Supremes Strike Down Gun Ban

The headline Monday morning at washingtonpost.com read, Gun rights extended by Supreme Court. With all due respect to the liberal headline writer at The Post, I take issue with that headline.

The Supreme Court can’t extend a right endowed by the Creator and guaranteed by 2nd Amendment. A better headline would have been, Supreme Court throws out Chicago’s usurpation of power.

Chicago and other cities and states that have sought to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms were subverting the Constitution. Thankfully, five justices sought to preserve the Constitution and throw out Chicago’s ridiculous and worthless ban.

What’s troubling is that four justices saw no problem in taking away a person’s right to own a firearm. And these are the types of justices—and lower court judges—President Barack Obama will appoint at every opportunity.

While Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin on issues of growing government and grabbing more power at the expense of Americans, when it comes to gun rights issues, Republicans are superior. Keep that in mind when you go to the polls in November.

If Obama is able to replace one of the five more “conservative” members of the Supreme Court you can kiss goodbye your ability to “legally” possess a firearm. Once that happens, the One World Government people have won.

The Leftist’s Ideal

The American Left would like America to be more like China. Senator Joe Leiberman (I-Conn.) said as much when touting the need for his Internet Kill Switch bill, which would give the President the authority to shut down the Internet in a time of national emergency.

Well, here is what goes on in China, as reported last week in London’s Daily Telegraph:

Parents who believed their children died in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake because school buildings were shoddily-built petitioned the Chinese government to release its findings in a post-earthquake investigation. About 60 parents that were attempting to deliver the petition were instantly arrested by police.

“The police came right away and took us away,” said one parent, who managed to flee.

In a related story, a Chinese activist who conducted his own investigation into the earthquake—and who had previously written about the violent 1989 crackdown in Tiananmen Square—was sentenced to five years in prison in February for subversion.

The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman once wrote: “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages… Our one-party democracy is worse.”

That’s where the Leftists would have us go.

Does The HIRE Act Only Pertain To Money Repatriated To The US?

Dear Bob,
I have a question about HIRE (Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment). My understanding is that for now you can transfer money to a foreign bank account, insurance company, etc. I am not sure that I understand where the controls come in. Is it when we take the money out and repatriate it to the US that the 30% is deducted and the bank reports all the data to the USG? And what if the transfer is not to the US, but another foreign bank where one has a residency? Is that reported to the USG also or does the HIRE act only pertain to money repatriated to the US?

Or is it when we make the deposit to the foreign entity that the reporting takes place. I have on your advice recently purchased an annuity through BLS. Has the insurance company already reported this to the USG? Or will they have to do so in 2013?

I would appreciate any clarification you might be able to give me.

Thank you.
Max Lund

Dear Max,
The full ramifications of HIRE are still being sorted out but here is what I understand:
The purpose is to identify what Federal government considers recalcitrant account holders (that is those who may try to avoid U.S. tax laws). In fact, the words recalcitrant account holders are found numerous times in the bill. It applies to accounts exceeding $50,000. The controls come when you try to bring your money back into the country. At that time the foreign institution is supposed to deduct the 30 percent and remit it to the U.S. Treasury. It appears as if it applies even if you transfer the money from one foreign bank to another. The reporting of information includes your tax identification number, name, address and account balance or value. The reporting is done on existing and new accounts.

According to Zero Hedge (zerohedge.com): "One thing we are confused about is whether this law is a preamble, or already incorporates, the flow of non-cash assets, such as commodities, and, thus, gold. If an account transfers, via physical or paper delivery, gold from a domestic account to a foreign one, we are not sure if the language deems this a 30 percent taxable transaction, although preliminary discussions with lawyers indicates this is likely the case."

Best wishes,
Bob

The Bilderberg Planning Session Ends: What’s In Store?

Forget global warming. It’s off the table. The new push from global climate “science” is going to be global COOLING.

How do I know? It was one of the main topics at the Bilderberg 2010 conference June 4-6 in Spain. That’s where the movers and shakers in government, politics, finance, industry, labor, education and communications—as the group’s own website says—meet in secret for “informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern especially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy.”

These are the New World Order folks. This was their 58th annual meeting

In the coming months expect to hear a lot of talk in the main stream media and out of the fascists in government on the issues of social networking and cyber technology (this has already started—see Kill Switch Would Kill The Internet). A world food crisis of some kind will manifest itself. Medical science will be a hot topic—perhaps another “medical emergency” created by Big Pharma and hyped by the World Health Organization (WHO), much as the false pig flu epidemic of 2009 was. And the solution will enrich select drug companies and WHO researchers.

Financial reform was a hot topic (already there’s been talk in Congress of propping up the International Monetary Fund, and a move toward a new global currency is in the works); perhaps efforts to prolong the economic crisis to open the way for a global economic governance. Energy (the BP spill dominated discussions), Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran (were plans for the coming strike hammered out?) and relations between Europe and the United States were other topics.

Of course you didn’t see any news about the Bilderberg meeting if you watched the Big Three news networks or cable. And even though Donald Graham, the chairman and CEO of The Washington Post Co., was an attendee, none of the major U.S. newspapers covered it, either. (Though The Post has already published an editorial pushing a Bilderberg policy by calling for making the International Monetary Fund a global overseer.)

Two rapporteurs, as they call them across the pond, from The Economist were on the guest list. I wonder when their report on the meeting will appear in print.

About the only reporting from the conference came from the British newspaper The Guardian and a couple of people representing alternative media, like long-time Bilderberg chaser Jim Tucker of the American Free Press—the type of coverage that the Internet kill switch bill would eliminate.

Who are these movers and shakers that—as even they are now admitting—meet to shape world policy and push for one world government?

From the U.S. representing government you have former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former World Bank head James Wolfensohn, former Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman, Assistant Secretary of State Phillip Gordon, Barack Obama’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, Undersecretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs Robert Hormats, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, former Treasury Secretary and current Co-Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Robert Rubin and former Fed Chairman Paul Volker, now the chairman of Obama’s economic recovery board.

From the university side are Harvard professors Martin Feldstein and Niall Ferguson and the President and Director of Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Eric Lander.

From the U.S. corporate side are Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates (whose foundation recently spent $10 billion to give deadly vaccines to children around the world), Google CEO Eric Schmidt, financier and Trilateral Commission member Timothy Collins, Goldman Sachs board member and Trilateral Commission member James A. Johnson, Alcoa head and former Bayer AG and Citigroup board member Klaus Kleinfield, Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts and Co. (KKR) head Henry Kravis and Paypal founder Peter Thiel.

Do you recognize the names of any of those corporations? They’ve been in the news a lot lately regarding the collapse of U.S. financial system. There are still others representing corporations and think tanks that shape policy and influence the elected elitists who aren’t important enough to be invited to the meetings.

From Europe there are corporatists and bankers and heads of state—some with names you’d recognize like Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands (a major shareholder in Royal Dutch Shell), former European Commission Vice President Viscount Etienne Davignon, former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, Queen Sofia of Spain, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Grecian Minister of Finance George Papaconstantinou and members of parliament from several European nations.

Important people, all. Is it likely they have four or five days—with travel and all—to sit around and shoot the breeze and jawbone about the world’s problems like a bunch old geezers at the local coffee shop?

Not hardly. Which is why the claims from official Bilderberg documents that they pass no resolutions, take no votes and issue no policy statements stretch credulity. Especially after 58 years.

They may not do any of those things for public consumption. But you can bet that behind closed doors—which are locked to all but the chosen few and guarded by a security team that would make the Secret Service look like a bunch of amateurs—a lot of decisions were made on upcoming world events.

The New World Order folks were dealt a setback when the emails exposing the hoax of global warming were leaked. They thought that was their ticket to one world governance. And a few of them have publicly lamented that so many are awakening to their existence.

But they’re not done. Cap and Trade is one of their brainchildren, and the BP spill has been like a defibrillator for that atrocity’s heart. Obama is promoting open borders—while holding Arizona hostage—and the Russians and Chinese are pushing a global currency. And they know Obama is on board with the Small Arms Treaty (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said so) that would effectively eliminate personal ownership of firearms—one of their and the United Nation’s main goals. Obama’s just got to find a way around that pesky Constitution (can you say Elena Kagan?)

Hold on to your hats. After all the rah-rahs, glad handing and back slapping in Spain, the globalists are once again amped up and the push for global governance is on.

Another Assault On Free Speech

Free speech opponents in Congress found a way to squeeze a bill through the House of Representatives that will stifle 1st Amendment rights for the four months prior to an election.

The deceptively-named DISCLOSE Act of 2010 should more accurately be called the Incumbency Protection Act, because protecting their jobs is precisely what the liberals in the House are trying to do.

The bill reverses the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United vs. FEC that upheld the right of corporations to spend on political advertising in candidate elections. The 5-4 decision prompted President Barack Obama to classlessly chide the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address; an event unprecedented in its hubris.

What the DISCLOSE Act, passed late yesterday, will do is force any corporation that runs political advertising to name its top five contributors in the ad and make a complete list available upon request. It will also drown the corporation in red tape in order to comply with the vagaries of the bill.

At first glance one might think banning corporations from political advertising would be a good thing. But think again.

Corporations in this sense mean not large companies—say General Electric or Goldman Sachs—but special interest groups that advocate for their members like the National Rifle Association (NRA), AARP and Chamber of Commerce. And what’s worse, if you and a group of your friends wanted to ban together, pool your money and run adds opposing your local Congressman or State Senator, you would not be able to do that.

Not surprisingly, the bill does not affect the way unions spend. In fact The Hill recently reported that two unions will spend close to $100 million to re-elect the present majority in Congress.

So what Congress wants to do is let unions spend willy-nilly the money from dues that its members are FORCED to pay, and spend it on causes or candidates that members themselves may or may not agree with. But organizations in which people voluntarily make contributions because they support its cause or agenda are unable to advertise on their members’ behalf.

And liberals in Congress think that’s fair.

The 1st Amendment was written not to protect the speech that everyone wants to hear. It’s there to protect the speech that people don’t want to hear. For the fascists in Congress, at election time that’s just intolerable.

The Line Between General And State Government

The recent dustups between Gulf States and the Federal government over BP Deepwater Horizon oil gusher cleanup efforts demonstrate the folly of a gargantuan, obtrusive and obtuse Federal government trying to micromanage an operation that should be coordinated locally.

First there was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and his idea to build what would essentially have been barrier islands to intercept the oil before it reached the state’s delicate marshlands. Then there were efforts by Alabama Governor Bob Riley to string a massive system of booms to keep oil off the Alabama coastline and out of Mobile Bay.

These efforts were delayed by days and weeks while the Federal bureaucracy stumbled and bumbled over whether the ideas were good ones, or whether others might be better. Meanwhile, oil began washing up on shore.

Then there was halting of the cleanup efforts of some of the local governments by the Federal environmental police due to a perceived risk to some wildlife.

Finally, the coup de grâce, the Coast Guard’s forced docking of oil sucking barges off the Louisiana coast to check whether there were enough life preservers on board.

The Federal government proved during the hurricane Katrina aftermath, the Deepwater Horizon aftermath and in countless other ways that when it tries to get involved on a local level it only succeeds in getting in its own way—and in the way of those actually doing something.

As Riley complained of the so-called unified command in charge of the oil spill cleanup effort, each member of the command had veto power over any idea. One would raise a good fix and another would veto it because it might harm a turtle or cause a worker some discomfort (as in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s ruling that beach cleanup workers could only labor 20 minutes of each hour because of the heat).

In response to the Federal government’s inaction, Jindal decided to build the islands himself. Riley ordered municipalities along Alabama’s beaches to do what they needed to do to clean the beaches and promised them compensation. Municipalities in Florida are doing the same thing. And all are avoiding involving the Feds whenever possible.

During the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention James Wilson, speaking on the line dividing powers between general (Federal) government and particular state governments, said:

“Are disputes between the general government and the state governments to be necessarily the consequence of inaccuracy? I hope, sir, they will not be the enemies of each other, or resemble comets in conflicting orbits, mutually operating destruction; but that their motion will be better represented by that of the planetary system, where each part moves harmoniously within its proper sphere, and no injury arises by interference or opposition.”

So far those disputes resemble comets in conflicting orbits rather than harmonious planets. Let’s hope the Feds will get out of the governors’ way and just make sure the funds needed for the local efforts are there.

The Coast Guard is rightfully overseeing cleanup efforts in the Gulf. But its time could be better spent monitoring oil skimming operations than worrying over whether a barge operator who has spent a lifetime at sea is wearing his lifejacket.

And as for the oil spewing forth from 5,000 feet below the ocean’s surface 40 miles out, that’s where the Feds should be concentrating their efforts. They should be providing BP with all the assistance it needs to contain the gusher. And that means bringing in top oil drilling experts from around the world and any other materiel or resources other countries may provide.

It also should mean for the Federal government to get its boot off BP’s neck. It’ll be a lot easier to work that way. There will be plenty of opportunity for the government to get its pound (or ton) of flesh once the gusher is capped and oil is no longer lapping along the beautiful Gulf Coast.

Kill Switch Would Kill The Internet

Relax!

It’s always a comforting feeling when the fascists tell you to relax. And that’s what Senator Joe Leiberman (I-Conn.) told everyone to do Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley.

Crowley asked about the Kill Switch bill Lieberman co-sponsors with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) that would allow the President to shut down the Internet in a time of emergency.

The President will never take over the Internet, Lieberman—with a warm smile—assured the audience. The government shouldn’t take over the internet. The president would only do that in catastrophic times. Not going to do it every day. It’s only for national security. Relax.

“Right now China—the government—can disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war. We need to have the ability to do that, too,” Lieberman said.

Of course, in China the government runs over its people with tanks. It drags them off to prisons without trial for practicing Christianity or saying something government doesn’t like, where they disappear forever—probably with a bullet in the brain. I wonder if Lieberman thinks our government should have those abilities as well.

China also censors the Internet—every day—to stifle the free flow of information… because it can.

The worry for Lieberman and his fascist buddies—the elected elitists who march to the orders of the New World Order—is not what would happen to America if some outside entity launched a cyber attack on the United States.

The worry is that the Internet has opened up a treasure trove of information and an ability to share ideas with freedom-loving people all over the world. No longer is the main stream media the sole purveyor of information.

So that information can no longer be controlled. More and more people are learning the truth about government and the secret machinations that go one behind the scenes. They are learning about the corporatists that pull the strings. They are learning about the Bilderbergers and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission. They are waking up.

CFR member and Bilderberger Zbigniew Brzezinski recently lamented that people are becoming more aware of what’s going on in the world than ever before, and this awareness is harming their agenda.

So the U.S. government is gearing up for a crackdown on the information flow—or at least to have that ability when needed. Ignorant people, after all, are easier to control.

You may remember the protests in Iran a few months ago. The government there shut down the press. There was a complete information blackout throughout traditional media.

But we saw the atrocities that were taking place there—the shootings, the beatings, the imprisonments of the opposition—because of Facebook and Twitter. Despite the government’s best efforts to control the information coming out of Iran, the world knew the truth because of the Internet.

And protesters were able to organize large crowds in central locations and avoid the state police forces because they were able to communicate via the internet after other communications were shut down.

Not ready to think your government might be no better that Iran’s? Then surely you’ll consider that such a bill allowing control of the Internet would be used to monitor your Internet usage so it can be taxed… so web sites opposing the Big Government’s message can be better monitored and shut down.

The Federal Trade Commission recently proposed a plan—called a Drudge Tax—to tax websites and electronic devices in order to bail out failing newspapers—the propaganda rags of the ruling class. And since that didn’t fly with the masses the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) now says it wants to control prices and set rules for what traffic Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must carry.

Censor the Internet? That would never happen here, would it Senator Lieberman?

No, he smiles and chuckles at the foolishness of the little people. Relax. National security and all.