Sandy Hook Smoking Gun Revealed: Factions of Government, Law Enforcement, and Mainstream Media Including Anderson Cooper Engaged in Treason Against the United States and it’s Citizens

    “If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH; and that if any person or persons, having knowledge of the commission of any of the treasons aforesaid, shall conceal, and not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President of the United States, or some one of the Judges thereof, or to the President or Governor of a particular State, or some one of the Judges or Justices thereof, such person or persons, on conviction, shall be adjudged guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars.” — The Congress of the United States, 1970

 Sandy Hook Elementary School (Front Entrance)

NEWTOWN — Members of government, law enforcement, and mainstream media alike, including CNN, Anderson Cooper and possibly members of his staff have now been implicated in aiding in a treasonous plot to destroy the Constitution of the United States of America at the presidential level by way of Executive Order to limit and possibly ban all guns.
Media giant CNN has now been caught airing what appears to be “active-shooter drill footage” from another school location and passing it off as the LIVE breaking news feed of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that was reported to take place on the 14th of December, 2012 in the morning.

 This is not Sandy Hook Elementary (Footage aired LIVE during the Breaking CNN broadcast December 14, 2012)

 Video footage within the original CNN LIVE broadcast reveals police charging the entrance of what appears to be Sandy Hook Elementary School from a birds-eye-view filmed from a news helicopter. The caption on the LIVE CNN broadcast with Anderson Cooper’s logo to the left on the ticker bar read “BREAKING NEWS” (as it was aired the morning of the shooting LIVE) “Source: Mother of Suspected Gunman Also Killed”. However, after closer analysis this is not footage of the Sandy Hook School grounds or shooting, but rather a different location entirely.

 

Sandy Hook Elementary School

The footage is not of Sandy Hook Elementary but rather of another school. In fact, likely the images aired are actually from an active-shooter drill. It is unconfirmed at this time if the footage is from a previously filmed drill or an actual realtime drill that was taking place simultaneously with the reported shooting. Notice the emergency cones “orange cones” in place signifying typical drill protocol (in the above picture).
At 1:02 into the following video on CNN’s website is the footage that aired LIVE as most of America has been “duped” in what some would say is an even more sophisticated and diabolic false flag operation than the government staged terror attacks on September 11, 2001.


Take a very close look at the video starting at 1:02 into it. You will notice the police running through a cross walk area that simply does not exist at Sandy Hook Elementary. Take note of the rounded curb area that leads into a grassy area of some sort with a flag pole present. This area does not exist on Sandy Hook Elementary Schools property as factions of our government, law enforcement, and media have conspired to stage what could become the end of our once great nation.

Others are implicated. A previous report from theintelhub.com reads;

Project Longevity
This is where it starts to get extremely weird.
A little more than two weeks before the Sandy Hook Shooting, Attorney General Eric Holder was in Connecticut meeting with Governor Dannel Malloy to discuss the launch of a new project aimed at what was described at the time as the, “sticky issue of gun violence.”

The initiative, was aptly named Project Longevity and boasted a variety of goals all supposedly aimed at curbing what Holder described as increasing gun violence in Connecticut and throughout the country.
The Huffington Post reported;

The initiative, known as Project Longevity, will send new federal grant money to Connecticut and involve agents, academics and social workers working for or with the FBI and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy are scheduled to discuss the plans at a news conference in New Haven, Connecticut, at 11 a.m. (1600 GMT).
Malloy, a Democrat, in June adopted a strategy known as “focused deterrence” that targets a small number of suspects who are under the supervision of probation officers or otherwise well-known to law enforcement.
The model, which emphasizes education and other services for those suspects, as well as community meetings, has been credited with reducing violence in Boston and elsewhere.
Federal help for the effort is welcome even if Obama is not making a push to change laws that make guns easily available in much of the country, said Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence.

The corporate media immediately labeled the project not what Obama’s supporters wanted when he promised gun control in his second term.

It will not be the gun control launch that some of President Barack Obama’s supporters hoped for after Obama won a second four-year term in a Nov. 6 election.

A press release by the initiative was published in an article by Connecticut local mainstream news outlet WTNH. (Emphasis mine)

PROJECT LONGEVITY LAUNCHED TO REDUCE  GANG AND GUN VIOLENCE IN CONNECTICUT’S CITIES
Government Officials, Community Members, Service Providers and Law Enforcement Join Forces in Statewide Anti-Violence Initiative
New Haven, Conn. – Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney David Fein and Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy joined members of law enforcement, public officials, social service providers, community leaders and researchers in New Haven today to launch “Project Longevity,” a comprehensive initiative to reduce gun violence in Connecticut’s major cities.
Project Longevity uses a strategy that has shown violence can be reduced dramatically when community members and law enforcement join together to directly engage with these groups and clearly communicate a community message against violence, a law enforcement message about the consequences of further violence and an offer of help for those who want it.
To accomplish this, law enforcement, social service providers and community members are recruited, assembled and trained to engage in a sustained relationship with violent groups.
“Project Longevity will send a powerful message to those who would commit violent crimes targeting their fellow citizens that such acts will not be tolerated and that help is available for all those who wish to break the cycle of violence and gang activity,” said Attorney General Holder.
“Today’s announcement underscores our commitment to working together – across levels of government and jurisdictional boundaries – to protect the American people from the crime that threatens too many neighborhoods and claims far too many innocent lives.”
Project Longevity is based on a model that has been successful in reducing gun violence in multiple neighborhoods across the country and represents the first time the strategy is being implemented statewide.
“On the state level, I have directed my administration to focus our criminal justice resources on urban violence,” Governor Malloy said. “We agree that no strategy will be effective without the support of the community.
This means parents, clergy, neighborhood leaders, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles – everyone working toward one goal. We are working to regain the trust of the African-American and Latino communities. We need their help. The lives of these young people are too valuable not to act.”
You Can Read the Whole Press Release Here

So just two weeks before the Sandy Hook Shooting, Holder was in the area pushing a form of gun control but clearly not happy that the project was so low key instead of some sort of ban on certain weapons and so forth. (what we are seeing in the present)
The Governor then made a statement that is extremely suspicious.

“The community needs to show a little more outrage on these things and demand that it be a top priority,” Pinciaro said.“That will be more useful than another law right now.

Another interesting observation shows Governor Malloy at a press conference. Governor Malloy states in the video, “The Lt. Governor and I have been spoken too in an attempt that we might be prepared for something like this playing itself out in our state”.

Several times in the video the Governor refers to the scenario as playing, like a role play or drill almost.
Corporate Media Goes on the Attack

Fast forwarding to the present, we have seen a large-scale media attack on the 2nd Amendment and now, in a startling turn of events, elements of the corporate media are literally attacking those who question the shooting.

When you consider the fact that the corporate media has absolutely been complicit in the Sandy Hook Shooting, it makes sense that they would send an elitist Vanderbilt (Anderson Cooper) to broadcast one of the most hardcore segments of shilling the corporate media has ever conducted.

In the broadcast, Cooper repeatedly states that if it wasn’t for his show no one would even be seeing the crazy conspiracy theories he is exposing yet if that was the case a CNN prime time show would never spend multiple segments to debunk something no one has ever seen in the first place.

Cooper then proceeded to attempt to debunk point by point many different theories on the shooting that have been read by millions in the alternative media.

Specifically, the professor from Florida who has spoken out in regards to the numerous anomalies was directly attacked by Cooper due to the fact that it is much harder to label a professor at a university as some lone crazy on the internet.

It is also interesting to mention that Cooper spent a large chunk of time attacking the claim that crisis management actors were used in conjunction with fake news media broadcasts.
The idea that Cooper has never heard of something like that is completely and utterly absurd, especially when you consider the infamous fake CNN Gulf War broadcast.

In the latter part of the shillcast, Cooper had on two known new world order shills in an attempt to make it sound like the entire idea of a new world order or false flag terror is just completely 100% ludicrous.
Towards the end, the daughter of the principle who was apparently killed in the shooting also called in to voice here anger and add in details that seemed to once again attempt to directly counter points made in the alternative media.

Clearly, the use of the corporate media to attack honest questions in regards to the Sandy Hook shootings shows that the alternative media is indeed making major leeway when it comes to finding out the facts in the case.

Anderson Cooper is a known CIA asset and pushes CIA COINTEL on the American People. Wikipedia even admits that Cooper is affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reading;

During college, Cooper spent two summers as an intern at the Central Intelligence Agency. Although he technically has no formal journalistic education, he opted to pursue a career in journalism rather than stay with the agency after school,^[13] having been a self-proclaimed “news junkie” since he was “in utero.”^[14] After his first correspondence work in the early 1990s, he took a break from reporting and lived in Vietnam for a year, during which time he studied theVietnamese language at the University of Hanoi.^[15]

FALSE FLAG?: What does the sandy hook surveillance camera footage show?

 Why has no surveillance footage been released from the Sandy Hook shooting, showing Adam Lanza blasting away with an AR-15?

Here’s why the non-release of this  video footage isso interesting:

Every time a school shooting takes place, one of the very first things that gets released to the media isthe school surveillance footage depicting the gun and the shooter. The purpose of this is to associate the pain and anguish of the massacre to the image of a scary-looking rifle.

In mere days after the Columbine shooting in 1998, for example, the media received footage from the massacre and began playing it over and over again, hammering home the images of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold with their guns. The same is true with numerous other school shootings as you’ll see below.
But with the Sandy Hook school shooting, no video footage has been released. A reasonable person has to ask the question: WHY?

You see, the release of footage of Adam Lanza murdering children with an AR-15 — if such a thing even happened — would strongly support the mainstream media’s call for banning so-called “assault rifles.” It would also:

• Amp up the emotional impact of the fear mongering being carried out by the media.
• Provide visual support for the gun-grabber’s plea to ban all rifles.
• Provide a wealth of images to be used by newspapers and magazines to further demonize the image of rifles.… and yet, for some reason, we see no surveillance footage from Sandy Hook.

Why is that?
Answer: The AR-15 appears to have been left in his car and never even used in the shooting
The real answer to all this — and this reveals the “Big Lie” of the mainstream media — is that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle was left in Lanza’s car.

It was never brought into the school in the first place. As a result, it was not used in the shooting.
This was openly admitted in an NBC news report that has since been scrubbed and marginalized. But NaturalNews captured the video and posted it on our own private video network which is immune from censorship:

Click here to watch the NBC News video yourself.
Here’s a partial transcript of the video:
Matt Lauer: Pete Williams, our chief justice correspondent, has got some new information as well, good morning.
Pete Williams: Matt, good morning to you. This continues to be a very complex investigation, and there is a lot of contradictory information out there, but there is some new information this morning from a couple of federal officials and state officials. They say now that there were actually four handguns recovered inside the school. Not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.
We knew that Adam Lanza… also had an assault-style, AR-15 style rifle that he had taken to the school that was in the car he drove there, his mother’s car. But we’ve been told by several officials that he left that in the car

Adam Lanza left the AR-15 in the car
This simple fact, which was confirmed by “federal officials and state officials” has been completely scrubbed out of the mainstream media, and replaced with the “assault weapon lone gunman” theory that just happens to fit nicely with the citizen disarmament agenda being pushed by anti-American traitors like Dianne Feinstein and Joe Biden.

^^^^^Look at this fake ass fucker crying fake tears.^^^^^

READ MORE

DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
www.angelfire.com/retro/voices/page2.html#1902

Analysis of Obama’s War on Guns

By issuing 23 executive orders to restrict firearms ownership, Obama has made his contempt for the People, the Congress and the Bill of Rights & Constitution blatantly obvious.

 

 Barack Obama’s bold use of executive orders to ‘take action without Congress’ amounts to an outrageous unconstitutional overreach of powers, and is impeachable action on its face. And Obama isn’t even done; he has vowed to push Congress on a new assault weapons ban along with other legislative restrictions on the guaranteed 2nd Amendment, which “shall not be infringed.”

But worse, the 23 executive orders issued today by Obama make clear that the vast medical bureaucracy centralized under ObamaCare will be used to profile and harass Americans in order to disqualify them for gun ownership based on “mental health” history.

At least 7 of the 23 executive orders relate to mental health reporting that includes “clarifying” the role of doctors and health care providers in “asking their patients about guns in the home,” reporting “threats of violence” to authorities, and screening for “mental health” will create the backbone for a “no buy” list that disbars Constitutional rights from flagged individuals without due process. At least 8 executive orders relate to new rules on background checks and weapons sales & ownership restrictions.

The numbers on the list relate to the summaries of the executive orders reported earlier today by the Washington Times. The titles used are shorthand language by this author, with a fuller reference in the cited article.

MENTAL HEALTH / MEDICAL SPIES (7)
These executive orders effectively “deputize doctors” to spy on patients, while priming and populating a database to take firearms rights under the pretense of “mental health” issues. This type of legislation has already been pursued by the likes of Sen. Chuck Schumer and others.

Order #2 Address legal restrictions related to states sharing data under Health Insurance Portability Act Contributes towards centralized health care database that will be used to authorize gun puchases.

Order #14 Directs the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to “research causes and prevention of gun violence.” Undoubtedly, the report will flag PTSD and other related “mental health” symptoms that will negate gun ownership. Undoubtedly, it will not properly address the role of SSRI and other psychotropic prescription medications that an overwhelming number of mass shooters have reportedly been on.

Order #16 Under Obamacare, doctors can ask patients about “guns in their homes,” and are clearly encouraged to flag gun owners that may show so-called signs of “mental illness.” Under the newly revised DSM-5 manual that psychiatrists use for diagnosis, a wide-array of behavior is categorized as mental illness. While it may be desirable that unhealthy people find treatment, it is clear that such sweeping labels will serve to prevent otherwise law-abiding citizens from purchasing guns.

Order #17 Orders a letter to health care providers reminding them to “report threats of violence” to law enforcement. Clearly, this would also be a database flag used to disqualify potential buyers. The order leaves room for this policy to be abused.

Order #20 Clarify mental health coverage under Medicaid Emphasizes mental health as an issue of focus.

Order #21 Clarify “health benefits and parity requirements” under Obamacare Once again, ObamaCare is tied to collectivist society and effort to control guns.

Order #22 “Mental-health parity regulations” Mental health is clearly emerging as a watch word for reigning in firearms ownership rights. While truly unstable individuals should be helped, the opportunity for abuse is clearly widespread and troublesome. A nation of sheep have been encouraged to ask their doctors for pills if they feel unhappy or depressed. Will a history of SSRI medication be used to take away an individuals right to bear arms, for instance?

Gun Owners of America sounded the alarm back in June 2012 that ObamaCare would be used to flag would-be buyers and disqualify individuals from purchasing weapons:

“Centralizing these medical records will allow the FBI to troll a list of Americans for ailments such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to deny them their gun rights, in the same way that the Veterans Administration has already denied more than 150,000 veterans their right to bear arms.”

A summary review of these executive orders makes clear that this kind of profiling and issuing of “no buy” lists is indeed a major concern that undermines 2nd Amendment rights. Good intentions to promote “mental health” are distorted and used to “out” supposedly unqualified individuals who will have no due process, no trial and no chance to even make a case concerning their rights.

While ObamaCare and other health care practices will increasingly flag patients and enter them into a database, the Obama cabinet will be engaged in selling the American public taking away the rights of individuals on the basis of “mental health.”

BRAINWASHING AMERICANS ON MENTAL HEALTH & GUN OWNERSHIP (2)
Order #7 Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign During the Clinton Administration, now Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to “brainwash” people on guns, attempting to change the perception of gun ownership the way that attitudes towards cigarette smoking was changed. Clearly, the president’s new campaign would continue this effort, demonizing and undermining the clear constitutional and self-defense rationale for bearing arms.

Order #23 ‘National dialogue’ on “mental health” w/ HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius & Ed. Sec. Arne Duncan Meanwhile, the heads of two of the most dangerous and distorted agencies will tour the nation to lecture on reforming the nations’ “mental health” practices. Again, this has all been issued in the context of gun control. The Obama Administration is wantonly infringing upon the 2nd Amendment again by trying to distort the lines of jurisdiction and give the Dept. of Health and Human Services (administering ObamaCare) and the Dept. of Education authority on labeling or dealing with people deemed unfit for ownership.

“NO BUY” LIST / “SEIZED GUNS” / PRIVATE SALES: ATF, FBI, LAW ENFORCEMENT (8)
The data amassed through the health care system will be matched with the criminal background checks that are already in place. Felons are already barred from purchasing firearms. Now, law enforcement is instructed to run additional background checks before “returning seized guns” while federally licensed firearms dealers are saddled with additional ATF regulations, and will, apparently be facilitating background checks for “private sales,” which are targeted for further restrictions under this initial executive action.

Again, the stage is clearly set for background check authorization denial on the basis of “mental health” flags, on top of already instituted criminal history flags.

Order #1 Strengthens data sharing under federal background check system Further centralized integration of data.

Order #3 Provides incentives for states to provide background check In addition to infringement on the 2nd Amendment, much of this executive action furthers the trend of federal overreach, guarded in theory by the 10th Amendment. This order calls for “incentives” (i.e. federal dollars) for cooperation by states which have a constitutional right to non-compliance with federal policies.

Order #4 Attorney General to “review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun” Again, we see the formation a “no buy” list similar to terrorism watch lists and “no fly” lists maintained by Homeland Security where due process is non-existent and individuals are flagged and disbarred based on suspicion or ‘signs’ of mental illness or related behavior. The potential for abuse and lack of legal recourse is clear.

Order #5 Law enforcement shall “run full background check” before “returning seized guns” The question here is what is a “seized gun” and under what circumstances is it seized? Will unregistered firearms, otherwise legally owned by a law abiding individual, by seized? This policy potentially violates legal gun owners stopped in traffic, at checkpoints, at registration (as proposed under Feinstein’s bill) or even at home visits. While background checks can be done almost instantaneously, a “full” background check could disarm legal owners for days or weeks until individuals are cleared and, essentially permitted, to resume ownership.

Order #6 ATF to send letter to gun dealers on “how to run background checks for private sales” This is a big area. We have already witnessed the ATF attempting to halt legal private gun sales in the state of Texas. Now, as a half-measure to banning private sales outright, prospective buyers will be forced to go register and pass background checks at dealer locations, effectively outlawing purely private sales. Meanwhile, licensed firearms dealers, already burdened with paperwork and red tape, will apparently be forced to facilitate private sale transactions, after receiving ATF policy mandates on ‘how to run background checks.’

Order #9 Require federal law enforcement “trace guns recovered in criminal investigations” This executive order reeks of the hypocrisy exercised by the Obama Administration during Operation Fast & Furious, which has now thoroughly unfolded into a scandal that has found Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for lying about what he knew and when, while casting doubt on the honest intentions of the ATF and Department of Justice. The Obama Administration admittedly “walked” thousands of semi-automatic weapons (now conveniently targeted by gun banners) into the hands of Mexican drug cartels so that they could subsequently be “traced” and blamed for crimes.

Order #10 Dept. of Justice to analyze “lost and stolen guns” data, make available Further centralizing data to trace guns, this order has the potential for abuse by criminalizing otherwise law-abiding owners who’ve not cooperated in registration efforts and may possess “lost or stolen guns” through legal means.

Order #11 New BATFE director appointed This relates to a purging of officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who were either indicated in the Fast and Furious scandal, or who may hold further information on other officials involved, particularly those higher up in the chain. Whistleblowers at the ATF helped uncover some of the details about Fast and Furious that were ultimately linked to Obama cabinet officials.

SAFETY DRILLS to push crisis culture, paranoia training and federal money/jurisdiction (6)
Finally, in fitting with the federalization of background checks, data sharing, and a mandate over gun safety and “mental health”, the executive branch is sticking its hands into safety protocol at schools, churches, public centers and more.

It further hypes of the paranoia of terrorism and lone wolf domestic extremists identified by Homeland Security and other departments to institute mandatory training drills, crisis scenarios and the like that have the potential for abuse by wasting tax payer dollars on statistically unlikely scenarios while federalizing the chain of command and jurisdiction for police and other first responders.

Order #8 Review safety standards gun locks / gun safes

Order #12 First responders, schools active shooter training Homeland Security and FEMA have already been doing training and drills based on mall shooters, returning veterans gone wild, homeland terrorist and other related scenarios. The Infowars crew covered one such drill that took place in Denver, not far from the Aurora Batman massacre, that was dubbed “Operation Mountain Guardian” and run by a federal chain of command headed by Homeland Security. Now, organizations like CrisisActors.org are institutionalizing this training by hiring FEMA-certified actors who play various roles in these terror and shooter scenarios. Obama’s executive order expands and further mandates this practice for incidents which are statistically very rare, but widely hyped in the media as imminent. While certain aspects of this kind of training may be prudent, in many respects it conditions the public and first responder force to accept greater government control as an automatic response to any mass casualty incident, when the jurisdiction would normally fall on local or state authorities.
Order #13 Efforts to “prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime” Obama voted for laws to ‘throw the book’ at illegal gun owners who defended their homes from invaders in the state of Illinois, the home of the murder capitol of the world, Chicago. Private gun sales and unregistered firearms will clearly be prosecuted, while Castle laws and ‘Stand Your Ground’ legislation will be undermined or challenged (recall the Trayvon Martin case).

Order #15 Attorney General report on ‘gun-safety technologies’ Again, the same Attorney General who wanted to brainwash Americans on guns and who was complicit in the Fast & Furious scandal wants to implement new technologies and promote gun safety. Where is Holder’s credibility to do so?

Order #18 Incentives to schools to “hire school-resource officers” Federalized money will be thrown around for politically-correct “school-resource officers” who will likely provide counseling and monitor student behavior.

Order #19 Model emergency response plans for schools / worship / college campuses The Sikh temple shooting, the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre and the Batman movie premiere massacre have all brought the fear of violence to our private lives, and invited in the federal government to mediate those spheres.

Once again, it is generally abusive for a president to rule by executive fiat, and demands questions about the authority to do so. It is all the more unconstitutional for a president to take on a constitutionally-guaranteed right and attempt to reign it in through countless regulations, all without formally consulting Congress.
While further gun control legislation has been recommended by the Obama Administration, and will be pushed via the kind of bills being introduced by Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Schumer, the people should demand that the overreach of executive power be checked by calls for impeachment, as Infowars.com recommended yesterday and in past occasions.

read article

Prohibition doesn’t work for alcohol or marijuana, but it will somehow work for guns

 

If only I could lobotomize myself with a large vehicle battery, a bottle of Jack Daniels and a pair of heavy duty jumper cables, I might be able to cognitively function at the same convoluted level as the radical left. Over the last decade or so, the radical left has reminded us again and again that prohibition doesn’t work for marijuana — nor for alcohol — and they celebrated the decriminalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington.

But these same people now insist that firearms prohibition will somehow, magically, see the end of violent crime in America. Gun prohibition will be highly effective, they say to each other. So let’s ban the guns!
But hold on a second. Before taking such sweeping actions, would it make sense to first ask the commonsense question: Can gun prohibition even work? What are the likely consequences of any attempt to prohibit private firearms ownership?

The prohibition quiz

Give the following quiz to just about anyone on the left, and they’ll probably know the correct answer:
Question: The banning of medical marijuana and recreational marijuana has caused which of the following effects?




A) The growth of a huge underground economy of illegal sales that pumps billions of dollars into the hands of drug gangs.


B) The filling of America’s prisons with non-violent criminals who don’t really deserve to be in prison.

C) The creation of a massive, tyrannical War on Drugs, complete with armed DEA raids on citizens’ homes and the growth of an armed domestic agency that terrorizes many Americans.

D) All of the above.

The answer, of course, is D… all of the above.

 

Everybody who has even half a brain still functioning knows that prohibition drives trade underground, where it ultimately results in MORE crime, not less crime.

So how does the radical left now think that gun prohibition will work? How will gun prohibition not drive the entire gun economy underground? How will gun prohibition not result in the imprisonment of yet more innocent people who only sought to purchase tools of self defense by whatever means were available to them? How will gun prohibition not result in the massive expansion of the government’s “War on Guns” crusade that wastes billions in taxpayer dollars and accomplishes nothing?

If the War on Drugs is a failure, the War on Guns will be a bloody catastrophe.
I’m one of the few Americans who has actually resided in a country where guns were illegal, and I can tell you the gun trade is always booming in the underground economy. Guns and bullets were all readily available where I lived, but instead of the sales revenues from those items going into the hands of regulated businesses that paid taxes, all that money went into the hands of criminal gangs that operated off the books. Apparently, the radical left wants the same thing to happen in America, and they’re begging Obama to put it in place, obvious to the consequences of what they’re asking for.

Economics tells us what will really happen under gun prohibition
Economics is ultimately the study of human decision making and human behavior. When humans want something deeply enough — whether that be alcohol, cigarettes, guns or even crack cocaine – they will find a way to get it, regardless of its legality. As America learned the hard way through the era of prohibition in the 1920′s and 30′s, society achieves nothing by branding an entire class of consumers “criminals” for merely seeking out supply that satisfies their demand.

The entire problem of the Mexican drug gangs was created by the United States and its idiotic “drug war” policies. The criminalization of marijuana drove it underground, thereby causing all drug profits to be concentrated in the hands of violent drug gangs. This provided them with a huge bounty of funding that would literally vanish overnight if the U.S. government legalized and regulated marijuana.

This idea is well understood by liberals in America today. That economic reality makes sense to them on the issue of marijuana. Yet somehow when you replace the word “marijuana” with the word “guns,” those very same people lose their minds and revert to the irrational conclusion that prohibition will work with guns, even though prohibition has never worked for anything in the past.

If you sit a liberal at a desk and write the following sentence for them: If (BLANK) is prohibited, then (BLANK) will be driven into the underground economy while the government creates “a war on (BLANK),” and you ask that liberal person to fill in the blank, they will write in “marijuana.” But a libertarian will know to write in a whole list of things: Marijuana, guns, alcohol, sex, coffee, sugar… you name it. “BLANK” stands for just about everything people want, and the effects of prohibition are universal.

If the U.S. government criminalizes gun ownership, you’re going to end up with gun gangs who control the illicit gun trade. There will be bullet smugglers, gun smugglers and gun parts merchants who operate in the dark, completely off the books. So all this activity, instead of taking place out in the open today where it can be tracked (credit cards) and taxed (state sales taxes), the entire operation will go underground and start pumping billions of dollars into the hands of criminal gangs who will quickly seize control of the market. That’s why criminals LOVE Obama’s gun control — it practically hands them a whole new market to exploit for power and profit.

Gun prohibition is the perfect way to create violent gun gangs who terrorize America
Then again, maybe that’s what Obama wants. It’s surely what the ATF wants, for it would balloon the size of the ATF budget and grow its ranks of “enforcers” whose job it is to raid gun gang locations and shut down gun gang operations. There are a lot of itchy trigger fingers at the DEA, and they’re just begging for some way to prove their worth (and not get downsized). A “War on Guns” would be a dream come true for those boys.

But how has that worked out so far for the DEA and the drug trade? It hasn’t worked at all. The entire program is a disgrace. Despite countless billions of dollars spent on the war on drugs, those very same drugs remain available to every high school kid nearly every day. By trying to outlaw drugs, the U.S. government has only made them far more profitable to trade in the black market. And this, in turn, spontaneously resulted in the rise of a drug distribution network that profited from trading in those drugs.
This is cause and effect, folks.

If prohibition didn’t work for alcohol, and it didn’t work for marijuana, how on earth will it work for guns?
It won’t. It will only create more violence, more gangs, more of a police state and more profits for the prison industry.

The answer is legalization, regulation and (some) taxation
The real answer to gun control is the same answer for marijuana control. You want to take the profit out of pot dealers? Legalize the stuff! Regulate it, tax it, monitor it and do your best to keep it out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have it, but don’t ban it or you’ll drive it underground.

The answer is identical with gun control: Legalize it, regulate it and tax it. Do your best to keep it out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have it, but don’t ban it or you’ll drive it underground.

The number one thing the U.S. government could do to reduce firearms ownership across America today — and I’m not in favor of this, but I’m just saying this is what would do it — would be to throw down some heavy new taxes on firearms.

Imagine, if you will, that the government passes a new $250 tax for a handgun purchase, and a $500 tax for a rifle purchase.

Immediately, the cost to purchase most handguns goes up by 50%, from roughly $500 to $750. At the same time, the cost to purchase a rifle goes up 50% as well, from roughly $1000 to $1500.

What is the actual impact of such a policy? It makes all the guns and rifles more difficult for low-income people to afford. But to a typical upper-class income earner, an extra $250 or even $500 for a weapon is not such a big deal, so they can still afford it. But all the low-income people who, let’s face it, tend to be associated with more crime are far less able to afford the firearms.

They can’t even afford them on the black market, either, because the value all of the existing guns goes up by exactly the same amount as the added tax.

I’ve interviewed police who have told me the real problem with guns is all the cheap, low-cost handguns that are readily available in the inner cities, not high-end rifles owned by sharpshooters. Until recently, you could pick up a cheap “Saturday night special” for under $100 in most areas. But a new federal tax on those guns would raise their value to $350 overnight, thereby putting their purchase out of reach of most low-income wage earners.

Again, I’m not saying I agree with this taxation policy, because I don’t. But I’m pointing out that if the government actually wanted to achieve the policy goal of reducing the number of people who owned guns in America, the most rational and effective way to do that — without creating a terrifying new police state and criminalizing half the population — would be to slap heavy new taxes on the guns and keep them in the realm of the legal economy rather than outlawing them and driving the entire industry underground.

But, alas, such an intelligent analysis of economics and human behavior is far too complex for the delusional minds of the radical left. Because, c’mon, these people believe that simply placing a “Gun Free Zone” sign on a school magically makes guns disappear from the vicinity. These people do not understand cause and effect, and they don’t live in reality.

More than anything these days, those of us who teach critical thinking and enlightenment are not fighting against specific policies or agendas; we are fighting against delusional thinking on the part of politicians, voters, “scientists” or members of the media.

The real problem in America today is delusional thinking
The reason delusional thinking is so prevalent is because the media pushes delusional thinking at every opportunity. Rather than inviting their viewers and readers to think for themselves, fake media institutions like CNN want their viewers to REACT to the news. It’s all about invoking an emotional reaction rather than inviting critical analysis.

That’s why CNN is all about telling you what to think rather than asking questions about what happened. The same is true across all the fake media outlets today.

Delusional thinking is what leads to the downfall of civilizations. And today in 2013, the United States of America is drowning in delusional thinking on every front: economics, finances, health care, taxation, security, agriculture, energy and everything else that matters. Delusional thinking isn’t the sole monopoly of the radical left, either: the blinded right was just as guilty of delusional thinking during the George W. Bush “terror” days, when everything he wanted to put in place was justified by invoking the word “terror!”

Obama does the same thing, but his magical word for 2013 is “Children!” It’s all the same manipulation, just under a different pretense. Our job as citizens of America is to look beyond the delusions and learn how to consider cause and effect so that we know how present-day decisions might impact our futures.

And if our common goal is to reduce violent crime, then gun prohibition — which would create a whole new industry of armed gun gangs — is obviously not going to accomplish our shared goal of reducing violence. You can’t reduce violence by redirecting billions of dollars worth of economic activity directly into the hands of criminal gangs. That would only make the Sandy Hook shooting look like a tiny footnote in history compared to all the violence unleashed in the “War on Guns.”

If you think about this honestly and with clarity, you’ll realize that gun prohibition is insanity and it won’t work. What works to reduce gun ownership, if that’s even the goal, is to make guns more difficult for people to afford — but not so difficult that it’s cheaper for them to go underground and buy them there.

Any honest economist would wholeheartedly agree with the assessment I just described. In fact, I specifically call for Paul Craig Roberts to analyze what I’ve written here and see if I’ve jumped to any wrong conclusions whatsoever. Roberts understands economics far better than most, and his is a voice of reason on nearly every subject he covers. You can read his website atwww.PaulCraigRoberts.org


read article

Obama’s Blueprint to Destroy the 2nd Amendment Analyzed

Barack Obama’s bold use of executive orders to ‘take action without Congress’ amounts to an outrageous unconstitutional overreach of powers, and is impeachable action on its face. And Obama isn’t even done; he has vowed to push Congress on a new assault weapons ban along with other legislative restrictions on the guaranteed 2nd Amendment, which “shall not be infringed.”

But worse, the 23 executive orders issued today by Obama make clear that the vast medical bureaucracy centralized under ObamaCare will be used to profile and harass Americans in order to disqualify them for gun ownership based on “mental health” history.

see video

At least 7 of the 23 executive orders relate to mental health reporting that includes “clarifying” the role of doctors and health care providers in “asking their patients about guns in the home,” reporting “threats of violence” to authorities, and screening for “mental health” will create the backbone for a “no buy” list that disbars Constitutional rights from flagged individuals without due process. At least 8 executive orders relate to new rules on background checks and weapons sales & ownership restrictions.

The TruthAboutAssaultWeapons

This is an AR-15 rifle. It is the most popular rifle sold in the United States today. Millions have been purchased by American citizens since 1963.

The AR-15 is the most common example of what are sometimes called assault weapons.

But what does this term actually mean?First, it is important to understand what an assault weapon isn't.

The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review:

Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles"...

If an assault weapon isn't an assault rifle, what is an assault rifle?

This is a M-16 rifle. It is the standard service rifle of the U.S. military. It is also an assault rifle.

The M-16 is fully automatic. This means it fires multiple rounds each time the trigger is pulled. The M-16 can fire about 800 rounds per minute.

The M-16 and other fully automatic firearms are also called machine guns. In 1986, the Federal government banned civilians from purchasing newly manufactured machine guns.

Like the majority of firearms sold in the United States, the AR-15 is semi-automatic. This means it fires one round each time the trigger is pulled.

The AR-15 can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. This rate of fire is comparable to other semi-automatic firearms, but pales in comparison to fully automatic weapons, some of which can fire in excess of 1,000 rounds per minute.

So-called assault weapons are not machine guns or assault rifles. According to David Kopel, writing in The Wall Street Journal:

What some people call "assault weapons" function like every other normal firearm—they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. They are "semi-automatic" because they eject the empty shell case and load the next round into the firing chamber. Today in America, most handguns are semi-automatics, as are many long guns, including the best-selling rifle today, the AR-15... Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns.

The truth about assault weapons is that they function just like this ranch rifle...

...and this shotgun...

...and this pistol...

...and this double-action revolver.

All of these guns fire one round each time the trigger is pulled.

But if that's true, what makes this semi-automatic rifle a ranch gun...

...and this semi-automatic rifle an assault weapon?

The answer is deception. In the year the term "assault weapon" was invented, Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby, explained its purpose:

[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons...are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

Beginning in 1988, 25 years after the AR-15 was first sold to the American public, the anti-gun lobby began a systematic campaign of categorizing it and other "military-style" firearms as assault weapons.

The media followed suit, and soon the American public could not help but think that an assault weapon was, like the assault rifles it resembled, a machine gun.

This strategy came to fruition in 1993, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was introduced in Congress. The AWB would ban the manufacture and sale of new assault weapons to American citizens.

But in order to ban assault weapons, politicians first had to define them.

Because assault rifles were already banned, and because a blanket ban on semi-automatic weapons wasn't considered politically feasible, the AWB would define assault weapons as semi-automatic firearms that shared too many cosmetic features with their fully automatic counterparts.

These banned features included certain combinations of collapsible stocks...

...flash hiders...

...and pistol grips...

...despite the fact that none of these "military-style" features enhanced the weapon's lethality.

According to the Department of Justice, the firearms that the AWB would ban were used in only 2% of all gun crimes.

Nevertheless, the AWB's passage was aided by the fact that many Americans thought they were banning machine guns and "weapons of war", something that had, in fact, already been banned.

The AWB also arbitrarily banned magazines having a capacity higher than ten rounds. This limitation on magazine capacity applied to all firearms, not just so-called assault weapons.

In order to secure enough votes to pass the bill, a "sunset" provision was added. After ten years, the ban would expire.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial was unusually candid about its real purpose:

No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.

As soon as the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling in order to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant with the new gun regulations. One of those new, ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995 carbine, which was sold with ten-round magazines.

In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995.

Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines were found in the aftermath. Harris fired at least 98 rounds before killing himself.

In 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired.

It was not renewed.

The AWB had failed to have an impact on gun crime in the United States. A 2004 Department of Justice study concluded:

Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

Regarding so-called large capacity magazines, the study said:

[I]t is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

Furthermore, legislators had seriously misjudged the popularity of so-called assault weapons.

The political cost was enormous.

In his memoir, Bill Clinton wrote that Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections because of the AWB. Other Democrats have stated that the AWB may have cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.

At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho once again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre.

Cho used seventeen of the magazines and fired approximately 170 rounds—or ten rounds per magazine—from two handguns before killing himself.

Like Eric Harris before him, Cho demonstrated that a magazine's capacity was incidental to the amount of death and destruction an unopposed murderer could cause in a "gun-free zone".

Although the Virginia Tech massacre was and remains the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, calls for new gun control were relatively scarce in its aftermath, possibly because so-called assault weapons were not used, undermining the favored narrative of gun prohibitionists.

But after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the anti-gun lobby and their allies in the media once again vilified the AR-15 and other so-called assault weapons as "weapons of war" and "machine guns" whose only purpose was to murder and maim.

In reality, so-called assault weapons are a popular choice among hunters and competitors alike.

At the 2012 National Trophy Rifle Matches, all of the 1,300+ competitors used a semi-automatic rifle that the anti-gun lobby calls an assault weapon.

Based on an estimate by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, at least 3.3 million AR-15 rifles were sold in the United States between 1986 and 2009.

While gun prohibitionists portray the AR-15 as a paramilitary weapon owned only by a lunatic fringe, this so-called assault weapon is a modern musket—the default rifle with which law-abiding Americans exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

The AR-15 is particularly favored for its modularity, accuracy, light weight, and low recoil—attributes that make it ideal not only for shooting sports but also armed self-defense.

As such, it is the epitome of what America's founders sought to protect when they wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

But despite (and perhaps because of) its status as America's most popular rifle, some legislators are calling for another ban on the AR-15 and other so-called assault weapons.

On December 17, 2012, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original failed AWB, announced her intention to introduce an updated Federal Assault Weapons Ban in Congress.

However, Senator Feinstein's own facts do not support her agenda.

The truth about assault weapons is that they are statistically underrepresented in gun crimes.

According to Senator Feinstein, so-called assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year.

But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.

This represents a decrease in murders from so-called assault weapons compared to the decade when the AWB was in effect, even though such weapons are more common today.

Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were commited with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.

To the extent that so-called assault weapons like the AR-15 are used in gun crimes, the rifle's popularity must be considered.

In addition to the AR-15, James Holmes used America's best-selling shotgun at the Aurora movie theater shooting.

At the Virginia Tech and Tuscon shootings, Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Loughner used America's best-selling handgun.

All else being equal, a gun that is commonly owned is more likely to be used for legal or illegal purposes than a gun that is rarely owned.

Outlawing guns that are popular today will only make different guns popular tomorrow.

Nevertheless, gun prohibitionists continue to target AR-15 rifles and their owners—not because these firearms have any inordinate capability, but because the anti-gun lobby has invested more than two decades convincing the American people that "weapons of war" must be banned, regardless of whether such a ban would have a measurable impact on public safety, and despite the fact that real weapons of war have already been banned for nearly three decades.

The truth about assault weapons is that there is no such thing.

There are semi-automatic weapons, which are the firearms of choice for millions of law-abiding Americans.

To ban all semi-automatic firearms is to deprive Americans of the most commonly used arms in violation of the Second Amendment.

To ban specific semi-automatic firearms because of their cosmetic features is ignorant.

Like prohibition, the United States has gone down this road before.

It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

A ban on so-called assault weapons is the first step toward a ban on all semi-automatic firearms.

Contact your legislators, and tell them the truth about assault weapons