right, the 1st Amendment is under threat because the Justice Department does not want to appear “racist.” At least, that is their public excuse…

Will this all take place in a vacuum? Of course not. Something terrible is brewing. Another Oklahoma City-stye bombing, perhaps. Or a standoff gone horribly awry. The standoff in Oregon continues without Ammon Bundy and is about to get worse in the next week according to my information (you will see what I mean). The point is, the narrative is being finalized in preparation for whatever trigger events may be in store, and that narrative closely associates ISIS with liberty activists as being in the same category.

“As law enforcement experts confront domestic militia groups, “sovereign citizens” who do not recognize government authority, and other anti-government extremists, they also face a heightened threat from Islamic extremists like the couple who carried out the Dec. 2 shootings in San Bernardino, California.”

 This is why I have consistently argued against giving any extra-judicial powers to our already bloated federal system. I am a staunch opponent of Islamic immigration and terrorism, but some people are so desperate to fight one monster that they are willing to give unlimited powers to another monster thinking it will give their minds ease. These people are fools, and they are putting the rest of us at risk.

If you want to fight ISIS, then fight them yourself. Do not give the same government that helped create ISIS and then deliberately transplanted them to Europe and the U.S. even more legal authority over our lives to supposedly “stop” ISIS. This would be absurd.

In the meantime, I would point out that regardless of how the federal government wishes to label us, the liberty movement could not be more different from the Islamic State.

1. We don’t enjoy covert funding and training from the government at large as ISIS does. (Though according to leftists, we all take our marching orders from the Koch Brothers).
2. Most of us were born in this country and are rather attached to it.
3. ISIS fights to dismantle traditional Western values. We fight to restore traditional Western values, and we will not only fight ISIS but also cultural Marxists and collectivists who share the same disdain for liberty.
4. Many of us are far better trained than ISIS goons, so if anything, we are a more severe threat to the enemies of free society. (We actually look down our sights when we shoot rather than hiding behind cars with the rifle over our head and squatting like a constipated dog. We can also operate their AK-47s better than they can).
5. We are as opposed to Sharia Law as we are to martial law. In fact, we see them as essentially the same unacceptable circumstance.
6. We don’t cannibalize our enemies. (Who would want to take a bite out of Henry Kissinger’s spleen?)
7. We might look down on the insane ramblings of today’s feminists, but at least we would not stone them, enforce female circumcision, then rape them, then throw acid in their faces, then slap a hijab on them and take away their driver’s licenses. So maybe, just maybe, we toxic masculine conservative barbarians aren’t as bad as they seem to think we are.
8. We understand that black pajamas are not the best camouflage, but ISIS may have better fashion sense than we do.
9. Our beards are all-American. Their beards are just plain creepy.
10. They fight to be martyred. We fight to win.

When all is said and done, who is the greater threat to you and your freedoms? A psychotic theocrat that has taken his religion so far into the forbidden zone that any evil, no matter how heinous, is justified through the circular logic of zealotry? The criminal government that funded that psycho, trained him, slapped a rocket launcher in his hands and then gave him a free plane ride to your favorite shopping mall? Or, some weirdo that stores lots of food and gas masks in his basement and every once in a while talks to you about 9/11? Come on, think about it…

Obama’s Petulant Hissy Fit Portends Dangerous Wrath For Those Who Dare Defy Him

Nothing more dangerous than a wannabe despotic tyrant scorned

Obama has fundamentally transformed America into a Marxist/Fascist police state, acting as a dictator to impose his will by decree while using federal alphabets to harass, intimidate and silence those his regime targets.  Obama employs bullying tactics, subterfuge and outright treason to impose punishments for the smallest slight to his gargantuan narcissism.

Obama has done this to American citizens with impunity.  Now, because the Israeli people have scorned His Heinous by rejecting Obama’s attempt to overthrow Benjamin Netanyahu, the petulant man-child turns to do the same to the tiny nation of Israel.  Obama drops the mask he wore to beguile the vast majority of Americans, and the true Islamist anti-semite that he and his regime are – is revealed.

Obama’s Chief of Staff at a J Street conference today referenced the State of Israel as “An occupation that has lasted almost 50 years must end.”

Must end?  The state of Israel exists because it defended itself against two massive Arab wars launched against it and the territory it gained is a bulwark to secure the tiny state from future attack.  But Obama has already made his intentions known long ago, at best – he will demand Israel surrender all the land it ‘occupies’ – back to the original borders it had in 1948.  At worst – he will join ISIS and Iran and silently support the annihilation of the State altogether.

So the Obama regime’s position is exactly the same as that of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah – Jihad groups that have had incredible influence in the Obama government.  It is no wonder Obama has decided to wage his own personal jihad against Israel.

Obama To Cut Direct Ties With Netanyahu

Obama’s jihad on the Jews just became official policy.

President Obama is considering cutting all ties with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s YNet News reported on Friday. According to a source cited by the paper, the White House “is contemplating lowering its ties with Israel and putting Kerry as the sole liaison between the two states, as opposed to the open line Netanyahu once had with Obama.”

Not to diminish the impact of that expected snark from His Heinous – Michael Goodwin lets loose a litany of what we are enduring under this despot and what it portends now for Israel.   I just love the first four paragraphs of this Op-Ed.  Goodwin nails what the treasonous bastard has done to us right under our noses.  Let it sink in.

And now that the child-prince has been thwarted in Israel, he moves full-speed ahead to put nuclear weapons into the hands of the biggest state sponsor of Jihad in the world.  The Iranian regime that vowed to wipe Israel off the map and whose Supreme Leaders Ayatollah Khameni just said “Death to America’ on Friday.

No phone call for you Netanyahu – but nuclear weapons for Tehran Obama says.

Beware Of Obama

First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.

He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.

Now he’s coming for Israel.

Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?

Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse.

Whatever form the punishment takes, it will aim to teach Bibi Netanyahu never again to upstage him. And to teach Israeli voters never again to elect somebody Obama doesn’t like.

Apologists and wishful thinkers, including some Jews, insist Obama real­izes that the special relationship between Israel and the United States must prevail and that allowing too much daylight between friends will encourage enemies.

Those people are slow learners, or, more dangerously, deny-ists.

If Obama’s six years in office teach us anything, it is that he is impervious to appeals to good sense. Quite the contrary. Even respectful suggestions from supporters that he behave in the traditions of American presidents fill him with angry determination to do it his way.

For Israel, the consequences will be intended. Those who make excuses for Obama’s policy failures — naive, bad advice, bad luck — have not come to grips with his dark impulses and deep-seated rage.

His visceral dislike for Netanyahu is genuine, but also serves as a convenient fig leaf for his visceral dislike of Israel. The fact that it’s personal with Netanyahu doesn’t explain six years of trying to bully Israelis into signing a suicide pact with Muslims bent on destroying them. Netanyahu’s only sin is that he puts his nation’s security first and refuses to knuckle ­under to Obama’s endless demands for unilateral concessions.

That refusal is now the excuse to act against Israel. Consider that, for all the upheaval around the world, the president rarely has a cross word for, let alone an open dispute with, any other foreign leader. He calls Great Britain’s David Cameron “bro” and praised Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, who had called Zionists “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Obama asked Vladimir Putin for patience, promising “more flexibility” after the 2012 election, a genuflection that earned him Russian aggression. His Asian pivot was a head fake, and China is exploiting the vacuum. None of those leaders has gotten the Netanyahu treatment, which included his being forced to use the White House back door on one trip, and the cold shoulder on another.

It is a clear and glaring double standard.

Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries.

The courtship reached the height of absurdity last week, when Obama wished Iranians a happy Persian new year by equating Republican critics of his nuclear deal with the resistance of theocratic hard-liners, saying both “oppose a diplomatic solution.” That is a damnable slur given that a top American military official estimates that Iranian weapons, proxies and trainers killed 1,500 US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who in their right mind would trust such an evil regime with a nuke?

Yet Netanyahu, the leader of our only reliable ally in the region, is ­repeatedly singled out for abuse. He alone is the target of an orchestrated attempt to defeat him at the polls, with Obama political operatives, funded in part by American taxpayers, working to elect his opponent.

They failed and Netanyahu prevailed because Israelis see him as their best bet to protect them. Their choice was wise, but they’d better buckle up because it’s Israel’s turn to face the wrath of Obama.

White House Looking Into Additional Ammunition ‘Bans’ Via Executive Decree

Reclassifying ammunition in order for Obama’s Alphabets to ban production and sale to the public was only step one in further actions planned “to ‘protect the Second Amendment’ and keep police safe”.

From the regime that stoked a racist-filled mob of blacks to wage protests and incite violence against police officers, comes a White House “Justification” for Obama to direct the ATF/BATFE to ban .223 M855 ammunition by declaring it ‘armor piercing’ – (which it is not); to keep police safe.

The same exact totalitarian Marxist regime that declared an ENTIRE CITY’S POLICE DEPARTMENT RACIST when it could not bring any legitimate charges either criminal or civil against them in the “Gentle Giant” Michael Brown shooting; and met in secret with Ferguson protest leaders to stoke violence against police – has the hubris to state that the reason Obama has directed the ATF to ban ammunition by decree is to “protect the police” and “safeguard the Second Amendment”.

Well, this is simply another “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” and “not a smidgeon of corruption” moment from the Obama mob.

White House Spokesimbecile and Volksaufklärung und Propaganda Josh Earnest, stated on Monday that Obama is investigating new ways to enact further gun control:

“It would be fair to say, we are looking at additional ways to protect our brave men and women in law enforcement, and believe that this process is valuable for that reason alone” he said during the press briefing. “This seems to be an area where everyone should agree that if there are armor-piercing bullets that fit into easily concealed weapons, that puts our law enforcement at considerably more risk.”

“Considerably more risk”???

How about that wide-open Southern border and flying in tens of thousands Syrian and Middle Eastern “refugees” for resettlement while negotiating with the Mullahs in Iran to allow them to have nukes – but hey, those aren’t  “real threats” to law enforcement.  Just citizen gun owners are according to these tyrants.  The lying hubris continued:

“So I put this in the category of common-sense steps the government can take to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, while also making sure that our law enforcement officers who are walking the beat every day can do their jobs just a little more safely,”

How is BANNING ammunition for the most popular rifle in American citizens’ possession “protecting Second Amendment Rights”????????

It isn’t.  Like everything else with the king and his regime, whatever they state – the truth is always the exact opposite.

As Erich Pratt of GOA said – this is another end-run around Congress, which as the previous essay I posted yesterday outlines – is now an actual dictatorship by Obama’s own admission. We have become a Fascist State – almost identical to how Benito Mussolini established his Socialist Utopia and foisted it upon his countrymen while commandeering absolute rule for himself.

No one is stopping him.  Not the complicit traitors in the GOP leadership, not the complaint judiciary or anyone whom the Founders put as a check on absolute power.

We are on our own, considered enemies by this government.

Here’s How the White House Is Justifying Trying to Ban Certain Ammo Without Congress

The White House on Monday defended the Obama administration’s move to ban certain bullets used in a wildly popular rifle, a proposal that has stirred opposition from Second Amendment advocates and a prominent member of Congress.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is considering a ban on M855 ball ammunition, which pro-gun groups have said is among the most popular cartridge used for the AR-15 rifle and is frequently used for sporting purposes like hunting, because of its so-called “armor-piercing” capabilities.

“It would be fair to say, as we are looking at additional ways to protect our brave men and women in law enforcement, and believe that this process is valuable for that reason alone,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told TheBlaze during the press briefing. “This seems to be an area where everyone should agree that if there are armor-piercing bullets that fit into easily concealed weapons, that puts our law enforcement at considerably more risk.”

“So I put this in the category of common-sense steps the government can take to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, while also making sure that our law enforcement officers who are walking the beat every day can do their jobs just a little more safely,” he continued.

More at link.

 

IRS Scandal Just Got More Insidious – DOJ Requested Confidential IRS records Of Conservative Groups From Lerner in 2010

Will Obama’s Praetorian Media bury the Smoking Gun that directly ties Obama’s DOJ to the IRS Scandal?

This is breaking tonight at the Conservative Treehouse.  Seems that the IRS scandal is growing legs that the Obama media is simply not able to cut off fast enough.

It seems Lois Lerner and Obama’s InJustice Department officials met in the fall of 2010 when Justice was looking into prosecuting Conservative 501(c)(4)s that they say may have been breaking rules by overly engaging in political activities — details Republican investigators found in emails handed over by the Justice Department.

We also learned that over a million documents sent from Lois Lerner at the IRS to Obama’s DOJ , according to the admission from the DOJ, “contained legally protected taxpayer information that should not have ever been sent to the Justice Department“ and in addendum to that, Lerner’s attorney let it slip that those records obtained illegally were REQUESTED by Obama’s Justice Department back in 2010 and not initiated by Lerner as the initial story was told.

I imagine the next sound we will hear will be crickets as the evidence of corrupt mob-style criminal acts that goes right to the White House itself.

Smoking Gun Trail To White House – Possible IRS Bombshell Within Politico Interview Of Lois Lerner Attorney William Taylor III – When Questioned About Lerner Sending DOJ 501(c)(4) Info: “Justice requested the documents”…

In a recent Politico interview  (publish date 6/27/14) with the Lois Lerner’s attorney William Taylor III an interesting aspect is buried midway through page #2.

During part of the interview Politico author Rachel Bade inquires about the 1.1 million pages of documents Lerner sent to the Department of Justice that became an issue when discovered by the House Oversight Committee on June 9th 2014.   BACKSTORY HERE.

The documents were sent from IRS to DOJ on a series of 4 discs (CD ROMS) and, according to the admission from the DOJ, “contained legally protected taxpayer information that should not have ever been sent to the FBI“.

Why the DOJ waited to inform congress, and why they only did so after Daryl Issa found out about their existence, was a matter congressional consternation but no-one made a big deal about it.

Indeed all prior details and media reports of the interaction have been framed around the substance of legality, and illegality,  for the IRS to actually send the confidential taxpayer data.  This is indeed a concerning aspect – but we think we’ve uncovered something considerably more alarming about both the timing, and the substance.

Inside the Politico article is an explosively revealing defensively framed answer from attorney Taylor.   He is specifically and directly stating it was NOT Lerner who initiated the inquiry:

…” […]  Taylor said Lerner didn’t know [about the unlawful confidential aspect] and sent them because Justice requested the documents”…

.

 

Politico [Page 2] Taylor also responded to Oversight GOP reports that Lerner and Justice officials met in the fall of 2010 when Justice was considering the possibility of prosecuting 501(c)(4)s that may have been breaking rules by overly engaging in political activities — details Republicans found in emails handed over by the Justice Department.

Again, he said she was just doing her job.

“We should hope the two are talking to each other,” he said, because Justice and the IRS both bring tax charges and should be on the same page, he said.

Emails summarizing the meeting also show that Lerner apparently expressed skepticism that the (c)(4) issues were a criminal, rather than a civil, matter.

Oversight GOP has also hit Lerner for giving 1.1 million pages of tax return data about 501(c)(4) organizations to the FBI just before the 2010 midterms — 33 tax returns that included unlawfully disclosed private taxpayer information.

Taylor said Lerner didn’t know and sent them because Justice requested the documents: “She [understood] the donor information on Schedule B had been removed. In some cases, we later learned, it may not have been.”

The IRS has acknowledged that the 33 returns were not scrubbed of taxpayer information as required by law.  (cont.)

In all prior reporting -on the initial revelation of Lerner’s submission of the documents to the DOJ- the assumption included within the articles was that Lerner was the initiator of the inquiry.

Apparently she wasn’t.

This latest interview with her attorney would dispute that assumption, and indicate the DOJ was the group making the inquiry – not the IRS.   The IRS was responding to the request from the DOJ.

{Pause – Repeat}  The IRS (Lerner) was responding to the request for information from the DOJ !

Naturally this means there was a preceding email from DOJ to the IRS.

The IRS (Lerner) emails around this incident were found by the House Oversight Committee and are included in both this article , and the pdf below.

However, if what Lerner’s attorney is saying to Politico is truthful, there’s more.

Where is the originating email from the DOJ?   ….And more importantly WHO SENT IT AND WHY ?

FIRSTLY – This becomes quite possibly the smoking gun trail from DOJ (Eric Holder – underlings) to the White House.

SECONDLY – At the very least this makes the DOJ investigation into the IRS illegality fraught with conflict of interest.   A conflict because the “impetus” of the inquiry itself, from the DOJ to the IRS becomes the more unlawful part.

How can the DOJ conduct an investigation into unlawful aspects of the IRS targeting of specific 501(c)(4) groups, when the DOJ is the initiating body for the illegality they are seeking to investigate ?

ANYONE ?

Benghazi YouTube Patsy: An Agent Provocateur From Obama’s Justice Department

He was NEVER a Coptic Christian, rather the producer of the anti-Muhammad video the Obama administration blamed for the Benghazi attacks, is actually an agent of Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

Anyone remember the intent behind the Fast & Furious Gunwalker scandal?  That was where Obama and Eric Holder ‘walked’ guns into the hands of Mexican drug lords in the hopes they would incite deaths that would galvanize the American public into accepting draconian infringements on the Second Amendment given the damage American guns were said to have caused?

Now imagine that same methodology being used by ‘walking’ that anti-Muhammed  Youtube video as the ‘patsy’ for the Benghazi attack which was a cover to eliminate the evidence of Obama running heavy weapons to Al Qaeda Rebels in Syria.  The SAME Al Qaeda Jihadists who now have conquered much of Northern Iraq.  The video would serve as a pretext for the ‘need’ for Obama to restrict and regulate internet content given the ‘damage’ it was said to have caused.

It’s a connect-the-dots kind of week as it refers to Obama’s aid and comfort to the Jihadist terrorists in the world for the purpose of dismantling things at home.

In one day – news breaks in the blog from yesterday that the LEADER of the Jihadist group ISIS – WAS SET FREE FROM US CUSTODY in 2009 by Obama.  At nearly the same time, news breaks that Obama is “quietly” releasing Jihadist prisoners in Afghanistan.  This of course follows Obama releasing FIVE Taliban Generals for ONE slime ball deserter/traitor of the US Army; Bowe Bergdahl.

See a pattern there?

NEFARIOUS can hardly define what is taking place.

At the same time all that news was breaking, Walid Shoebat – a former Jihadist himself – unloaded a trove of evidence both revealed and circumstantial that Filmmaker Yousef/Nakoula not only admitted being Muslim, but was working for the Obama Justice Department.  The entire anti-Islamic video was crafted to be a pasty – as a Provocateur for both covering up for the Benghazi operation – and giving the Obama regime an excuse to restrict and regulate the internet.

Tom Clancy couldn’t have written all the intrigue, double-dealing and nefarious invention that Shoebat and Keith Davies have uncovered as it all relates to the crafting IN ADVANCE of the scapegoat video apparently created for the purpose to cover for Obama gun-running weapons to ISIS in Syria and as a two-birds-with-one-stone bonus of justifying content restrictions on the internet.

Bombshell: Benghazi Filmmaker CONFIRMED To Be An Agent Of Eric Holder Justice Department

Earlier this week, we brought you news about the producer of the film that was at the heart of the Obama administration talking points on Benghaziadmitting to being a Muslim, not a Coptic Christian as he had been portrayed to America. Now Walid Shoebat, Ben Barrack and Keith Davies confirm he is an agent of Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

The damning trail of evidence begins when a fictitious narrative was concocted by the FBI to lure the courts that Nakoula (the Filmmaker, aka Yousef) was supposed to help the FBI catch Eiad Salameh, his partner in crimes for many years. Yet, the deal was never fulfilled and Eiad was let go by the Feds in 2011 asShoebat.com revealed in a firsthand account never before reported, including a recorded conversation between Nakoula and Shoebat.com in which the filmmaker defended Eiad, the very man he was supposed to help the FEDS catch!

Bolstering the case (aside from the Feds letting two criminals go) is how the filmmaker became an agent of Eric Holder. After Nakoula’s arrest, there was a very curious development at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, which was handling his case through an Assistant U.S. Attorney who suddenly was pulled off the case and replaced by a full bird –  Chief of the office’s Criminal Division, Robert Dugdale. 

Nakoula got high-profile attention.
In an article that appeared in the Washington Times, Kerry Picket wrote:

What is curious, though, is the fact that the original Asst. U.S. Atty. Jennifer Williams, who helped prosecute Mr. Yousef’s [Nakoula] bank fraud conviction, is not the attorney Mr. Yousef’s lawyers would eventually deal with. Mr. Yousef’s probation violation case, for no explained reason, was kicked up to Chief Criminal Division prosecutor Asst. U.S. Atty. Robert Dugdale. Dugdale is second in the chain of command below U.S. Atty. Andre Birotte of the Central District of California.

Picket was suspicious, she attempted to get answers from the office’s spokesman, Thom Mrozek:

When I pointed out that AUSA Dugdale was not part of the team of attorneys who did prosecute Yousef’s case and asked why the case was kicked up the chain to AUSA Dugdale, Mr. Mrozek responded, “I don’t comment on staffing decisions.”

The U.S. Attorney over Dugdale – Andre Birotte, Jr. became the local caretaker of a very high profile and high stakes case the Obama administration wanted to control very closely and later was nominated by Obama to be U.S. District Judge for California’s Central District.

Eiad Salameh, Nakoula’s partner in crimes – also beholden to the administration – obtained special favors from doing the Justice Department’s bidding. According to a report by The Smoking Gun just days after the Benghazi attacks, charges against Eiad (who has a proven rap sheet) were dropped in the same year that Canadian authorities picked him up:

It is unclear whether Salameh, whose whereabouts are unknown, has been charged in connection with the bank fraud. Salameh was named in a 2006 federal criminal complaint charging him with felony fraud. That complaint–filed under one of Salameh’s many aliases–was dismissed last year by federal prosecutors. A court docket shows that no filings were made after the initial complaint, likely indicating that Salameh was never apprehended.

But the last sentence is incorrect; Salameh was apprehended.

Jeffrey Mason of the Canadian Peel Police picked Salameh up in January of 2011!

At that time, he should have been wanted in connection with both the 2006 and 2009 cases, assuming he was involved in the Nakoula bank fraud case. Yet, the 2006 case was dropped in either the same month Eiad was arrested or in the months that followed.

Shoebat.com has learned from one retired FBI agent that this doesn’t just happen unless Eiad was providing the Feds with something in return for such treatment.

As Shoebat.com has reported, a timeline provides further evidence that the Obama Administration was in cahoots with these figures in the summer of 2011, during the July-August time frame.

1.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-chaired a meeting in Istanbul, Turkey with the head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). It was to be the first of several meetings that would become known as “The Istanbul Process”. One of the objectives of the OIC has been and remains, to pressure non-Muslim countries to censor speech critical of Islam.

2.) Nakoula began casting for his video.

3.) Eiad Salameh was put on a plane back to Palestine by the Canadians after Eric Holder’s FBI refused to have him extradited and charged.

Eiad was clearly on the hook with the U.S. Justice Department if his 2006 case was dismissed.

FBI’s Benghazi Investigation
When UN Ambassador Susan Rice blamed Nakoula’s video for the Benghazi attacks during her five Sunday talk show appearances on September 16, 2012, it served to anger the president of Libya, who shortly before Rice, had identified the attack as an act of terrorism. Last year, State Department whistle blower Gregory Hicks, the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya at the time of the attacks, testified about this and said Rice’s comments prevented the FBI from getting to the site of the attacks for weeks.

Based on the FBI’s relationship with Nakoula and Eiad, the longer it took to get to the scene of the Benghazi attacks, the more compromised that scene would become. A compromised crime scene would have served to aid the perpetuation of the video narrative.

Silencing Skeptics
Is it unusual for the U.S. Government to empower informants to engage in a massive scheme and criminal enterprise for the purpose of creating a political climate to help push an agenda? Hardly. In much the same way that the Obama State Department championed the “Istanbul Process” as a vehicle to assault the first amendment, a gunwalking operation was used to assault the second amendment.

In Operation Fast and Furious, multiple federal agencies worked together as part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). The stated purpose of the operation was to track guns that were being trafficked into Mexico, arrest the bad guys, and confiscate the guns. In reality, as has been clearly demonstrated, the actual purpose was to allow the guns to “walk” into Mexico and make their way into the hands of drug cartels after the ATF – an arm of the Justice Department – mandated U.S. gun store owners sell the guns to bad guys.

The guns would be picked up at crime scenes and American gun store owners would be blamed in a blood libel (sound familiar?). The cover of that operation was blown after the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. An ATF whistle blower named John Dodson came forward and the scandal was exposed.

If blood libel and the collateral damage of innocent human lives in the interest of pushing an agenda like gun control was used to launch an assault on the second amendment, why would it be beyond plausibility to envision the same administration launching an assault on the first amendment using to create the climate for speech control?

Ironically – and perhaps not so coincidentally – the man in charge of the Criminal Division involved in both Fast and Furious and the post-Benghazi prosecution of Nakoula was Lanny Breuer.

….In conclusion, cutting a deal with one criminal to help them catch another it didn’t want brings legitimate questions about how Nakoula’s case was handled by Holder’s Criminal Division, where the possible monies obtained for the film, led at the time nationally by a figure whose claim to infamy is that he wound up as a central figure in the Operation Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal – Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer. Along with Holder, Breuer, Dugdale, Birotte should all be deposed by the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

So should Nakoula and Eiad.

The question should be: Why did the law enforcement bureau Holder led refuse to pick up Eiad when offered on a silver platter by Canadian authorities in 2011. What was the source of the monies spent on the movie? Why was Nakoula given a lesser prison sentence to help the FBI arrest someone it didn’t want, thereby making the plea deal about something else?

In the days after the Benghazi attacks, Nakoula was arrested for violating the terms of his probation. The optics, coupled with the Obama administration’s attempts to blame the video for the deaths, clearly communicated that he was being punished for producing a “crude and disgusting video” that was critical of Islam. Unfortunately, the outrage Nakoula’s arrest generated in conservative circles actually played to the Obama administration’s advantage creating a distraction from the devastating truth.

Based on this explosive development, enough probable cause exists to investigate whether or not Eiad was involved in financing Nakoula’s video production. In this ABC News story filed just two days after the Benghazi attacks, it was revealed that the cost of the video was between $50,000 – $60,000 financed by his family in Egypt.

Just two weeks after Benghazi, Shoebat.com published a report about the claim by Nakoula that his “family” provided him with the funds to produce the video. As we wrote then, this “family” has not been located:

…if an Egyptian by the name of Nakoula Bacile Nakoula is blamed for angering over a billion Muslims, it would not be that difficult to find the entire family in Egypt, to include brothers, cousins, aunts, siblings wife, wives, ex-wives, mistresses, and pets, et. al., especially since the riots that spanned across 30 nations were sparked in Egypt.

In the Middle East, you are known by your clan. Yet, Egypt cannot produce neither this man’s family or his background?

Was Eiad the source of the $50,000 – $60,000? The Feds clearly couldn’t have their fingerprints on the money but two informants who were beholden to the Justice Department could. Is this why he wasn’t taken into custody when the Canadians offered him up?

Providing even further evidence that Nakoula’s video was about agitprop and blood libel are his initial claims about the source of his funding. According to the ABC News report above, Nakoula attempted to say the video cost $5 Million and was funded by a consortium of wealthy Jewish friends. This was clearly lie.

In a Shoebat.com exclusive, we learned that Nakoula recently told one of the actresses in his video – Cindy Lee Garcia – that he is a Muslim after being confronted by Garcia. This claim is bolstered by the mere partnership of Nakoula and Eiad.

Eiad Salameh is a Muslim fundamentalist who hates Coptic Christians. If Nakoula was a Copt, why would Salameh partner with him? The answer is that Nakoula is a Muslim who used agitprop and blood libel as an agent of the Obama administration and its Justice Department.

Obama’s Reverse Racism, Hatred & Persecution Upon White, Conservative Christian Americans

Inspector General Report reveals The Civil Rights Division of the D.O.J. has become radically and racially dysfunctional to the point of being a tool of persecution

PJ Media and J. Christian Adams breaks a story about today’s release of a 250-page Inspector General’s report that detail a department that has been transformed into a bludgeon of reverse racism and persecution of Whites, Christians and Conservative Americans under the direction of Obama’s potential new Labor Secretary nominee Tom Perez.

The report details a Civil Rights Division of Justice that has:

• Refused to enforce voter fraud laws and investigate voter intimidation of Whites and other non-black voters.

• Racially-selective enforcement of the law as policy

• Threats and intimidation of Employees at the Justice Department pursuing cases of voter fraud and intimidation of non-black Americans, including threats of physical harm.

• Disdain among senior staff when applying Voting Rights Laws to Whites.

• DOJ Officials and Employees lying under oath during the investigation

So yet again, more evidence that the Obama regime is (as suspected) a rogue and lawless enterprise, hellbent on imposing an agenda that has nothing to do with true justice.  A regime intent to impose pain, punishment and suffering on a people it disdains and works to enslave and subjugate, all in the name of “racial equality”.

Now the man who ran this division at Justice is in line to be nominated to be  the Labor Secretary.

Do any of you even need to imagine how he will use the nation’s Titanic amounts of labor rules and regulations to selectively apply to those businesses the Obama regime seeks to reward and those they seek to punish?

I can foresee a time soon-coming where Whites, Conservatives and Christians need not apply for a business license – because it will not be granted by this regime in power if this Perez becomes Labor Secretary.

Breaking: Inspector General Report on Racialist Dysfunction inside DOJ

Today the Department of Justice inspector general released a report on potential Labor secretary nominee Tom Perez’s DOJ Civil Rights Division. The timing of the release to coincide with his nomination was certainly accidental, because the report paints a damning portrait of the DOJ unit he managed.

The full report is here.

The 250-page report offers an inside glimpse of systemic racialist dysfunction inside one of the most powerful federal government agencies.

The report was prepared in response to Representative Frank Wolf’s (R-VA) outrage over the New Black Panther voter intimidation dismissal.  In response to the report, Rep. Wolf said today, the “report makes clear that the division has become a rat’s nest of unacceptable and unprofessional actions, and even outright threats against career attorneys and systemic mismanagement.”

Former Voting Section Chief Chris Coates and I both testifiedabout the hostility towards race-neutral law enforcement by the Justice Department.

Today’s report paints a disgusting portrait, confirming our accounts.

Chris Coates, in response to today’s report:

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the Obama administration in 2009, the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ was not enforcing the voting laws in a race-neutral manner, contrary to the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection. That pattern of racially selective enforcement of the voting laws must stop. I hope that the IG report facilitates that needed reform.

Though the report took almost four years to complete, it was worth the wait. Though the report commenced as an investigation into the New Black Panther dismissal, seemingly every rock the investigators turned over resulted in more creatures fleeing the sunshine. The final report captures a range of outrageous conduct, including the following examples:

– “Numerous witnesses told us that there was widespread opposition to the Noxubee case among the Voting Section career staff.” Noxubee was a case in which white voters were victimized.

– DOJ employees opposed the bringing of a case against a black defendant to help white victims in Noxubee County, Mississippi.

The report: “Coates and other career attorneys told the OIG that they were aware of comments by some Voting Section attorneys indicating that the Noxubee case should have never been brought because White citizens were not historical victims of discrimination or could fend for themselves. Indeed, two career Voting Section attorneys told us that, even if the Department had infinite resources, they still would not have supported the filing of the Noxubee case because it was contrary to the purpose of the Voting Rights Act, which was to ensure that minorities who had historically been the victims of discrimination could exercise the right to vote.”

– “Many of those individuals told the OIG that they believed that the reason the voting rights laws were enacted was to protect historic victims of discrimination and therefore the Section should prioritize its resources accordingly. Additionally, some of these individuals, including one current manager, admitted to us that, while they believed that the text of the Voting Rights Act is race-neutral and applied to all races, they did not believe the Voting Section should pursue cases on behalf of White victims.”

– Threats were made to African American employees by other Justice Department staff.

The threats were made because the black employees were willing to work on cases like the New Black Panther voter intimidation case and a case in Mississippi involving a black wrongdoer and a white victim. I testified about this disgusting hostility toward race-neutral enforcement of the law, and today’s report confirms it took place.

– Attorney General Eric Holder was approached by Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King: King complained about cases that Voting Section Chief Chris Coates was bringing. King didn’t like that Coates was willing to use civil rights laws to protect white voters.  Coates had brought and managed the New Black Panther voter intimidation case.

Holder greenlighted King: do what was necessary to take care of Coates.

– Attorney General Holder told us that he understood from what others told him that Coates was a divisive and controversial person in the Voting Section and that one concern about Coates was that he “wanted to expand the use of the power of the Civil Rights Division in such a way that it would take us into areas that, though justified, would come at a cost of that which the Department traditionally had done, at the cost of people [that the] Civil Rights Division had traditionally protected. ”

More on Page 2 at LINK

Evidence In Case of Slain Border Agent, Disappears By Order Of Federal Judge

Now the Blatant Lawlessness of cover-up and missing records in Fast and Furious reaches new level of outrage.

Breaking tonight from the Arizona Daily Star is that the case against the killers of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry has disappeared from federal court records, apparently sealed by a federal judge.  Snippet from the story:

In May, federal prosecutors won an indictment against Manuel Osorio-Arellanes and others, and they announced it with a press release. Only Osorio-Arellanes’ name was visible in the indictment, but there were blacked-out words where other defendants’ names go.

Osorio-Arellanes was charged with second-degree murder and was not considered the likely shooter. He had been wounded during the gunfight that left Terry dead.

But in the ensuing months, the case disappeared from court records.

Why? Nobody is saying.

 

Of course nobody at Justice is saying.  What Federal Judge “Sealed” those records?  And by what orders and authority did he seal them?

This all goes back to the Fast and Furious “Gunwalker” efforts the regime engaged in as a backdoor way to abolish or infringe upon the Second Amendment in the U.S. while broadening the powers of the alphabet agencies.  Eric Holder has stonewalled the investigation, lied to the Congressional Committee looking into the scandal and otherwise put himself and Obama as being above the law and reproach for crimes and coverups they are now fully engaged.

As in all Despotic Criminal regimes, evidence that paints the despots as the criminals and murderers they are always gets scrubbed.  Yet more evidence that this regime in power, is beyond corrupt and wicked.  It is murderous, lawless and despotic.

The hallmark of Marxists.

Watergate Squared to the Tenth Power

Potential Treason and Murder is followed by a Cover-up that looks to go all the way to the top.

 

The Gunwalker Scandal with Operation Fast & Furious have a far more insidious and sinister motive behind it than a stupid break in for campaign dirt.  Not only was this whole operation of running guns via all the Alphabets of the Federal Government to Mexican drug cartels, an attempt by the Obama regime to blame the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment as the culprit for violence in Mexico and our borders – but it was funded and paid for by Obama’s Stimulus program  – meaning we taxpayers funded this crime, and Obama signed that into law so it could be used to abolish our right to keep and bear arms.

But wait there’s more.  The hoped-for intent was that both the Mexican government and the Alphabets in the Fed would reveal that gun shows and gun sales in the U.S. were putting guns in the hands of drug cartels that then were being used to kill U.S. law enforcement officers.  Obama prepped this narrative of blaming America for the gun and drug violence in Mexico way back in April of 2009, a few short months after taking office.  Obama wanted to create a demand for renewed gun bans on all semi-automatic weapons in the hands of Americans, and push for a treaty to be ratified in the Senate to track and curtail arms in the U.S.  It was after this that Porkulus money was apportioned to the alphabets to conduct gunwalking operations to get guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.  The promise of increased annual funding and power over average Americans was a drug they could not pass up.

Not until those same weapons handed to the Mexican cartels were used to murder border patrol officer Brian Terry, did the moral weight of what was being done cause some whistleblowers in the ATF to go to public and ask Congress for help.

But as Senator Chuck Grassley is discovering – he is being stonewalled and stymied by Eric Holder at Obama’s IN-Justice Department at every step and turn.

Like the idiots they are, the GOP made a fatal blunder in thinking they could negotiate in good faith with Marxists hell-bent on turning the country upside down.  Like morons with no clue of the nature of a wolf, they thought if they spoon fed the beast – the beast would cooperate in the name of justice.  Eric Holder’s Justice Department that is.  See, Grassley and his clueless cadre of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee actually believed that if they confirmed James Cole as Deputy Atty General, Eric Holder promised to stop the stonewall and provide the information they requested.  Idiots, played for fools as they are finding out:

But Holder’s Department of Justice has stonewalled since Cole was approved in June, the senior senator from Iowa said.

“We’re getting inadequate answers,” he said. “The inadequacy of the answers is a violation of the agreement that we have with the attorney general that we will get all of our questions and sub-questions answered fully, based upon the deal that we made that I would let the nomination for the deputy attorney general move through the Senate.

“Until they did that, I wasn’t going to let it move and that leveraged them to make this agreement with us and they aren’t even following their own agreement with us.”

This is what happens when you negotiate in good faith with a wolf.  It deceives you, then eats you.

Grassley better recognize this fact quick: the Obama regime WILL NOT provide anything that will be used against it.  They will stonewall, obfuscate, destroy and delete anything that points to Obama and Holder being involved in this insidious plot.  Minions will be forced to fall on their swords before any attempt at justice reaches the arms of those two.  Bank on that.

You will need to follow the existing evidence Senator, even in terms of circumstance and timeline.

Obama began this odyssey  when he blamed America for all the gun violence in Mexico back before he was even sworn in, and publicly when he met with Mexican Presidente Calderone in 2009:

The “90% of US guns were used in Mexican crimes” was a proven bogus number Obama pulled out of thin air, one that this Operation Gunwalker sought to pad in favor of Obama’s insistence for the apparent purpose of shoving gun control measures down the throats of the American people.   Obama and his regime probably figured that by showcasing cartel murders from U.S. guns used in Mexico and against border patrol agents, the American public would go along with new restrictions on firearms ownership inside the USA.  They of course never being told that all those guns were sold by the ATF to drug cartels for the purpose of changing the political climate towards guns in this country.

Then, Obama and the Democrats actually earmarked money and use of  taxpayer stimulus funds to purchase guns specifically for Gunwalker for the purpose of putting them into the hands of the cartels:

 ‘For an additional amount for ‘State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance’, $40,000,000, for competitive grants to provide assistance and equipment to local law enforcement along the Southern border and in High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of which $10,000,000 shall be transferred to ‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Expenses’ for the ATF Project Gunrunner.’

Then Obama signed that into law – and the funds were used as appropriated – and guns flowed like water into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico – all-the-while the ATF, FBI and other alphabets were ordered to let them go and pretend not to notice.

The motive, the conspiracy and the massive cover-up now ongoing, overshadows by exponential degrees, a little break-in that brought down the Richard Nixon Presidency.

Can we dare hope that a scandal even more insidious and treasonous would have similar consequences?