YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[nChrist]

YEAH!  --  Things are finally beginning to click. Lawyers are going to be REAL busy on this for a long time. Just think - there's HARD PUBLIC RECORDS of TONS of EVIDENCE!

Let's make the TRIALS PUBLIC!

[Soldier4Christ]

Homeland Security on guard for 'right-wing extremists'
Returning U.S. military veterans singled out as particular threats

A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

However, the report goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

"[T]he consequences of a prolonged economic downturn – including real estate foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit – could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past," the report says.

It adds that "growth in these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy and the continued U.S. standing as the pre-eminent world power."

"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government," the report continues. "The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."

Most notable is the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it says. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

The report cites the April 4 shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh as an example of what may be coming, claiming the alleged gunman holds a racist ideology and believes in anti-government conspiracy theories about gun confiscations, citizen detention camps and "a Jewish-controlled 'one-world government.'"

It also suggests the election of an African-American president and the prospect of his policy changes "are proving to be a driving force for right-wing extremist recruitment and radicalization."

The report also mentions "'end times' prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as the violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."

"DHS/I&A assesses that right-wing extremist groups' frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence," the report continues.

The report states the DHS will be working with state and local partners over the next several months to determine the levels of right-wing extremist activity in the U.S.

Last month, the chief of the Missouri highway patrol blasted a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism, assuring that such reports no longer will be issued. The report had been compiled with the assistance of DHS.

The report warned law enforcement agencies to watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

It further warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.

Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol issued a statement that the release of the report, which outraged conservatives nationwide, prompted him to "take a hard look" at the procedures through which the report was released by the MIAC.

"My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement," he wrote. "Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety."

"For that reason, I have ordered the MIAC to permanently cease distribution of the militia report," he said. "Further, I am creating a new process for oversight of reports drafted by the MIAC that will require leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the Department of Public Safety to review the content of these reports before they are shared with law enforcement. My office will also undertake a review of the origin of the report by MIAC."

[Soldier4Christ]

But there is no threat from socialism, National Civilian Security Force or other groups such as ACORN, PETA, environmentalists or even our own illegal government. Yeah ... right.....

[nChrist]

But there is no threat from socialism, National Civilian Security Force or other groups such as ACORN, PETA, environmentalists or even our own illegal government. Yeah ... right.....

WOW! - This is a huge load of HOGWASH from the so-called Department of Homeland Security. It basically says that everyone but ULTRA-LEFT LOONY TOONS are dangerous and need to be watched. Just forget about those so-called servants of the public who are trampling the RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION!

This is really a DUMB way to try and redirect attention away from their LAW-BREAKING AND RIGHTS VIOLATIONS - CIVIL AND CRIMINAL! TREASON?? --  CLOSE AND MAYBE THERE ALREADY!

THEY REALLY NEED TO WORRY ABOUT MAYBE 80% OF THE ENTIRE PUBLIC, ARMED FORCES, POLICE, FEDERAL AGENTS, AND EVERYONE WHO WILL TOLERATE ONLY SO MUCH AND SAY NO - AND MEAN NO - END OF STORY - PERIOD! Even some of the ULTRA-LEFT folks are beginning to holler WHOA! Who's left that isn't dangerous EXCEPT the public servants who are trying to turn themselves into ELITE RULERS? Their own party will put them in prison when they figure things out, and folks are definitely beginning to figure things out! The time will come when the choices are limited to PRISON OR SOME THIRD WORLD ISLAMIC COUNTRY! ONE STEP TOO FAR WILL LIMIT THE CHOICE TO ONE:  PRISON!

[Soldier4Christ]

American Legion to DHS: We're not terrorists
'It is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy'

In response to a newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report that warns of dangers associated with "right-wing extremists" – and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats – the American Legion has fired off a letter to DHS in protest.

"I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are," writes David K. Rehbein, national commander of the American Legion, to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The Legion's letter comes in response to a report titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, which warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.

The document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, suggests worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

John Raughter, communications director for the American Legion, told WND that conjuring images of returning veterans as "lone wolf extremists" is unfair.

"We don't like these stereotypes," said Raughter. "Veterans are people who served their country, most of the time heroically. To denigrate their service, cite disgruntled military veterans, brings back images of the stereotypes Vietnam veterans faced when returning.

"It's sad that the report comes from DHS," Raugher added. "It could be from some fringe group."

As WND reported, the release from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis contends – "without any statistical evidence," according to Rehbein's letter – that returning veterans "could lead" terrorist cells planning domestic violence.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," the report states. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

It adds that "growth in these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy and the continued U.S. standing as the pre-eminent world power."

The American Legion, however, strongly objects to the report linking veterans to the Oklahoma City tragedy simply because bomber Timothy McVeigh had served in the military.

"The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing," writes Rehbein in his letter, "but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation's uniform during wartime. To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam."

Offending more than veterans

Besides the American Legion, other organizations have also taken offense at the report, for its broad-sweeping categorization of who might be considered an "extremist."

The report defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

The report further adds that "'end times' prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as the violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."

Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, director of Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute, released a statement condemning the report for lumping Christians, abortion opponents, limited government advocates and proponents of other politically "conservative" causes together into a supposedly "terrorist" faction.

"It would be impossible to overstate the way this report links conservative views with terrorist potential," writes Crouse. "It even threatens the utilization of law enforcement actions to curb such activities 'in today's climate.' It is scary to read that the United States government is launching major efforts to 'limit' domestic social conservatives – whom they call 'rightwing extremists' – at the same time that it is downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorists who have plainly stated their intent to harm our nation."

One WND reader, whose name has been withheld, looked at his own beliefs about limited government and abortion – potentially "right-wing extremist" beliefs, according to the DHS – and voiced his opinion of the report in an email:

"According to Homeland Security, I am a right-wing radical," writes the WND reader. "My extremist activities include: working on my 24th year of marriage, raising my four kids, believing that our inalienable rights are granted by God not the government, holding all life sacred, belief in American exceptionalism and, yes, attending Tea Parties to protest 'generational theft' of our childrens future."

He added, "Let me know where I need to turn myself in, because I don't want the government wasting money looking for me."

An official with DHS, however, told Fox News that the critical reaction to the report has been overblown and that in January a similar report was drafted regarding left-wing extremists.

"This is the job of DHS," the official said, "to assess what is happening in this country, with regard to homegrown terrorism, and determine whether it's an actual threat or not, and that's what these assessments do. This is nothing unusual. These assessments are done all the time. This is about awareness."

DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban added, "DHS has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruitments by playing on their fears about several emerging issues."

The report states the DHS will be working with state and local partners over the next several months to determine the levels of right-wing extremist activity in the U.S.

[nChrist]

Hello Pastor Roger and All,

This attempted demonizing of Veterans and other decent people is making me sick and angry. I subscribe to some very innocent Christian feeds of news who are also being demonized. At this point, I don't think that the POWER BROKERS can get by with it because they've already gone WAY TOO FAR. It's almost to the point of calling Christians terrorist, OR people who read Bibles are terrorists. The public isn't dumb enough to buy all this stuff. In fact, the vast majority of the public would be terrorists and only a small percentage of the ULTRA-LEFT WHACKOS would be OK!

The news feeds I subscribe to are in the categories of Christian, Conservative, American, Patriotic, and Founders-type feeds. There is NOTHING wild about any of them - just decent, family oriented news.

Today, I've found lists of all sorts of people that are supposed to be dangerous, and this is the biggest mess of garbage I've seen in a long time.

People who read WND are dangerous and should be watched for terrorist activity.

People who listen to Fox News are dangerous and should be watched.

It goes on and on and on to the point that people who read the Bible or go to church are dangerous. Well folks, that's the vast majority of the public. People who are against ABORTION and SOCIALISM are dangerous. The people who will be doing NON-VIOLENT TEA PARTIES are dangerous and possible terrorists. Well here's a NEWS FLASH:  these people doing the non-violent tea parties are the backbone of the country paying taxes and trying hard just to survive. They are decent, law-abiding people who are peacefully trying to send a MESSAGE to our DREAM TO BE DICTATOR AND HIS GANG. We aren't doing a single thing that is illegal, immoral, unpatriotic, or any other negative association NUTS might want to attach. These are DECENT, LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE exercising their FREE SPEECH RIGHTS to inform over-bearing and tyrannical government THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS VIOLATING THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION - AND VIOLATING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

If you listen to or pay much attention to all of this dim-witted COMMUNIST GARBAGE, you are probably dangerous and need to be watched. That's what this really boils down to.

Brothers and Sisters, this is SICK. I don't want my VETERAN FRIENDS to be labeled with lies. This part really makes me sick and angry. All of it is COMMUNIST TACTICS to silence the vast majority of the public, but it seems that it has already backfired. Besides being SICK and TWISTED, their tactics are OBVIOUS LIES. They went WAY TOO FAR and actually labeled about 85% of the population as dangerous and possible terrorists. The MOST DANGEROUS TERRORISTS ARE PROBABLY IN OFFICE, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS BEGINNING TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

Brothers and Sisters, it would be STUPID to encourage gay pride parades with nudity and obscene acts and DISALLOW decent, non-violent demonstrations by REGULAR, PATRIOTIC AMERICANS. It would really be stupid for them to act under color of law to ABUSE, THREATEN, COERCE, OR IN ANY WAY DENY FREE SPEECH OF DECENT AMERICANS. THAT WOULD MAKE IT TIME FOR CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SO-CALLED GOVERNMENT TO BE CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL OFFENSES, REMOVED FROM OFFICE, AND PUT IN PRISON. This would not be a threat of any kind - just a promise to use the RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION to prevent illegal acts and tyranny from portions of the government. This would be a promise - not a threat - and every member of the general public would have standing UNDER THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION to demand that our laws and Constitution be enforced! The "wannabe" DICTATORS are subject to the LAW, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

[Soldier4Christ]

Protest at UNC stops ex-congressman's speech

Campus police used pepper spray on student protesters angry over immigration issues who disrupted a Tuesday night speech by former Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo at the University of North Carolina.

Hundreds of protesters denouncing Tancredo's tough stances against illegal immigration gathered at Bingham Hall, shouting profanities at the former Colorado congressman, who tried to speak about his opposition to in-state tuition for unauthorized immigrants.

Tancredo left after a protester broke a window and police shut down the event. He had been invited by a student group that opposes mass immigration and multiculturalism.

Officers ejected two women who delayed the speech by holding a 12-foot banner across the classroom where Tancredo was to speak. It read, "No dialogue with hate." Tancredo tried to pull the banner away, saying, "You don't want to hear what I have to say because you don't agree with me."

Police spokesman Randy Young said pepper spray was "broadcast" to clear the area as the women were escorted outside. An officer also fired a stun gun, but it wasn't aimed at anyone, Young said.

Young said the use of force was being investigated by the department.

Tancredo said after officers escorted him out of the room that he had never been silenced by protesters.

"This is the free speech crowd, right?" Tancredo joked at one point as protesters screamed at him.

Before the speech ended, some in the audience of 150 urged the students to let Tancredo speak.

"We are the children of immigrants, and this concerns us," said junior Lizette Lopez, 22, vice president of the Carolina Hispanic Association. "So we would at least like to hear what he has to say if you want to hear what we have to say."

Tancredo was flying out of North Carolina on Wednesday and couldn't be reached for comment.

Chancellor Holden Thorp issued a statement that he was sorry Tancredo wasn't able to speak.

"We pride ourselves on being a place where all points of view can be expressed and heard, so I'm disappointed that didn't happen," Thorp said. "I think our Public Safety officers appropriately handled a difficult situation.”

Yep, we see who are the extremists and the ones most likely to resort to violence ... again and again and again......      http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=22339.0

[nChrist]

Hello Pastor Roger,

Brother, thanks for posting this. Sadly, I think there's going to be much more of things like this. EVEN OUR PEACEFUL SPEECH is dangerous to the PARTY LINE AND THE WANNABE DICTATOR!

I wasn't there, so it's really not fair for me to have many harsh opinions about this, but I would have made that speech if IT TOOK ALL DAY. We have freedom of speech also. One doesn't have to be a NUTCAKE LOON to have free speech. The NUTCAKE LOONS are enjoying their FREE SPEECH, and WE MUST EXERCISE OUR FREE SPEECH ALSO! So, I'm sad about this speech not being heard in a free country. If we don't have FREE SPEECH, neither should the NUTCAKE have free speech.

Brother, I feel strongly about this because I talk to young men and women often who fight, bleed, and die for our FREEDOMS. I don't want to cheapen their sacrifices by failure to EXERCISE FREE SPEECH - even if it meant being physically assaulted or killed. I hope this makes sense. I will TAKE MY FREE SPEECH in honor of those who fought for it, and NO NUMBER OF NUTCAKES will be able to stop me. If the NUTCAKES put me in the hospital, I'll come back and make my free speech TWICE AS LONG. If the NUTCAKES kill me, a dozen will take my place because TOO MANY HAVE GIVEN TOO MUCH FOR US TO GIVE UP WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR! I REFUSE to dishonor their service by sitting down and being quiet. I won't do it, and they can't make me! THIS SHOULD MAKE EVERY PERSON WHO LOVES FREEDOM ANGRY! If anyone is going to SHUT UP - it will be the NUTCAKES FIRST! Otherwise, I have freedom or speech, and I will use it!

[Soldier4Christ]

Savage sues Napolitano for targeting vets

Radio talk show icon Michael Savage has teamed up with the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., to file a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

"It is a civil rights action brought under the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, challenging the policy, practice, and custom of the United States Government that targets for disfavored treatment those individuals and groups that are considered to be 'rightwing extremists,'" the complaint announced today said.

The federal agency recently targeted those individuals in its report called "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

According to the federal government, members of the suspect group of people include those who:

    * Oppose restrictions on firearms

    * Oppose lax immigration

    * Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs

    * Oppose continuation of free trade agreements

    * Oppose same-sex marriage

    * Have paranoia of foreign regimes

    * Fear Communist regimes

    * Oppose one world government

    * Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world

    * Are upset with the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

The case seeks a declaration that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, a court order permanently enjoining the policy and its application to the plaintiffs' speech and other activities, and the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

WND had reported earlier on the report and the reaction it has drawn, including just a day ago when the Law Center said it had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the DHS, demanding to know why it calls Americans who oppose abortion, support the 2nd Amendment and dislike lax immigration "extremists."

"This is not an intelligence report but a diatribe against those who oppose the policies of the Obama administration," Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the organization, said of the request.

"It is a declaration of war against the American people and our constitution. It is a prelude to extreme gun control legislation and hate speech laws targeting Christian churches and others who oppose abortion and same sex marriage," he continued. "The federal government should be focusing its attention on the 35 radical Muslim compounds in the U.S. training its followers on how to kidnap and kill Americans."

Amy Kudwa, a spokeswoman for the DHS, said the agency as a matter of policy doesn't comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Savage, Gregg Cunningham of the pro-life Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.

The federal agency's action "encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs."

"The report even admits that the department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called 'rightwing extremists.' Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment," Thompson said.

"Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents," he said.

The action alleges the policy "is a tool of intimidation for federal, state, and local government officials. It provides a basis for government officials to abuse their positions of power to stifle political opinion and opposition."

"Pursuant to the 'Rightwing Extremism Policy,' federal officias will work with state, local, tribal, and private sector entities to conduct surveillance and to gather information in order to deter the activities of those individuals and groups considered to be 'rightwing extremists,'" the case said.

The agency's intention is to enforce the policy through "state and local fusion centers, which are local intelligence centers created by DHS to combat 'terrorism' and related activities that are deemed to be 'criminal,'" the case said.

Napolitano, on a Fox News appearance today, backtracked a little, saying, "To the extent veterans read it as an accusation … an apology is owed."

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger Said:

Napolitano, on a Fox News appearance today, backtracked a little, saying, "To the extent veterans read it as an accusation … an apology is owed."

Think about this situation some more and realize how radical and FOOLISH it is. If there are REAL RADICALS involved, it's Napolitano and the Obama GANG - certainly NOT VETERANS and other types of people demonized by her report. Things like this are sickening AND ARE DEFINITELY A PREVIEW of WORSE TO COME! It amounts to the wolf complaining about the dangerous lambs.

If you are a VETERAN reading this, please allow me to apologize for IGNORANT statements like this. I would hope that you know average people don't have thoughts like this crossing their minds. INSTEAD, average people have THANKS and APPRECIATION on their minds when they think about VETERANS. It's sickening to know that portions of our so-called government actually believe things like this. Average people want to hear about any evidence to support NONSENSE AND INSANE BABBLING LIKE THIS. MOST OBVIOUSLY, SANE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES didn't buy it! WHY?  --  They knew it was bogus and insane BABBLING from the start. Law Enforcement agencies have lengthy statistics to prove that active duty and retired MILITARY PEOPLE are our very best citizens who are rarely ever part of any problems, rather part of the solutions.

Let's not forget about all of those DANGEROUS Christians, people who are against ABORTIONS, people who get their news from WND and other Christian sources, people who believe in the RULE OF LAW and the CONSTITUTION, and especially people who know they have CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS who REFUSE TO GIVE THEM UP! It would be extremely RADICAL AND FOOLISH for anyone to even think about taking these rights and freedoms away. BLUNTLY, THE WORST RADICALS AT THIS TIME APPEAR TO BE IN GOVERNMENT, AND THEY POSE THE GREATEST DANGER TO THE PEACE AND SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE! The real solution would be to remove these radicals from government, prosecute them for the crimes they have committed against the people, and REPLACE THEM WITH COMMON SENSE FOLKS WHO LOVE OUR COUNTRY AND WANT TO SERVE THE PEOPLE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION! By the way, the RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION currently stands as a BARRIER for their RADICAL AGENDAS!

[Soldier4Christ]

Internet sales tax
to become real?
Bill being introduced in Congress
this week to require collections

With states needing as much revenue as possible during this recession, it looks like Congress is now ready to move in the direction of creating a sort of “Internet sales tax,” forcing e-tailers such as Amazon.com, eBay and the like to collect sales tax on purchases even if the buyer is from a state where the e-tailer has no brick-and-mortar presence.

Previously, in a 1992 Supreme Court decision, Quill vs. North Dakota, the Supreme Court ruled that out-of-state retailers cannot be required to collect sales tax on purchases sent to states where they did not have a physical presence.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was at least partially based on the fact that, at the time the case was decided in 1992, there were over 6,000 separate sales and use tax jurisdictions in the United States (states, localities, special tax districts, etc.) and to impose a collection obligation on a remote seller would impose a crushing burden that would severely restrict interstate commerce.

In other words, the tax structure across the U.S. is so complex that companies can’t possibly manage all of them. Meanwhile, I earlier said the “end is nigh” when New York State first proposed the so-called “Amazon Tax,” which it later passed, and which forces the Internet retailer to collect sales tax despite no brick-and-mortar state presence.

New York does this does this by saying that any retailer that has an affiliate in the state (meaning, a site like this one that advertises for them), therefore has a de facto brick-and-mortar presence.

According to the New York Post, however, a bill is going to be introduced in Congress this week to require tax collection, without even such shenanigans. Just a law that would say “collect it,” so to speak.

It’s not really that a buyer from California, say, that buys from Amazon.com doesn’t owe any sales tax. There’s a place in the California Income Tax form for “use tax,” unpaid sales tax that taxpayers are supposed “fess up” to. Naturally, you can imagine what percentage of taxpayers do, whether because they simply don’t know the law or because they simply don’t want to pay it.

But it is in fact extremely difficult, given the myriad of tax laws across the country, for a retailer to be able to collect taxes accurately.

Rather, retailers don’t want to spend their time keeping track of a complex array of differing state, municipal and city tax rules.

Jonathan Johnson III, president of online retailer Overstock.com, said:

“If we ship something out to Long Island right now, we don’t know what sales tax to charge or collect. And there may be two or three different levels. There may be a state level, a county level and a city level.”

One possible solution would be to have a simplified sales tax across the country for Internet sales; this would give the states some revenue. An alternative would be to simplify sales tax across the country, period. Or they might just write the law and have the retailers bite the bullet, and have to collect taxes based on the thousands of different sales tax rates across the country.

Amazon.com and Overstock.com filed suit against the state of New York over its tax law, but the suits were thrown out. The retailers are appealing, but given this bill, it may be a moot point.

_________________

Not increasing taxes on the poor and middle class?

[Soldier4Christ]

Are you licensed to reload that ammo?
Alarm raised over treaty provision to ban activity

President Obama, who supported the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., before it was tossed by the Supreme Court, since his election has watched various proposals to ban "assault" weapons, require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases that caused some retailers to name him their salesman of the year. Now he apparently is going after citzens who reload their ammunition.

It was during an official visit earlier this month to Mexico that he affirmed his support for a proposed international treaty that addresses "firearms trafficking."

According to a blogger who follows the issue, the treaty was adopted by President Clinton years ago but never ratified by the U.S. Senate, a goal Obama now has adopted.

The writer, B.A. Lawson, says, "If you reload your own ammo you may find yourself engaged in 'Illicit Manufacturing' of ammunition under an arms control treaty that President Obama started pushing last week in Mexico."

"Virtually everyone who supports the 2nd Amendment or has an interest in firearms has heard the numerous recent reports of ammunition shortages. The shortages have extended to reloading supplies that many folks rely on to keep their shooting costs down or to assemble exotic or hard to find ammunition. Many shooters have considered reloading their own ammo as insurance against limited supplies should legislation be enacted that would make ammo more scarce or dramatically more expensive," the blogger continued.

"Those thoughts may be in vain if the current administration is successful in getting the 'INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS' treaty passed."

The treaty defines "illicit manufacturing" as "the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials."

It then gives authority for that activity only with "a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place."

"The section … clearly identifies ammo reloaders that are not licensed by the government as 'Illicit Manufacturers' of ammunition. Now that we have reloaders properly labeled, lets move down to Article IV to see what we should do with them," the commentary said.

He then quotes Article IV, which states, "State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials."

"This is pretty straightforward. If you reload ammunition without a license after the treaty is signed you will be a criminal," Lawson wrote.

The National Rifle Association said the treaty "does include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict 'lawful ownership and use' of firearms. Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S."

The treaty is available online.

http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html

At the SnowflakesinHell blog, the writer said there's no mistaking the language.

Even accessories "which can be attached to a firearm" are targeted.

"It would presumably also ban home manufacture of these items without a government license. Do you own trigger jobs? Reload your own ammunition? Not any more, not without a government license!"

The Examiner.com said such international gun restrictions are unacceptable.

John Velleco, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, notes the benefits for Obama of having such rules in treaties, not legislation.

"If ratified and the U.S. is found not to be in compliance with any provisions of the treaty – such as a provision that would outlaw reloading ammunition without a government license – President Obama would be empowered to implement regulations without congressional approval," he wrote.

"If the kind of 'change' that Obama wants is for the United States to take its marching orders from third world countries regarding our gun rights, we're in big trouble!"

[nChrist]

UM?

IT WOULD APPEAR

THAT THE ULTRA-LEFTIES

DON'T WANT NORMAL FOLKS

TO HAVE THE MEANS

TO PROTECT THEMSELVES!

Any law or action that seeks to limit THIS RIGHT under the CONSTITUTION is illegal and a CRIMINAL ACT. Officials acting under the COLOR of LAW, especially one that they know is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, makes the violation much worse.

THEY WOULD CALL

SOMETHING LIKE THIS

TYRANNY!

AND IT WOULDN'T BE

IN A FREE COUNTRY!

[Soldier4Christ]

McVeigh reference prompts response
David Schippers contends OKC bomber part of Islamic, not 'right-wing,' plot

WorldNetDaily

Responding to the Obama administration's attempt to justify a controversial "right-wing extremism" report by citing Timothy McVeigh, a counter-terrorism group has posted a video statement by a prominent Democrat investigator who contends the Oklahoma City bomb plot was hatched not by right-wingers but by Islamic jihadists.

David Schippers, the chief counsel for the 1998 impeachment trial of President Clinton, probed the bombing with investigative reporter Jayna Davis, author of "The Third Terrorist: The Middle Eastern Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing", by WND Books. Davis asserts McVeigh and Terry Nichols were not the lone conspirators but part of a greater scheme involving Islamic terrorists and at least one provable link to Iraq. The explosion April 19, 1995, at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building killed 168 people, including 19 children, and injured another 684.

In the video, released by America's Truth Forum, Schippers says there's "no question the Oklahoma City bombing was a part of a state-sponsored attack on the heartland of the United States."

"I have been asked about the Oklahoma bombing and whether there was any kind of federal cover-up. The simple and direct answer is yes," he said. "Unquestionably, a federal cover-up beginning in 1995 and continuing to today."

As WND reported last week, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security cited McVeigh as a reason that "right wing" interests must be monitored closely by his agency.

Agency spokesman Sean Smith told talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, "There was a very tragic example of a threat that was realized and materialized in this country, almost 14 years ago to the day, in Oklahoma City. I'm talking about Tim McVeigh."

Hedgecock was the first to expose the Department of Homeland Security report on "right-wing extremism" that pointed to a potential threat from returning war veterans, abortion opponents, gun-rights advocates and supporters of third-party candidates, among others.

Smith emphasized the Oklahoma bombing was carried out "by someone who unfortunately was a returning vet."

America's Truth Forum President Jeffrey Epstein was among the critics of the DHS report.

"Taking a lesson from history, one can clearly gauge the health of a nation by the way it treats its servicemen," he said.

Epstein called Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano's targeting of "our nation's heroes" a "revolting and groundless assertion based solely upon the government's flawed OKC bombing investigation."

"In doing so, Napolitano recklessly ignored the fact that despite Bill Clinton's best efforts, ties couldn't be established between Timothy McVeigh and right-wing extremist groups," Epstein said. "Perhaps, the 'real' enemies of our state are at the helm."

Epstein said the Schippers video was produced several years ago, but it has been publicly released for the first time. Schippers, a Chicago-based attorney, recently affirmed that he stands by the statements, Epstein said.

Schippers says in the taped interview the FBI inexplicably closed its probe into the infamous "John Doe No. 2" suspect despite numerous witnesses he interviewed who identified a "foreign-looking man" with McVeigh immediately before the bombing.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who produced a report two years ago on the alleged foreign-link to the bombing, told WND he experienced a "high level of frustration" during his own investigation "with how many people, from local newspapers to the FBI, to just even other members of Congress, who are just anxious not to even give another look at this monstrous crime that really appears to be unresolved."

Rohrabacher attributes some of opposition to people in a bureaucracy trying to cover up incompetence and bad decisions. But his report offers insight into the mindset of the Clinton administration, suggesting the former president did not want to confront the possibility Islamic terrorists – and ultimately a Middle Eastern state – were involved.

It's now clear, Rohrabacher told WND at the time, that the Clinton administration had "an aversion to any type of efforts by our government that would in some way require the use of force against foreign enemies, and especially in the Middle East."

Schippers points out McVeigh partner Nichols made several trips to the Philippines prior to the bombing, and there is evidence he met with Islamic jihadists tied to al-Qaida.

Former Clinton counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke notes in his book "Against All Enemies" that Nichols was in the Philippines in the same city at the same time as Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted of participation in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

"We do know that Nichols' bombs did not work before his Philippine stay and were deadly when he returned," Clarke writes.

Schippers also points out Yossef Bodansky, the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, issued a warning two months prior to the Oklahoma City bombing that Iran-sponsored Islamist terrorists had recruited 'two lily whites' – people like McVeigh and Nichols – to carry out the bombing of an American federal building.

Schippers contends the FBI failed to establish a tie between McVeigh and right-wing militias. Some independent investigators dispute that, including Jesse Trentadue, a Salt Lake City attorney who believes McVeigh was aided by a white supremacist group that had been infiltrated by the FBI.

Trentadue obtained FBI documents in his Freedom of Information Act suit against the agency, which he says bolster his belief the FBI had prior knowledge of the bombing.

Davis, who began her investigation while covering the bombing as a local TV reporter, dismisses the theory centered on a German national who was in the U.S. illegally in 1995, Andreas Carl Strassmeier, and domestic neo-Nazis at a white supremacist compound in Oklahoma called Elohim City.

"FBI agents have testified the neo-Nazi, Elohim City connection is nothing more than a dry hole," Davis argues. "There's not one motel log, one phone log, one fingerprint or eyewitness account that can tie any of these Nazi conspirators or Strassmeier to overt commission of a crime."

[Soldier4Christ]

Court: 2nd Amendment trumps local gun limits
Described as 'protection against government degenerating into tyranny'

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California has ruled that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" and long has been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty," so it therefore must be applied against state and local government weapon restrictions as well as federal gun limits.

The ruling came in a decade-old dispute over a private operation's request to hold a gun show at a county fairground, even though the county prohibited gun possession at its facilities.

The new ruling from the usually liberal 9th Circuit said Alameda County in California was allowed to ban guns at its facilities, but in general the 2nd Amendment provision for Americans to keep and bear arms applies not to just federal gun limits but local rules as well.

"This could be big, folks," wrote Kurt Hofmann at the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner.

"In Nordyke v. King … we may very well be seeing the beginning of the end of that very unsatisfactory set of circumstances, wherein state and local governments need not so much as pay lip service to the 2nd Amendment," he continued. "In the 9th Circuit, in fact, that end has indeed arrived.

"This development is very significant, because the 9th is the largest, and thus one of the most important, federal circuit courts. It is also considered the most 'liberal,' and thus perhaps the most resistant to protecting the right to keep and bear arms," he continued.

Hofmann cited a concurring opinion by Judge Ronald M. Gould, who wrote that nothing less than the security of the nation – a defense against both external and internal threats – rests on the provision.

"The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security," Gould wrote. "We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived. Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence."

The court opinion this week said, "We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is 'deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition.'

"Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the 'true palladium of liberty.' Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later," the court continued.

"The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments," the opinion said.

The court previously had ruled exactly the opposite way, but it said the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision, which confirmed that the 2nd Amendment right is personal as well as collective, prompted the reversal.

At Poligazette, a commentator noted it is a major victory for the pro-gun position.

And another Gun Rights Examiner writer, David Codrea, said, "This is big – especially coming from the 9th Circuit, notorious for its hostility to gun rights. Look for an appeal. And then look to see if the Supreme Court agrees to hear it."

Technically the county cannot appeal, since its policy to restrict guns on county property was upheld. But the plaintiffs, Russell and Sallie Nordyke, could appeal on behalf of their gun show operation.

The 2nd Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"This necessary 'right of the people' existed before the Second Amendment as 'one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,'" the ruling said. "Heller identified several reasons why the militia was considered 'necessary to the security of a free state.' First, 'it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary . . . . Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."

The decision appears to run counter to the general direction sought by the administration of President Obama three months into his tenure.

He's already advocated for a treaty that would require a federal license for hunters to reload their ammunition, has expressed a desire to ban "assault" weapons, has seen a plan to require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases with his history of anti-gun positions.