Americans will find it easier to disarm ISIS than it is to disarm bureaucrats: Members of Congress and a major consumer-advocacy group have launched a campaign to counter the recent massive arming of federal government regulatory agencies. The campaign was prompted by moves such as an order by the Department of Agriculture for submachine guns with 30-round magazines. XXXXX . . . “Historically the criminal law was intended to punish only the most horrible offenses that everyone agreed were inherently wrong or evil, offenses like rape, murder, theft, arson – but now we’ve basically federalized thousands of activities and called them crimes.” He continued, “If bureaucrats need to involve the police, let’s have them use the FBI, but I see no reason to have the FDA carrying weapons.” Farmers, Congress team up to disarm bureaucrats 'They should do what the rest of us do, call the local sheriff' Published: 12 hours ago Bob Unruh http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/farmers-congress-team-up-to-disarm-bureaucrats/ I’m not joking about the difficulty in disarming bureaucrats. Listen to the all-out attacks on the Constitution coming from Harry Reid, Senate Democrats, liberals like Donna Brazile, and even Ruth Ginsburg if you doubt me. Once the Constitution is gone armed bureaucrats working with the police and the military will be essential to the Democrat party's agenda. I believe that arming bureaucrats before the final assault on the Constitution was part of the overall strategy formulated during the Clinton Administrations. Democrats had so much success slaughtering Americans in the Branch Davidian Compound they began arming bureaucrats. Remember that The Waco Massacre was carried out by traditional federal and state law enforcement agencies. Soon after the Clintons got away with murdering over 80 men, women, children, Democrats realized that by simply arming their bureaucrats they could implement their agenda by force. Going around arrests and trials, lawyers, and courts is working to perfection. They are getting away with it. They will get away with the next Waco carried out by bureaucrats, too. Incidentally, talk about Hillary Clinton becoming the next president will amount to a third term for Taqiyya the Liar. They’ve got it ass backwards. It will be a fifth term for the Clintons if she wins in 2016. Taqiyya built upon the Clintons by empowering federal bureaucrats with more authority than did the Clintons. Taqiyya even empowered INTERPOL with the authority to operate above the law in this country by including diplomatic immunity. The Clintons will endow the bureaucrats even further than did Taqiyya. Finally, this article written in 1997 is worth reading: August 15, 1997 32 federal agencies packing heat By Sarah Foster 1997, WorldNetDaily.com http://www.comeandtakeit.com/natlcops.html
I guess I don't understand the problem here. Is the USDA going to try a coup on the gov't? Is the objection to firearms in general or is it against armed bureaucrats? Believe me, they can do far more damage with a computer and a wifi connection than they can with a gun.
To Imnotreallyhere: Armed bureaucrats are the government. To Imnotreallyhere: The objection is to a police state. To Imnotreallyhere: Democrats are working on banning freedom of speech on the Internet. If they succeed will it qualify as damage? And you might try shooting back with a computer after Democrats abolish the Constitution and confiscate every law-abiding Americans gun. In short, Burstein and Brazile want a Constitution codifying every aspect of liberalism. Although neither said it, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would no doubt be eliminated, and free speech rights for some would, in all likelihood, be severely curtailed. DNC's Donna Brazile calls for new Constitution to 'save American democracy' September 28, 2014 3:58 PM MST http://www.examiner.com/article/dnc...nstitution-to-save-american-democracy?cid=rss
Taqiyya the Liar is blaming the intelligence community for ISIS: Joseph Miller is the pen name for a ranking Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning. President Barack Obama has taken a lot of flack since his Sunday night 60 Minutes interview, in which he blamed the intelligence community for his failure to tackle the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. And that is right and proper. Because not only was his excuse of blaming us a lie, but when questioned on his lie, White House press secretary Josh Earnest doubled down with a whole new lie both of which are easily, publicly proven false. On Sunday, Obama said the intelligence community had underestimated the rise of ISIS, saying in an interview with CBS, Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria. Pentagon Official: The President Is Lying To America About Us, And About ISIS 10:28 PM 09/30/2014 Joseph Miller http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/30/p...-is-lying-to-america-about-us-and-about-isis/ The strategy of blaming the intelligence community originated with the Clintons. No surprise there. They had to blame somebody for Gorelicks Wall which had a lot to with the success of the attacks on 9-11-2001. A fifth term for the Clintons will build the wall higher. Call Taqiyya the Liars blame game an updated version of Clinton strategy. Gorelicks Wall is all the more puzzling in light of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Right from the beginning the CIA was named the villain; so why in hell would the Clintons authorize a policy two years later that restricted intelligence-sharing? NOTE: Two Clinton failures: 1. Ignoring Osama bin Laden when he first appeared. 2. Treating him like he was Hitler when they learned what he was up to. that is assuming terrorist attacks would end if the leader was killed. Taqiyya followed through on that myth after bin Laden was killed. The second failure did the most damage as events since bin Ladens death prove. Put it in perspective by remembering the failed plot to kill Hitler. Had the plot succeeded the war would have ended days later. The truth is that bin Laden was more like Lenin in that Communism grew stronger after he died. Throughout the Clinton years they had no idea that America was at war. That denial was passed on to Taqiyya, and will continue in a Clinton fifth term. Proof of how Democrats actually view intelligence agencies can be seen in Jamie Gorelicks infamous 1995 memo. Gorelicks Wall was designed to prevent the CIA and the FBI from sharing information about Communist organizations and personnel. The Clintons were so committed to salvaging the remnants of worldwide Communist by neutering the intelligence community they never saw Islams all-out war coming. All of the crap about President Bush misleading Democrats after 9-11 has always been an effort to coverup Clinton Administration failures as much as it was about anything else. Finally, the 9/11 Commission was a travesty from day one; its sole purpose was to coverup for the Clintons. It was such a farce Hillary Clintons choice for attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, sat on the panel. When John Ashcroft nailed her, the other impartial commission members almost had apoplexy. As pathetic as the Commissions report is, you will notice that Clinton apologists refer to it at every opportunity. A just-declassified monograph written for the 9/11 Commission would have us believe the Clinton-era "Gorelick wall" between police and intelligence can't be blamed. Oh really? Steven Aftergood's Secrecy News alerts us to the release of a previously unreleased analysis of the effect of the Gorelick wall on intelligence sharing before 9/11: XXXXX The Gorelick memo was specifically about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (a point that most people miss for some reason) and it was not misunderstood. The Clinton administration did not want any proper intelligence investigation of that bombing (or the attacks that followed.) XXXXX White asked permission to do an intelligence investigation into the WTC bombing -- and Gorelick told her no. She should stick to the criminal investigation/prosecution and other people would do the intelligence investigation in order to keep the two separate. White protested, asserting that it was an artificial distinction. June 17, 2009 It wasn't the Gorelick Wall? Clarice Feldman http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/it_wasnt_the_gorelick_wall.html
I don't think so. when I go to my county courthouse, the clerks aren't armed. They're not armed at the DMV either. City hall and the library are pretty much gun free too except for the PD at city hall. The teachers and staff at the local schools are unarmed as is the township road dept. In fact, the only gov't officials I see with weapons are the ones who might need them in the course of their duties. You have no idea what a police state is if you think armed gov't officials make a police state. Republicans succeeded in passing the NDAA and PRISM. Far more dangerous to our freedoms IMO. The Iranians thought we did pretty well with Stuxnet. Just an example of the things that can be done with a computer. Look it up. Source for abolition of the Constitution by Democrats required. Cite the legislation that bans private ownership of firearms in the US. This is just too far out there to be believed without evidence. A couple of things to consider. 1). how likely is such a threat to succeed? 2). consider the source you heard this from. How likely are they to provide an unbiased story?
To Imnotreallyhere: Nice misdirection, but I was talking about those bureaucrats who have no business carrying guns. As to the remainder of your reply this is where I get off. [video=youtube;iDWCb3qP5Tc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDWCb3qP5Tc&feature=player_embedded[/video]
