John F. Kennedy
The Federal Reserve
On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.
When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy – the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money – without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy’s Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.” This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury’s vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.
“United States Notes” were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a “Federal Reserve Note” issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a “United States Note” from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy’s Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says “Federal Reserve Note” on the top while the other says “United States Note”. Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.
President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper “currency” circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.
Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new “money”. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something.
Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was assassinated, no more of the Series 1958 “Silver Certificates” were issued either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve’s control over the creation of money. It seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the “powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance”. With true patriotic courage, JFK boldly faced the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt:
1) war (Viet Nam); and,
2) the creation of money by a privately owned central bank. His efforts to have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965 combined with Executive Order 11110 would have destroyed the profits and control of the private Federal Reserve Bank.
Executive Order 11110
AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended – (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): “(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,” and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof. SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
JOHN F. KENNEDY THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963
Once again, Executive Order 11110 is still valid. According to Title 3, United States Code, Section 301 dated January 26, 1998:
Executive Order (EO) 10289 dated Sept. 17, 1951, 16 F.R. 9499, was as amended by:
EO 10583, dated December 18, 1954, 19 F.R. 8725;
EO 10882 dated July 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 6869;
EO 11110 dated June 4, 1963, 28 F.R. 5605;
EO 11825 dated December 31, 1974, 40 F.R. 1003;
EO 12608 dated September 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617
The 1974 and 1987 amendments, added after Kennedy’s 1963 amendment, did not change or alter any part of Kennedy’s EO 11110. A search of Clinton’s 1998 and 1999 EO’s and Presidential Directives has also shown no reference to any alterations, suspensions, or changes to EO 11110.
The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve System, is a Private Corporation. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the “Federal Reserve System” as: “Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves.” Privately-owned banks own the stock of the FED. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said: “Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank’s nine member board of directors”.
The Federal Reserve Banks are locally controlled by their member banks. Once again, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:
“Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.)”.
The privately owned Federal Reserve (FED) banks actually issue (create) the “money” we use. In 1964, the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is: “The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving to print them”.
Any one person or any closely knit group who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is exactly what the privately owned FED is!
No man did more to expose the power of the FED than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In describing the FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:
“Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it”.
Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.
The FED basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the FED banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it’s interesting to note that the Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the FED over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, such as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that have spoken out against it. His efforts were spoken about in Jim Marrs’ 1990 book Crossfire:”
Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy’s attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy’s comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks”.
In a comment made to a Columbia University class on Nov. 12, 1963,
Ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy allegedly said:
“The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight.”
In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be the subject of his own book… a true Profile of Courage.
This research report was compiled for Lawgiver. Org. by Anthony Wayne
What is the Federal Reserve Bank?
What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it?
by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999
The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country’s fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn’t for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.
There have been three central banks in our nation’s history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as “fractional banking.”
Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these “depositors” a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.
In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.
Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were “fractionally” backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued.
Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury.
This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811.
The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816.
The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion.
Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans.
Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money.
The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used as security for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then transferred to the central bank during the bust. And you always wondered how the big guys ended up with all the marbles.
Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late ’20s and all through the ’30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We all know the results that occurred from that action, don’t we?
Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth. How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years?
Do you think they will do it again?
Just as an aside at this point, look at today’s economy. Markets are declining. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses.
Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press releases?
Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.) How much money do you think these FED owners have made since they restricted the money supply at the top of this last current cycle?
Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks, central banks rule governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836.
Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank.
This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.
The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. “Federal” would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. “Reserve” would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. “System” was used in lieu of the word “bank” so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.
In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central banking corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.
Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.
Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as “Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig.” Yes, that’s right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.
Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the concept of creating money from nothing. You may have heard the term “monetizing the debt,” which is kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow $1 million ó the government does borrow every dollar it spends ó they go to the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars.
The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note, for a total of $230 for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at face value plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government has to create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. And the rich get richer. The above was just an example, because in reality the FED does not even print the money; it’s just a computer entry in their accounting system. To put this on a more personal level, let’s use another example.
Today’s banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today’s banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry.
Let’s say you’re approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn’t actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED.
It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn’t it? How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They don’t want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and afraid.
Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good.
So, what can be done? My father taught me that you should always stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand up alone.
If “We the People” don’t take some action now, there may come a time when “We the People” are no more. You should write a letter or send an email to each of your elected representatives. Many of our elected representatives do not understand the FED. Once informed they will not be able to plead ignorance and remain silent.
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can “coin money and regulate the value thereof.” The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.
Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer.
Thomas Jefferson said, “If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question is, “Can you now see what is in store for us if we allow the FED to continue controlling our country?”
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt.”
January 2, 2013
It is being hailed as a victory by gun rights advocates that is perhaps sweeter than any previous pro-Second Amendment ruling.
Following a recent trend in which successive federal courts have upheld an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, a federal appeals panel in Chicago has thrown out the state’s ban on carrying concealed weapons and ordered the Illinois Legislature to craft a law legalizing the practice within 180 days. Illinois was the only remaining state in the union that did not permit concealed carry.
“The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013,” said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, which has been pushing for concealed carry in Illinois for some time.
‘The Supreme Court has decided…’
In a 2-1 decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling in a pair of cases from the southern part of the state that upheld a longstanding prohibition against the carrying of a concealed weapon, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
“We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home,” Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
“The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense,” he continued.
“Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden,” Posner wrote.
“The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions,” he wrote.
“Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public,” the federal jurist said.
Writing as the minority, Judge Ann Williams said the state was within its right to ban weapons in “sensitive places” like government buildings, universities and churches, in the name of public safety – a typical anti-gun mindset which is as antithetical to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment as it is illogical (the act of carrying a gun is, in and of itself, done to improve “public safety”).
No room for an appeal
“The Illinois legislature reasonably concluded that if people are allowed to carry guns in public, the number of guns carried in public will increase, and the risk of firearms-related injury or death in public will increase as well,” Williams wrote. “And it is also common sense that the danger is a great one; firearms are lethal.”
Economist John Lott, who has studied and written extensively on the issues of guns and gun crimes, disagrees. In a recent op-ed posted online at FoxNews.com, Lott wrote that the “Murder rates consistently rise when guns are banned.”
“This is not just a U.S. phenomenon in places such as Washington, DC and Chicago, but has been observed worldwide. When guns are banned, even in island nations such as the UK, Ireland, and Jamaica, the pattern has been the same. The problem is that gun bans disarm law-abiding good people, not criminals,” he wrote.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, said her office will examine the ruling before deciding whether to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court – which, as Judge Posner pointed out, has already decided the issue.
This article was posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 10:09 am
Posted on January 2, 2013 by Robert Farago
UPDATE: Two firearms-related bills are now headed for committee. Click here to read the texts.
The NRA’s Illinois rep confirms Illinois Senate President John Cullerton’s gun ban bill. Posting at illinoiscarry.com, Todd Vandermyde says “Not only are they going after semi-autos and magazines, but they are going after ranges . . . Sources say the new bills would require any range open to the public to be run by an FFL. That they would be licensed under unlimited rules and regulations by the State Police. If you see what the Governor did under his AV of SB-681, you can imagine what kind of rules/standards he would put in place to run a range.” The new bill would also prevent non-FOID card holders from getting firearm safety training with a live fire component. “At this time we have no bill numbers,” Todd says. “But we anticipate them using house bills passed over for floor amendments which would only take a matter of hours to clear committee and be ready for a final vote. Legislative offices are open today.” Any gun owner can call Senator Cullerton at 773-883-0770 to lodge their protest.
You may also like -
BREAKING: Illinois Bill to Ban All Modern Firearms
A Win For Illinois Gun Owners. No Really.
Illinois Senator Donne Trotter Is Not a Hypocrite. Really.
BREAKING: U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Down IL Concealed Carry Ban
NRA: Illinois Will Be A Shall-Issue State
Erik Loomis wants gun group declared “terrorist organization”
Paul Joseph Watson
December 18, 2012
A professor at the University of Rhode Island has found himself embroiled in controversy after tweeting what many assumed to be a death threat against National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre.
Professor Erik Loomis got into hot water with second amendment activists when he tweeted, “I was heartbroken in the first 20 mass murders. Now I want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick,” in response to last week’s Connecticut school massacre.
Loomis followed up the tweet with a string of subsequent missives, including his most recent tweet in which he called on the Obama administration to “repeal the second amendment.”
Loomis’ desire to see NRA head LaPierre’s “head on a stick,” which in a historical context was used as a brutal way of using an executed dissident’s severed head to warn others against misbehaving, was taken by many as a direct threat but Loomis himself denied he was calling for LaPierre to be assassinated.
“Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don’t want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life,” tweeted Loomis, labeling the NRA a “terrorist organization” and complaining of there being a “rightwing campaign” against him.
The fact that the University of Rhode Island is a taxpayer funded state university only increased the vitriol directed against Loomis, leading him to complain that he was forced to “block 20 gun nuts from my twitter feed.”
“You are goddamn right we should politicize this tragedy,” Loomis remarked in another tweet. “Fuck the NRA.”
Given that Loomis is a professor of history, one finds it alarming that he fails to grasp the very reason the founding fathers included the second amendment as part of the US Constitution in the first place – to defend against the kind of tyranny imposed by the ruling British empire, which Americans once fought off with guns – and lots of them.
His obsession with portraying his political adversaries as violent extremists who cause school shootings is also ironic given Loomis’ history of violent rhetoric.
“In March of this year, he called for a “decades-long fight to the death [against conservatives]. That’s the nation’s only hope.” The questionable rhetoric appeared in an essay ironically titled, “Are Conservatives Any Crazier Today Than 50 Years Ago?” Clearly the professor, who has violent impulses is projecting his own character flaws onto conservatives,” writes Thomas Lifson.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
December 18, 2012
Lanza killed 20 children aged six and seven and six adults at Sandy Hook elementary school having previously shot dead his mother Nancy last Friday. He then shot himself dead. Police are still searching for a motive.
It has emerged that Lanza spent his time in the basement of the family’s four-bedroom home in Newtown playing video games, such as Call of Duty and obsessing over guns and military equipment, according to an interview in The Sun with plumber Peter Wlasuk.
Call Of Duty is controversial because of its violent content. The Advertising Standards Authority in the UK banned daytime advertising of the game earlier this year.
Read full article
Attacks individual right to keep and bear arms
Dec 18, 2012
Barack Obama’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, a long time advocate of eviscerating the Second Amendment, has penned a piece that essentially labels anyone who defends long standing gun rights in the US as “crazy”.
In the editorial titled Gun Debate Must Avoid Crazy Second Amendment Claims, Sunstein argues that the individual right to bear arms, supported and reaffirmed consistently by courts across the nation, constitutes “wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution.”
“Sure, it could fairly be read to support an individual right to have guns.” writes Sunstein of the Second, “But in light of the preamble, with its reference to a well-regulated militia, it could also be read not to confer an individual right, but to protect federalism, by ensuring that the new national government wouldn’t interfere with citizen militias at the state level.”
He then goes on to claim that for decades it was never recognized that the Second Amendment protected the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and that it was only with the Supreme Court decision in 2008 that individual rights were established.
“We should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established, but a lot of gun-control legislation, imaginable or proposed, would be perfectly consistent with the court’s rulings.” Sunstein writes.
“It is past time to stop using the Second Amendment itself as a loaded weapon, threatening elected representatives who ought to be doing their jobs.” Sunstein concludes.
This constitutes an old argument that is used by big government gun grabbers and those politically motivated to erode individual rights. The Supreme Court decision in 2008 UPHELD the individual right to keep and bear arms, as many other court decisions and Justice Department memoranda has before. It did not ESTABLISH that right, as Sunstein argues.
In 2004, the Justice Department noted, “A ‘right of the people’ is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a State and not merely of those serving the State as militiamen. The phrase ‘keep arms’ at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals, not the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers, and the phrase certainly had that meaning when used in connection with a ‘right of the people,’”
“Moreover, the Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights amid amendments securing numerous individual rights, a placement that makes it likely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms likewise belongs to individuals,” the DOJ’s report continued.
Sunstein’s argument against individual gun rights hinges on the notion that the Founders used the word “people” to mean “states”, a clearly ridiculous suggestion especially given that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were penned by the most meticulous wordsmiths in history.
Thomas Jefferson himself wrote in several drafts of the Virginia constitution, provisions that “no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.”
In addition, state-level precursors to the Second Amendment made it clear that keeping arms was each person’s individual right “for the defence of themselves and the state.”
In his argument, Sunstein even wrongly cites the 1939 case of U.S. v. Miller, to argue that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. In reality, however, the court in that case duly noted that the “militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment comprised all able-bodied males – ie individuals.
Sunstein, and those who have propelled the same argument about the Second Amendment are twisting its meaning. The founders explicitly crafted the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny. Armed militia — citizens of a country — were to defend against the possible rise of a tyrannical state, not only merely to organize for hunting expeditions or to defend against small scale criminal activity.
We have seen this kind of Rhetoric before from Sunstein. During a lecture at the University of Chicago Law School on October 27, 2007, he argued that “The Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have guns.”
Sunstein either misunderstands the original purpose of the Second Amendment or stands opposed to an armed citizenry guarding against tyranny.
Given that Sunstein has also argued that the First Amendment should be “reformulated”, and has called for taxing or banning outright, as in making illegal, opinions and ideas that the government doesn’t approve of, it is clearly only his views on the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are “crazy”, and not those of the Founders.
January 26, 2012
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and President Barack Obama engaged in an apparently tense exchange on an airport tarmac shortly after Air Force One touched down outside Phoenix on Wednesday.
Obama appeared to walk away from the Republican governor while they were still talking, according to a White House pool reporter. Brewer confirmed that by saying she didn’t finish her sentence.
Asked moments later what the conversation was about, Brewer said: “He was a little disturbed about my book.”
… Brewer recently published a book, Scorpions for Breakfast, something of a memoir of her years growing up. The book also defends her signing of Arizona’s controversial law cracking down on illegal immigrants, which Obama opposes.
Ron Paul 2012
January 22, 2012
LAKE JACKSON, Texas – The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign released the following statement regarding the South Carolina primary results. Below please find comments from National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton:
“Ron Paul performed well in South Carolina tonight despite his focus on other states and campaigning in the Palmetto State for only four days.
“Dr. Paul quadrupled his 2008 numbers after tripling them in New Hampshire and Iowa.
“Tonight’s results also throw this race wide open. There still is no indisputable front runner. The long hard road to the nomination is merely beginning.
“As a result of their showing this evening, establishment candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich will have a lot more questions raised next week.
“Romney and Gingrich have an abundance of big government positions and flip-flops for which Republican voters will want answers. The answers to those questions are out there and this is just the beginning of the scrutiny of these candidates.
“If the Republican Party nominates a candidate who supported the healthcare individual mandate and bailouts, they do so at their peril as tonight’s top two finishers would deliver President Obama a second term.
“After tonight, only 37 delegates, or 1.6 percent of total delegates, have been awarded. The race for the Republican nomination is a marathon—not a sprint—and our campaign has in place a comprehensive plan to secure 1,144 delegates and win the nomination.
“Ron Paul is the only candidate with the plan and record to change the status quo. He consistently polls the best of the Republican candidates against President Obama, and has the grassroots support and nationwide organization to sustain the type of campaign we are about to see.
“Looking ahead, we see a lengthy, 50-state national campaign. Dr. Paul is fully prepared to win.
“See you on the campaign trail.”
January 22, 2012
Ron Paul is not simply the anti-war candidate. He is also the national security candidate. This is an important truth that is overlooked.
The wars in the Middle East have been sold to the American people as “national security” wars, but this is a big lie. The wars have nothing to do with America’s national security interests. So, the anti-war position is the same as the pro-national security position.
Washington’s Blog shined a light on the real reasons for America’s endless wars in the article, “Are The Middle East Wars Really About Forcing the World Into Dollars and Private Central Banking?”
Ron Paul is the world’s biggest opponent of private central banking, the fiat dollar system, and the endless war on terror. His resistance has a moral dimension for sure, but his main argument is that America has not benefited from the wars either economically, militarily, or politically.
Throughout his presidential campaign Dr. Paul has repeated the point that America’s national security and economic health are being ruined by Washington’s multiple unsustainable and costly wars.
But Dr. Paul’s rejection of the war on terror mythos is not the only reason why he should be considered as the national security candidate. He puts the national security of America ahead of politics and party every single time, no matter the issue. Whether the issue is a war against Iran or indefinite detention in America, Dr. Paul is consistently for the defense of America’s national security.
It is clear that Dr. Paul is the only serious national security candidate in the 2012 presidential race. Below I’ve listed five issues which showcase Dr. Paul’s national security credentials.
1. Dr. Paul agrees with senior members of the U.S. Military that a war against Iran is a bad idea, and with the U.S. intelligence community that Iran does not have a nuclear bomb. His political foes in his party are confusing America’s national security interests with Israel’s national security interests. And in doing so, they are severely undermining the economic health and security of the United States.
2. Dr. Paul’s opposition to the indefinite detention provisions in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are grounded in the belief that unconstitutional laws threaten America’s national security. Earlier this week, he introduced legislation to repeal the section of the NDAA that allows the military to snatch up American citizens in the night and keep them hostage in secret prisons without trial. This government power will be abused and the social fabric of America will be destroyed. As Washington’s Blog stated in an article headline,“Indefinite Detention Hurts Our National Security and Increases the Risk of Terrorism.”
3. In August 2010, Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. national debt poses the biggest threat to America’s national security.
Dr. Paul has done the most among political leaders in raising public awareness about the rapidly growing U.S. national debt and the risks of U.S. bankruptcy. He is the only true anti-debt candidate, which proves that he truly cares about the economic security and social well-being of America, unlike every other Republican candidate and President Obama.
On January 18, 2012, Senator Jim DeMint endorsed Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy and national debt, saying:
“If we spread ourselves too thin around the world were not gonna be able to defend the homeland, particularly with the level of debt that we have right now. It’s foolish for us to think that we can have military bases all over the world, spend billions of dollars when we’re going broke back home. It just isn’t gonna happen.”
4. Ron Paul’s defense of America’s national security begins at the borders. He says as President he will protect America’s borders and restore the legal paths to citizenship in the United States. His pro-legal immigration/pro-border security platform is in line with the true values and national security interests of America.
5. The foundations of America’s national security are the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially the first amendment and the second amendment. They are currently under attack by the hijacked government, which is an attack on America’s national security. Dr. Paul will restore the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which would significantly improve the security of the United States.
America would not be America without a free press and an armed citizenry. If both were destroyed, which is a very real possibility if internet censorship and police state legislation are not resisted, then the fire of liberty that is America will be extinguished forever.
Saman Mohammadi is the writer and editor at The Excavator Blog
January 22, 2012
Okay. It’s time somebody says it. Something seems very strange about the GOP primary pre-polling and vote thus far.
As a Ron Paul fan, I didn’t want to seem like a sore loser after the odd Iowa result where the failed no-name Senator, Rick Santorum, was catapulted to victory with very little tangible support.
But now, how on earth could Newt Gingrich win the South Carolina primary when the day before the vote he had to cancel a major campaign stop because of lack of attendance?
The Associated Press reported:
Newt Gingrich has cancelled a campaign appearance in South Carolina because of poor attendance.
The Republican presidential candidate was scheduled to speak to the Southern Republican Leadership on Friday. But a campaign spokesman told reporters that he would no longer be appearing due to poor attendance.
There were just a few dozen people in the audience at the College of Charleston’s arena, where the event was taking place.
Meanwhile, on the same day Ron Paul boasted over 1000 attendees at his campaign event in Charleston:
2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul attracted more than 1,000 supporters in Charleston today, demonstrating his strong support among younger voters and his overall popularity.
The crowd gathered expressly for the 12-term Congressman from Texas as he participated in “The Bully Pulpit Series” at 11:00 a.m. EST at the College of Charleston, located at 7 College Way, Charleston. The candidate had been in Washington the day prior for a key House vote against President Obama raising the debt ceiling, but upon his return there was apparently no loss of enthusiasm.
Ron Paul speaking to enthusiastic crowd in Charleston, S.C.
Primary elections are traditionally driven by enthusiasm. In other words, the average voter does not turn out for primaries unless they are motivated by a certain candidate. So, could someone please explain to me how Newt Gingrich, who has virtually no ground game, no money, and no fervent supporters, just won the South Carolina primary?
Could the conspiracy to keep Ron Paul out of the Oval Office be this coordinated, this pervasive?
This post first appeared on the Activist Post website.