Home Blog Page 21

Four ways Hillary Clinton Wants to End Gun Ownership as President

0

On Sunday, Hillary Clinton just couldn’t bring herself to say on ABC’s “This Week” that Americans have an individual right to own guns.  But it didn’t stop her from denying Donald Trump’s claim that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment.  Clinton accused Trump of making “outright fabrications, accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue.”


From changing the Supreme Court to make it possible to again ban guns in the United States to making it more costly to own guns, I predict that a President Hillary Clinton will do four things to either ban guns or at least reduce gun ownership, especially for poor people:1. Sunday, George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ “This Week”: “But that’s not what I asked.  I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”  Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right…”

But to anyone familiar with the Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, Clinton clearly indicated that she would appoint Supreme Court Justices who will allow gun bans.

Until 2008, Washington, D.C., had a complete handgun ban.  It was also a felony to put a bullet in the chamber of a gun.  In effect, this was a complete ban on guns. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down these laws.


Clinton told Stephanopoulos: “I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation.”Clinton went on to talk about her push for expanded background checks, but that has nothing to do with Scalia’s decision in Heller. Instead, she should explain what made D.C.’s regulations “reasonable.”  She could have told us why people should be imprisoned for five years for defending their families.

In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), Supreme Court justices Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent: “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined in this dissent.

Breyer and Ginsburg were both appointed by President Bill Clinton.  Sotomayor was Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court.  Obama’s second nominee, Elana Kagan, would clearly have voted the same way had she been on the court at the time.  Indeed, Kagan served in the Clinton administration and helped lead the President’s gun control initiatives.


If Hillary wins in November, she will appoint Scalia’s successor and the Supreme Court will overturn the Heller decision.  Make no mistake about it, gun bans will return.2. Stephanopoulos also asked Hillary on Sunday about her support in 1993 for a 25 percent sales tax on handguns. This is enough to add a hundred or more dollars to the price of a gun.  Clinton wouldn’t say if she still supported such a tax, but she appeared to justify the proposal by talking about the costs of gun violence.  Of course, she has never acknowledged the fact that guns are used to stop crimes 4 to 5 times more often than they are used to commit them.

3. Hillary never mentions it, but the new background checks that she keeps pushing will also make guns more costly and not make us safer.  In Washington and New York City, expanding background checks to private transfers will add at least $125 to the cost of obtaining a gun.  In New Jersey, it usually adds $100.  It is as low as $60 in Washington State.

4. On Sunday, Hillary also pushed the idea of making gun makers and sellers liable for guns which end up being used in crimes.  As her rival Bernie Sanders, of all people, has explained: “If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.”  Even if Sanders exaggerates when he says that Hillary’s proposal will eliminate guns in the U.S., everyone knows that this change in rules will raise the cost of guns and put many out of business.

After adding up all these fees, taxes, and liabilities, few Americans are going to be able to afford guns.  That is especially true for the people who need guns the most for protection — poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas. It wouldn’t be surprising if some otherwise law-abiding citizens resort to buying guns illegally.

Of course, Clinton’s plan to take away peoples guns could be seen in all her misleading or false statements.  On Sunday, she  couldn’t help repeating the false statistic that gun violence in America claims the lives of “33,000 people a year.”  In 2014, there were 21,334 firearm suicides, 586 accidental gun deaths, and 8,124 gun murders.  Clinton gets to the 33,000 number by adding in roughly 3,000 justifiable homicides by police and civilians.

Moreover, 71 percent of these 30,134 deaths are suicides. In light of Clinton’s support for legalizing assisted suicide, it is strange for her not to make a clear distinction between suicides and murders.  Research continually shows that banning guns won’t prevent suicides — there are simply too many easy ways to kill oneself.  In Japan, which has a suicide rate that is 54 percent higher than the U.S. rate, many people take their lives by stepping in front of trains.

The 90 percent poll number that she uses is just as misleading, since it doesn’t actually ask about real legislation.

It’s time for someone to ask Clinton a simple question: Won’t overturning the Heller decision make gun bans possible again? If so, exactly how is Donald Trump’s statement wrong?

Article originally published by John Lott Jr. Here

Tell us in the comments section what you think

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

Democrats Want Missles for Terrorists, But No Guns for Americans

Terrorist Attack Killing 84 in France: What We Know

0

A truck drove into a crowd and killed dozens of people on a beach in Nice, France, who had gathered there to watch fireworks for the national holiday Bastille Day late Thursday night.


(VOX) A total of 84 people have died, according to the French interior ministry. Among them are 10 children. About another 50 people are in critical condition, and many more have less serious injuries.The French president, François Hollande, said the “terroristic character” of the attack “cannot be denied” and vowed that France would stay strong in the face of “fanatics.”

The driver has been identified as Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, a 31-year-old Tunisian national living in France. He was completely unknown to French intelligence.

This is a developing story, and the facts on the ground are likely to change. Here’s what we know and don’t know as of late Thursday night Eastern time.

What we know

NICE_location3.0

 

  • The truck drove into a crowd of revelers celebrating Bastille Day, France’s national holiday, with fireworks on the Promenade des Anglais, a popular, crowded stretch of beach in Nice.
  • The attack took place during the fireworks, according to French media, at about 11 pm local time.
  • 84 people were killed, according to the latest update from the French interior ministry, and about another 50 are in critical condition, Hollande said. Foreign victims include two Americans, three Germans, one Russian, one Armenian, one Ukranian and one Swiss, Le Monde reported.
  • A total of 202 people were injured, according to Hollande.
  • The truck driver has been identified as Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, a 31-year-old Tunisian who worked as a truck driver. He left his phone, bank card, and identity documents in the truck.
  • Bouhlel was completely unknown to national and regional intelligence, according to Paris prosecutor François Molins. There was no record that he had been radicalized in any way.
  • Bouhlel was convicted only once, for assault in a fight after a traffic accident. In January 2016, he was ordered to avoid contact with the victim and pay a 1,000-euro fine, and received a six-month suspended sentence. He was not under any court order or surveillance at the time of the attack, the French attorney general, Jean-Jacques Urvoas, told Le Monde.
  • Bouhlel rented the truck on July 11, according to Molins, and was supposed to return it July 13.
  • Bouhlel was armed with a handgun and had a pistol and two rifles, as well as an “inactive” grenade, according to Molins.
  • Bouhlel fired on police several times before police killed him, Molins said.
  • A photo tweeted by Nice-Matin, the local newspaper, showed the truck pockmarked with bullet holes:

Police are on the scene, and thousands of people fled the scene, according to Nice-Matin:

  • Police are still investigating whether Bouhlel had accomplices, how he obtained the weapons, and whether he was in contact with terrorist groups.
  • So far, no groups have claimed credit for the attack.

What we don’t know



  • How Bouhlel planned the attack, and whether he had accomplices
  • The final count of dead or injured
  • Whether any international terrorist groups were involved

BREAKING: 84 Dead – Muslim Terrorist Attack in France

 

BREAKING: 84 Dead – Muslim Terrorist Attack in France

0

’73 dead’ after truck crashes into crowd at Bastille Day celebrations in Nice ‘terror attack’



(RT) Dozens of people have been killed and many more were injured after a truck plowed into a crowd in Nice, France during Bastille Day celebrations.

The local police prefect has confirmed that least 84 people were dead and over 100 were injured in the crash, Reuters reported, citing BFM TV.

Sebastien Humbert, the perfect for the Alpes-Maritime area, detailed the circumstances of the crash, explaining the high number of casualties to BFM.

“A truck rammed into the crowd over a long distance, which explains this extremely heavy toll,” he said.

BFM also said that authorities have classified the the incident as an “attack.”

There are people in blood, probably full of wounded,” a reporter for the Nice Matin newspaper said.

According to an eyewitness report cited by BFM, the driver of the truck shouted, “Allahu Akbar!”before the attack.

Witnesses reported that the truck that drove into the crowd was watching the fireworks celebration of Bastille Day.  Photos emerged on social media showing injured people lying on the ground en masse.

President of the Provence Alpes Cote d’Azur region Christian Estrosi said on Twitter that “dozens”of people were been killed in the incident.

Local media has dubbed the incident an act of terror, reporting at least 84 fatalities. No official confirmation has been released so far.

Police have cordoned off Promenade des Anglais completely following the attack. Nobody is able to leave the area at the moment, Alain Marchall, the BFM correspondent at the site, reported.

“The promenade is closed, locked, as I am speaking. It is impossible to [gain] access. The police and private security have cordoned it off. We cannot move forward or go along Promenade des Anglais,”he said.

“I see residents who wonder how they can access their apartments, which is impossible at the moment.”

France`s president, Francois Holland, is convening an emergency meeting at an Interior Ministry crisis center, Reuters reported.

WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTOS




View image on Twitter

Tell us in the comments section what you think

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

How to Buy Private Firearms w/o Going to Jail

0
SALT LAKE CITY, UT - JANUARY 15: Naomi (last name withheld) looks at a shotgun to purchase for home protection at the "Get Some Guns & Ammo" shooting range on January 15, 2013 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Lawmakers are calling for tougher gun legislation after recent mass shootings at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)

A how to guide on reducing your risk when purchasing firearms, why it matters, and how not to go to jail while doing it.

Originally posted on Ammo Land

People have asked me, “what is my responsibility to vet a buyer as an acceptable customer when conducting private firearm sales?”

The answer to this has several parts.

First, I am not an attorney, so consult with an attorney if you want a more licensed opinion.

Second, let’s divide this question into five parts:

  • Moral responsibility
  • Responsibility under state law
  • Responsibility under federal law
  • Potential civil liability
  • and practical matters.

Moral Responsibility for Private Firearm Sales




That’s easy. As a moral person and a responsible, law-abiding member of society and gun owner, we do not want to transfer a firearm (or even a car) to another person who would use it to jeopardize or injure an innocent person. We want to have some assurance that the buyer is not a criminal or dangerously careless person, and not flaky or unstable.

Thus, it’s helpful in assessing character issues to be selling to someone we know well, personally.

State Gun Laws.

I’m not an expert on any laws except those of my home state, so the reader will need to incorporate separately whatever his or her home state laws may require or prohibit. Montana laws do not control private transfers of firearms.

Federal Gun Laws.




18 USC § 922(d) makes it a crime to transfer a firerarm or ammunition to another person “knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person” is prohibited from firearm possession, specifically:

18 USC § 922(d) says:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien—

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and

(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.

18 USC § 922(a)(5) makes it illegal to transfer a firearm to a person the seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in the state of the seller. This does not include a temporary transfer such as the loan of a firearm for hunting. Here is the specific wording of the federal law:

It shall be unlawful –

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes

All of Section 922 is posted at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922.

Civil Liability.




Under the Law of Torts, the general rule is that you are not responsible for the criminal or negligent activities of another person unless you knew or should have known of their intent. That means that the default is you can assume that a buyer’s intent is lawful. However, if a seller is sued by an injured person alleging that the seller knew or should have known that the buyer would likely use the firearm sold to cause the injury, then the question will likely come before a jury to decide. In addition to having to pay an attorney to defend him, the seller could also have a stiff award against him or her and in favor of the plaintiff.

Thus, a prudent seller will be cautious when selling firearms. There are ways to make the process safer.

Practical Matters.

When a private person (not an FFL) is selling a firearm to another private person, there are a number of ways a reasonable and prudent seller can reduce legal and moral risk.

Sell to known people. A person selling a firearm privately will be better off selling to someone the person knows well, if you have confidence that the person is not prohibited under federal law and is not a flaky or unsound person. This might be a neighbor you’ve know for years, a longtime co-worker, or a member of your gun club. Selling to unknown people is where more due diligence is required to keep the seller on safe legal and moral ground.

Other indicators. If the buyer has a currently valid concealed weapon permit, that usually means that the person has recently passed a federal background check and is not a prohibited person under federal law. If you know (for sure) that the person has recently purchased a firearm from a federally-licensed dealer, then the person has cleared the Brady Law background check system and is not a prohibited person. In either case, the prudent seller also will wish to have confidence that the buyer is a solid and stable person, and not flaky or unsound.

General impressions. A seller will want to notice other indicators to determine if a sale to a stranger is copacetic. Is the buyer driving a vehicle with license plates that match his or her claim of residence? Does any identification offered match the buyer? Is the buyer calm and businesslike or nervous and unsettled? With any red flags, it would be prudent to not consummate the sale.

Identification. Many careful people when selling a firearm privately to an unknown buyer will ask the buyer to present identification such as a drivers license, and will write down relevant information from the ID.

Receipt and records. A private seller should also prepare a duplicate receipt for the sale that includes the name and ID type and number of the buyer. It should also include the date of the sale, and the make, model and serial number of the firearm. The buyer should want a copy of this receipt in case the buyer is ever asked to prove that he or she obtained the firearm lawfully. The seller should definitely retain a copy of the receipt. If some law enforcement agent ever comes to the seller claiming that the sold firearm has been retrieved from a crime scene, it will be ever so helpful to have this receipt to document the transfer out of the seller’s possession.

Finally.

If all usual vetting fails to get a seller into a comfort zone about a particular buyer, yet the seller really wants to make the sale, the seller can always ask the buyer to meet him at the location of a willing licensed firearms dealer (”FFL”), such as a gunsmith or pawn shop that handles guns, where the buyer can be run through a Brady Law check for the sale. Phone the FFL in advance to confirm availability of and price for this service, which may range from $25 to $60. If the buyer refuses do a transfer via an FFL, then the buyer may be a person the seller doesn’t wish to sell a firearm to. Remember, it’s willing seller, willing buyer.

Depending on your state laws and compliance with these laws and principles, it is perfectly legal and possible for private individuals to sell firearms to other individuals.

About Gary Marbut

Since 1985 Gary Marbut has been heavily involved in the formulation of public policy concerning civilian ownership and use of firearms in Montana.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2016/07/private-firearm-sales/#ixzz4DkG2cHbR
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Watch: Louisiana Cops Shoot & Kill Man Selling CDs in Front of Store

0

Louisiana cops were caught on video shooting a man to death while holding him down on the ground early Tuesday morning.

(The Advocate) Alton Sterling, a 37-year old man who sold CDs, was shot and killed by a Baton Rouge police officer Tuesday morning outside a convenience store on North Foster Drive after “some type of altercation” with two officers, officials said.

Baton Rouge police did not provide much information about what escalated the incident between the officers and Sterling or what prompted an officer to fire his weapon. A witness, however, described police as “aggressive” and said Sterling was armed but was not holding his gun or touching his pockets during the incident. Police later retrieved a gun from the man’s pocket, said the witness, shop owner Abdullah Muflahi.

Around 12:35 a.m., Baton Rouge police responded to the Triple S Food Mart at 2112 N. Foster Drive after an anonymous caller indicated that a man in a red shirt who was selling CDs outside the store pointed a gun at someone, telling them to leave the property, Baton Rouge Police Department spokesman Cpl. L’Jean McKneely said.

East Baton Rouge Parish Coroner William “Beau” Clark said the initial results of an autopsy performed Tuesday show Sterling died due to a homicide and suffered multiple — meaning more than two — gunshot wounds to the chest and back.
A 48-second cellphone video captured by a bystander — which circulated at a protest about the shooting later in the day — shows an officer firing at least one round into a man’s chest outside what appears to be the Triple S store, followed by the sound of at least four more shots as the camera veers away.




“Get on the ground! Get on the ground!” an officer is heard yelling in the beginning of the clip.

Two officers are seen wrangling a heavy-set man in a red shirt against a silver sedan before pulling him to the ground on his back.

One officer is seen pulling the man’s left arm down while he pressed down on the man’s chest. The man’s right arm is not visible in the video.

“He’s got a gun! Gun,” an officer says, prompting the lawman closest to the camera to draw an object from his holster.

“You f*****g move, I swear to God,” says an officer, before the second officer, farther from the viewer, is seen pointing a weapon down at the man’s chest.

There’s a flash from that officer’s weapon, accompanied by the sound of shots.

“They shot him?” a man’s harried voice, close to the microphone, says in the video. “Yes!” a weeping woman replies.




Warning: This video contains graphic footage of the shooting.

 



Tell us in the comments section what you think

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

Hillary Clinton’s Most Cringe Inducing Moments

0

Just because Hillary Clinton is immune for the rule of the law, that doesn’t mean she’s immune from mockery. Here are Hillary’s most cringe inducing moments.










America: The Largest Terrorist State In The World

0

Imagine being at your house with some of your family. Recently, one of your son’s and a nephew were killed by some uniformed man just up the block, and there’s been a series of bombings up the road.

Suddenly, someone begins knocking on the door. You remember stories of random men knocking on doors, only to break them open and shoot the people inside.

So, you grab a kitchen knife. Soon enough, this man kicks open the door, yells in a language that you do not understand, and sticks a gun to your daughters face.

You try your best to yell at the men to please take the gun off your daughter’s face. His reaction, due to the fact that you’re holding a butter knife 15 feet away from him, is to shoot you in the face.

In any world, that would be considered breaking and entering, threatening a small child, and murder – but if you have camo on, that’s considered self-defense and you may even get a medal.

Now, though this may seem like an absurd example, I’ve heard this story many times from men and women who joined and served in the army. Only in the most backwards world would a man who murdered 36 people not be considered a serial killer, but a hero. The government of today, the government of the past, the government of the future is at its essence a terrorist organization.



The war on terror is a war on a noun. Internationally there is no consensus on the definition of terror, it’s merely an abstract concept redefined to benefit those in power. It’s nearly impossible to define terror without including government actions, which is why there’s not an absolute definition for it.Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

Let’s break down the war on drugs by sticking it into a micro population. There’s this guy named Dave. Dave doesn’t like that his neighbor Jim smokes a plant in his home. Jim never messes with Dave, he doesn’t attempt to assault Dave, and he doesn’t steal from Dave. Still, Dave just doesn’t like Jim’s usage of a plant.

Now, Dave himself is constantly consuming a liquid which is more toxic and dangerous than Jim does by a long shot, but Dave doesn’t see an issue with it. So in order to punish Jim he needs some money, so he goes to his neighbor Keith’s house.

Now Keith doesn’t want to give Dave money to hurt Jim, so Dave gets one of his friends to steal Keith’s money and then throws Keith in Dave’s basement for 6 months. Keith is left malnourished, and beaten by some other guys that’s are in Dave’s Basement.

With Keith’s stolen money, Dave pays someone else to breakdown Jim’s door, shoots Jim’s dog, steals Jim’s money, and then throws Jim in the basement as well.

That’s the war on drugs in a nutshell, except it’s more expensive and has led to 250,000 people in jail just right now.

So let’s look at that definition of terrorism. The most important aspect is inciting fear. You pay your taxes out of fear of losing your freedom. That fear is back by an ideological and political goal, and it harms non-violent individuals. It’s terrorism.



Within our present war against terror, the term enemy combatant is thrown around whenever an innocent individuals is murdered.  

Take a look at what the government considers enemy combatants.You live in a world, say Iraq, where 1.5 million of your countrymen have been murdered by the US government, so you decide to finally protect yourself. That makes you a terrorist. Looking at the facts regarding the Iraq war, it’s quite easy to find the actual truth.

Economically within the United States: The Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee estimated a $3.5 trillion cost through 2017, and state that the war will cost the average U.S. family $46,400.Per person, the total cost, given these estimates, would be $11,627. Before the invasion, Bush stated that the war would cost 50-60 billion dollars which would be recovered in oil revenue.

Contextually, in 2012, 10.5 billion dollars were spent per month just on the U.S Military, which doesn’t include the “repair” of the places the Military bombed.

That’s the US Economic Cost: Now physically there are 18 suicides a day by US troops, and 320,000 US vets have brain injuries.

Now in Iraq, there are 2.8 million Iraqis displaced, which is 1 in 10. 80 percent of those displaced are women and young children. The odds that the father of a family has been killed in the war in Iraq is 1 in 11.

The odds that an Iraqi son has been exposed to a traumatic event in the past 2 years are 1 in 2 – and then of course, there’s whole parts of Iraq which are now no longer habitable due to irradiated ammo.

Only an insane person could see as acts for the greater good of Iraqis.

 

The Economic Terror Done by the Federal Reserve

The War On Terror and the War On Drugs both embody a war on freedom, liberty, and the life of innocent individuals. In order to pay for this bloodshed, though, you need a financial backing – you need a central bank.Ron Paul: “Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent  policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created  bubble bursts.

Without a central bank that’s so willing to print money that doesn’t exist, are you capable of a debt based system which allows for the removal of any financial responsibility in the present. This lack of financial responsibility allows for the purchasing of men and machines which destroy the world and paint cities red with blood. When the United States government was/is in trillions of dollars in debt, the Fed still managed to “bail out” friends just a couple years back.”

The following list is taken directly from page 131 of a GAO audit report, and it shows which banks received secret loans from the Fed. Let’s take a look at the breakdown:

Citigroup – $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley – $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch – $1.949 trillion
Bank of America – $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC – $868 billion
Bear Sterns – $853 billion
Goldman Sachs – $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland – $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase – $391 billion
Deutsche Bank – $354 billion UBS – $287 billion
Credit Suisse – $262 billion
Lehman Brothers – $183 billion
Bank of Scotland – $181 billion
BNP Paribas – $175 billion
Wells Fargo – $159 billion Dexia – $159 billion
Wachovia – $142 billion
Dresdner Bank – $135 billion
Societe Generale – $124 billion
All Other Borrowers” – $2.639 trillion

With the help of the Federal Reserve, the USA is selling our children’s future to the highest bidder by enslaving them in debt. They are taking those stolen funds to slaughter and imprison millions of men, women and children. Abroad and domestically – in the past, present, and future – the USA is the ultimate terrorist state.




Tell us in the comments section what you think

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

10257847_10101407106334675_3394232571286694773_nCarlos Morales is a former Child Protective Services investigator, president and founder of Child Protective Services Victim Support, the host of the Libertarian Atheist Podcast, and a committed legal advocate for family reunification.

Since leaving his career as an investigator, he has actively helped families throughout the country fight for their children in and out of court. His pursuit of a radical overhaul for child protection programs has taken him from university lecture halls, to television and radio studios, and the pages of a variety of publications. This has culminated into the www.thinkaboutnow.com/judge-exposes-cps-history-of-abuse-rapepublication of his new book, Legally Kidnapped: The Case Against Child Protective Services (http://www.legallykidnapped.net/)

Breaking: Disabled St. Jude patient sues airport and TSA after bloody scuffle with Airport Police

Poll: 13 percent Prefer Meteorite Hitting Earth Over Hillary, Trump

0
Asteroid striking the Earth --- Image by © Mike Agliolo/Corbis

13 Percent of People Would Rather Have a Meteor Hit Earth Than Elect Trump or Clinton

More than 1 in 10 voters say they’d prefer a giant meteor hitting earth over supporting Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

The left-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) offered the hypothetical “Giant Meteor” option in its latest survey. Forty-three percent picked Clinton, 38 percent picked Trump and 13 percent picked the Giant Meteor hitting earth. Another 7 percent were unsure.




hillarytrump1




The Giant Meteor has support across the ideological spectrum, with 23 percent support among somewhat or very liberal voters, 16 percent among moderate voters and 21 percent among somewhat or very conservative voters.

Men are more likely to support the Giant Meteor than women, while an equal percentage of Republicans and Democrats support it. A whopping 27 percent of independents support the Giant Meteor, compared to 31 percent supporting Trump and 35 percent Clinton.

Asked about real-life presidential candidates, Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, leads Trump, her Republican counterpart, in the poll by 4 points, 45 to 41 percent, while 5 percent opt for Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, 2 percent pick Green Party candidate Jill Stein and 7 percent remain undecided.

The survey of 853 registered voters was conducted via landlines and the internet June 27–28 with a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points.




Tell us in the comments section what you think

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

 

The GOP is Imploding and It’s Beautiful

How Hillary Clinton Auctioned Off American Power to Foreign Countries

Breaking: Disabled St. Jude patient sues airport and TSA after bloody scuffle with Airport Police

0

Here’s some more evidence that the TSA needs to be disbanded immediately:
Disabled St. Jude patient sues airport and TSA after bloody scuffle with Airport Police








MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Bloodied and bruised Hannah Cohen was led from Memphis International Airport in handcuffs.

The 19-year old was headed home to Chattanooga after treatment for a brain tumor at St. Jude Hospital June 30, 2015.

It’s a trip they’ve made for 17 years.

This time, an unarmed Hannah, set off the metal detector at a security checkpoint

“They wanted to do further scanning, she was reluctant, she didn’t understand what they were about to do,” said her mother Shirley Cohen.

Cohen told us she tried to tell TSA agents her daughter is partially deaf, blind in one eye, paralyzed, and easily confused, but said she was kept at a distance by police.

“She’s trying to get away from them but in the next instant, one of them had her down on the ground and hit her head on the floor. There was blood everywhere,” said Cohen.

Hannah was arrested, booked and on the night she should have been celebrating the end of her treatment, she was locked up in Jail East.

“Here we were with nowhere to go, not even a toothbrush, our bags had gone to Chattanooga,” said Cohen.

Authorities later threw out the charges but the family filed a lawsuit against the Memphis Airport, Airport Police, and the Transportation Security Administration.

None of them would comment citing the suit, but Sari Koshetz of TSA released a statement that said, “Passengers can call ahead of time to learn more about the screening process for their particular needs or medical situation.”

Cohen said after all the help here, she can’t believe it ended like this.

“She’s 19 but she’ll always be my baby. We’ve been through so much.”




Tell us in the comments section what you think

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

Child Protective Services Called by Cops on Child for Saying “Brownies”

Texas Sheriff Throws Tantrum After Being Denied Helicopter, Boat, and Raises

0

Texas Sheriff Throws Hissy Fit After Being Denied Boat, Helicopter, and Raises





(Do Not Comply) On the 21st of June,  Chairman for the Hunt County Libertarian Party and citizen journalist Kory Watkins captured Hunt County Sheriff Randy Meeks displaying a childish tantrum when being shot-down on his request for more tax dollars to fund his empire.  His request for a boat, raises, two new positions under his wing and a helicopter were instantly blocked by the county commissioners. Mr. Meeks has recently said that he was ordained by God to possess the authority to rule over the people he is supposed to serve.

Last year his henchman kicked in the door of a woman who would not let them in her home and thenpunched her violently in the stomach while she was 9 months pregnant.  He backed his deputies by making up a wild claim that she grabbed for a gun. Last April another one of his goons slammed a handcuffed man into a parked car behind the sheriff’s department, and of course he came out in defense of that too.  With Sheriff’s like Mr. Meeks who needs the Gestapo or any other dictatorial dark dressed gang and we can all thank our lucky stars that he wasn’t given the money to increase his ever-growing arsenal of weapons against his citizenry.



 




Tell us in the comments section what you think

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

Child Protective Services Called by Cops on Child for Saying “Brownies”