By Chuck Baldwin
January 4, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

If Barack Obama and his gaggle of gun grabbers have their way, the American citizenry will have all of their firearms taken away. If their current attempt to outlaw semi-automatic rifles is successful, does anyone think it will stop there? Don’t be naïve! The goal of people like Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, et al., has always been total gun confiscation. In fact, Senator Feinstein is actually on record as saying so.

According to Infowars.com, “Senator Dianne Feinstein’s ultimate plan has always been to have Mr. and Mrs. America turn in their guns to the government, period. Feinstein’s bill would criminalize millions of Americans and completely eviscerate second amendment rights.

“She tells us a gun ban is about saving the children and reducing crime, but her comments on 60 Minutes in 1995 reveal her true plan is to target law-abiding American gun owners.

“On Thursday, Feinstein will introduce her dream bill to disarm the American people. The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-register firearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if they’re sex offenders.

“Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.

“It is a gun confiscation bill.

“The proposed bill is open declaration of war on the Second Amendment.

“It’s no coincidence that the communist Chinese, the biggest holders of U.S. debt, have demanded the American people be disarmed. History tells us that it is the instinct of all tyrants to disarm the slaves.”

The report plays a video in which Senator Feinstein said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

See the report here.

Writing for the National Association for Gun Rights, Dudley Brown said, “After reading Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, I can only describe it as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.

“The definition of an ‘Assault Weapon’ in this bill is so broad you can drive a truck through it! They’re targeting EVERYTHING–rifles, shotguns and even handguns.

“You see, the gun-grabbers are going for broke.

“Even owners of supposedly ‘grandfathered’ firearms will be treated like common criminals.

“If passed, Feinstein’s so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban would:

“–Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns;

“–Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one ‘military characteristic’–which could mean just about anything that makes a gun ‘look scary.’

“–Bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds;

“–Force owners of ALL ‘grandfathered’ weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and unnecessary fingerprinting;

“–Force owners of ALL ‘grandfathered’ weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law. That’s right. If you own a $10 magazine that’s more than 10 rounds, you’ll have to register it with the BATFE in their National Firearms Registry.

“And you and I both know registration is only the first step toward outright confiscation. So don’t be fooled.”

See the report here.

As I stated in this column last week, “The semi-automatic rifle is the vanguard of our liberty; it is the surest and most trustworthy means of our self-defense; and it is the primary companion of any man who would both protect and feed his family.

“Make no mistake about it: to take away an American’s right to a semi-automatic rifle is to FULLY DISARM HIM. There is no Second Amendment; there is no right to keep and bear arms; there is no citizen militia; there is no liberty without the semi-automatic rifle!”

In that column I also quoted Thomas Jefferson who rightly observed, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

See my column here.

And it is Jefferson’s observation that the “strongest reason” that the American people must always retain the right to keep and bear arms is “to protect themselves against tyranny in government,” that is universally ignored in the modern gun-control debate.

Throughout the United States, there are tens of millions of fully-armed citizens who are more than capable of defending themselves and their communities against any enemy–whether that enemy is an internal or external one. In fact, many millions of these citizens have been trained in the US armed forces. Firearms–especially semi-automatic rifles–in the hands of millions of American citizens is truly the only thing that stands between freedom and tyranny for the people of the United States. That Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein want to disarm the American people should be considered an act of war against our liberties! In other words, ladies and gentlemen, this is a line in the sand that none of us can afford to ignore.

Here’s how we must fight:

1. We must literally inundate our US representatives and senators with the most vociferous protest.

We must make sure that every representative and senator in America is told that under no uncertain terms their reelection will be determined by how they vote on this issue. Obviously, people such as Senators Feinstein and Schumer come from liberal, anti-gun states–which is why they feel safe in proposing these draconian gun-control measures. However, the vast majority of US House members represent average God-fearing Americans to whom the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct. And make no mistake about it: the legislative battle will be won or lost in the US House of Representatives.

Here in Montana, however, our two US senators (both Democrats) proudly profess to be pro-Second Amendment. Montanans should be sending a strong message to both of these senators to hold the line for our right to keep and bear arms–including semi-automatic rifles. I cannot imagine that any civil magistrate from either major political party could hope to be reelected in the State of Montana who would support Senator Feinstein’s gun-grab bill. And I would hope and pray that there would be dozens of other states in which the Second Amendment is equally honored.

Folks, CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS NOW! If we expect to retain any semblance of freedom for our posterity, we must pick up the phones and barrage our representatives and senators with opposition to this gun-control bill. And we must do it NOW! Furthermore, we must let our elected officials know that under no uncertain terms there can be NO COMPROMISE, that only outright opposition to any new gun-control measures will be deemed acceptable. There are already far too many gun-control laws in this country. We cannot accept any more abridgements and restrictions to our right to keep and bear arms. NO MORE!

2. We must demand of our State governors and legislators that they resist any attempts of the federal government to outlaw our firearms.

Should the Republican-led House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., cave-in to the Obama gun-grab like they did on Obama’s tax increases, it will be up to the states to say NO! If there is a single issue for which individual, sovereign states would be willing to defy the federal government
and protect the rights and liberties of their citizens, it will be this issue. If the states, and liberty-minded people of the states, do not stand as one on this issue, there is no issue for which they would stand. We either draw the line on this issue or our liberties are gone forever!

This means State legislatures should pass laws defying the federal gun ban and protecting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms within their states. Governors should be willing to utilize State law enforcement agencies to protect their citizens’ right to keep (and not register) their guns, and county sheriffs should stiffen their backs and refuse to allow any federal police agency from enforcing the gun ban. After all, the county sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority in his or her county, trumping even federal law enforcement officers.

3. Individual citizens like you and I must be willing to draw our personal line in the sand on this issue and refuse to comply with any law requiring us to register or surrender our firearms–including our semi-automatic rifles.

Ladies and gentlemen, whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesn’t do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I don’t know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story. It’s not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw!

It is time RIGHT NOW for every American citizen to make up his or her mind on this issue.

There are many laws, which I personally find repugnant and even unconstitutional, to which I grudgingly submit. For example, while I very much understand, and even philosophically agree with, those who refuse to pay income taxes, I pay income taxes. Even though I believe the income tax to be unconstitutional, onerous, and maybe even nefarious, I have not drawn my line in the sand on that issue. I haven’t drawn a line in the sand on the requirement for all sorts of government licenses, i.e., marriage licenses, driver’s licenses, CCW permits, Social Security cards, etc., even though I personally believe that many requirements for licensure stretch the boundaries of legitimate government. And, again, even though I understand those who refuse to take them, I have a marriage license, a driver’s license, a CCW permit, and a Social Security card. There are many issues over which I am willing to be annoyed, but for the sake of perceived Christian testimony and/or perceived good citizenship, I reluctantly and grudgingly comply. But on the issue of taking away my right to keep and bear arms–including a semi-automatic rifle–I absolutely refuse to comply!

My line in the sand is drawn here!

Make no mistake about it: it is not just semi-automatic rifles that these gun grabbers are after. Ultimately, they want to take all of our guns. We either stop them now or there will be no stopping them at all.

It is no hyperbole to say that this attempt by people such as Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein to make outlaws out of law-abiding citizens for simply exercising our right to keep and bear arms is the most important political battle of our lifetimes! I am not exaggerating when I say that the future of freedom and liberty for our children and for our country–not to mention the future of our own personal lives and freedom–hang in the balance.

• If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

And please visit my web site for past columns and much more.

© 2013 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Barry R. Clausen — Environmentalists and Government Extremism

http://www.newswithviews.com/Clausen/barry107.htm

ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND GOVERNMENT EXTREMISM

By Investigative Journalist, Barry R. Clausen
March 2, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

The Destruction of Rural America

Environmentalists and government officials introduced wolves into Montana’s Yellowstone Park in January of 1995 and the “wolves” numbers have grown out of control. As a result elk and deer populations are being destroyed. During a speech on January 13, 2001 at Mammoth Hotel in West Yellowstone exactly six years and one day after helping release the first wolves into Yellowstone Park with Bozeman, Montana members of the terrorist organization, Earth First.

At this speech Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt (under the President Clinton Administration) bid farewell to a packed crowd. However, his visit was more than a farewell gesture. It was also a plea for ranchers to stop their campaign against wolves and other animals other than cattle that graze outside of the park.

Babbitt stated to the crowd, “If ranchers know what’s good for them, they won’t try to force wolves and bison from public land where cattle also graze; because that’s a battle they can’t win. The American public won’t stand for it and if the beef industry forces a confrontation, it will lose.” He also said the farmers and ranchers should respect the importance of maintaining a natural ecosystem where wild animals are allowed to roam free.

Currently, according to an article on February 28, 2012 in Redding California’s Record Searchlight the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the California Fish & Game Commission to protect gray wolves under the California Endangered Species Act. Though gray wolves are protected by the federal act, listing the wolves in California would mean wildlife officials must consider a recovery plan. “There’s really no guide for the management of the gray wolf in California,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Environmentalists in conjunction with U.S Forest Service officials are in the process of stopping public lands grazing for America’s ranchers. The ranching communities that have been part of our American heritage are now being systematically destroyed. Farmers are being devastated as a result of environmentalists and federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries (NOAA), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) and the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) who are working together essentially to destroy American farmers over fish. This final and ultimate goal is a direct result of their desire to control water.

America’s timber industry has already been destroyed as a result of environmentalists working with the U.S. Forest Service and certain multinational timber industry groups to shut down small and middle size timber companies in the United States. Trains that travel from Canada each year, carry thousands of railcars loaded with Canadian timber, to all parts of our county.

As first reported in my story “Is Government Creating Violence?” government agents from numerous agencies and those who represent them are creating hate and anger against them due to their continual harassment and attempted intimidation of farmers, ranchers and small private timber companies in Siskiyou County California. Documents and interviews now show that the harassment is spreading to several other parts of our country.

As though the threats and intimidation from our own government is not enough, the Karuk Tribe in Siskiyou County, California has stopped all small personal gold dredging projects throughout the entire State of California. The Karuk filed a lawsuit to stop those attempting to find gold in the Klamath River of Northern California and that spread to the entire state. The area especially hit is in the same county where the government harassment and intimidation is transpiring. The agency working with the Karuk’s with the dredging issue is once again the California Department of Fish & Game (DF&G). A court hearing on the case is scheduled for May 10, 2012 in Judge Alvarez’s chambers in the San Bernardino Superior Court.

In addition to the dredging issue there is a group of environmentalists from Medford, Oregon known as The Wildlands Project that is working in conjunction with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to create The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.

According to the BLM’s website, “The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is part of the Bureau of Land Management’s National Landscape Conservation System. The BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System [NLCS] contains some of the West’s most spectacular landscapes. It includes nearly 27 million acres of National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Scenic and Historic Trails.

“The NLCS works to conserve the essential fabric of the West, while offering exceptional opportunities for recreation, solitude, wildlife viewing, exploring history, and scientific research.”

This Monument is yet another campaign in the progress of further destroying the rural communities and families in Northern California and Southern Oregon. According to their website they claim they are working with one of President Obama’s Cabinet members, Ken Salazar the Secretary of the Interior to accomplish their goals of establishing monuments as well as to facilitate the removal of dams on the Shasta River in Northern California.

The idea is to create yet another national “Monument.” A monument that will encompass about a million acres and that will not allow hunting, fishing, logging, mining, ranching and gold panning. In most cases the monument will not even allow the small residential communities that have existed for generations, to continue to survive.

According to the “The Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Project” (kswild) website, “The proposal would turn about a million acres of the Siskiyou Crest into a national monument. The Siskiyou Crest runs east to west and connects the Cascades to the Coast Range. It is an important corridor for habitat migration…. KS Wild Campaign Director Joseph Vaile has long been our point person for engaging in collaborative efforts with federal agencies and the timber industry. These efforts seek to find common ground and reduce the long-term conflict surrounding forest issues in our region.

Joseph is currently bringing our conservation voice to the table as the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, convenes a broad coalition of stakeholders to design a series of pilot projects that may help point the way towards a new style of forest management for millions of acres of Western Oregon.

Joseph recently traveled to Washington D.C. to speak to a panel of congress members, administration officials, agency personnel and timber industry representatives.”

As you travel highway 96 from Yreka, California to the small Karuk community of Happy Camp (also in California) the residents and small businesses are sometimes 25 miles apart. Nearly all of the residents are clearly expressing their views as dozens of signs passionately proclaim, “No Monument.”

Presently, there are already businesses closing with more soon to follow. The usually full camp grounds have little or no campers and the historically high numbers of reservations have dwindled to zero as a result of the gold dredging ban and the potential monument designation. One campground owner in Seiad Valley, Bruce Johnson said, “They are trying to kill us; all of this is incredibly destructive.” Seiad Valley businesses comprise of one small grocery store with a combined café along with Johnson’s campground. There is also a self-serve gas station and mini storage

On Friday February 24, 2012 Paul R. Hauser sent a letter via Email to the Siskiyou County Supervisors that questioned the Scientific Integrity of the Klamath Dam Removal. Hauser’s credentials are impeccable as he was the Science Advisor, with the Bureau of Reclamation, in Washington D.C.. He was also the Scientific Integrity Officer with the Bureau of Reclamation also in Washington D.C. and he is a Professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

Dear Supervisors Cook, Valenzuela, Kobseff, Bennett, and Armstrong,

I know you are concerned about the Klamath Secretarial determination process, so I wanted to bring to your attention to an allegation of scientific and scholarly misconduct and reprisal for a whistleblower disclosure I made concerning the biased summarization of key scientific conclusions for the Klamath River dam removal Secretarial determination process.

An example of this intentional biased (falsification) reporting of scientific results by the Department of the Interior is contained in the September 21, 2011 “Summary of Key Conclusions: Draft EIS/EIR and Related Scientific/Technical Reports.” There are many other examples of integrity issues outlined in the attached allegation.

I made this disclosure when I held the position of Science Advisor for the Bureau of Reclamation. Unfortunately, as a result of the disclosure, I have faced systematic reprisal and termination of my employment. I have opened a case with the Department of the Interior, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and I plan to file the attached scientific integrity allegation. I also plan to appeal the termination of my position to the Office of Special Council (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

I hope that this situation is of interest to you, and if so, I am hoping that you would be willing to advocate on my behalf and/or on behalf of good science-informed decision making in the Klamath Basin. I have been treated wrongly by the Department of the Interior, but my decisions about the Klamath dam removal process are being compromised by scientific integrity issues.

Best Regards, Paul

The rest of the nation should become aware because we recognize that what begins in liberal California spreads rapidly to other states and agencies.

© 2012 Barry R. Clausen – All Rights Reserved

Mr. Clausen has been a guest on over 250 U.S. and Canadian radio talk shows and TV news shows including ABC, CBS, NBC and repeatedly on FOX News. He has been featured or quoted in over 800 books, magazines and news articles including the San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, Vancouver Province, Canada’s B.C. Report, New York Times, Newsday, Seattle Times, Oregonian, Sacramento Bee, Christian Science Monitor, The Dallas Morning News and a lengthy article beginning on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Clausen’s information has been translated and used by publications in many foreign countries including Japan, Ireland, England, Turkey, Germany, France and Chile. In 1994, a film crew from Danish TV-2 flew to Seattle to interview Mr. Clausen for a television documentary about international and U.S. extremist organizations. The documentary, A MAN IN THE RAINBOW, was subsequently aired in several European countries.

His latest book “Burning Rage – The Growing Anger Within My Country,” will be updated and available on Amazon.com early this spring.

Website:

E-Mail: Walterwilliams1998@gmail.com

By Kathleen Marquardt
January 21, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Wake-up call, Part 1

“Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” -Professor Maurice King

Birth of an abomination

In simple terms Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the end of civilization as we know it. It is the end of private property, the elevation of the collective over the individual. It is the redistribution of America’s wealth to the global elite, it is the end of the Great American Experiment and the Constitution. And, it is the reduction of 85% of the world’s population.

In 1992, twenty years ago this summer, Agenda 21/Sustainable Development was unveiled to the world at the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio. (While Agenda 21 was introduced in June, 1992, it was already installed as public policy in communities across the country as early as 1987.)

In his opening remarks at the ceremonies at the Earth Summit, Maurice Strong stated: “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” If this is true, then he and his cohorts must be even more against individual sovereignty. Keep this quote in mind as you read about Agenda 21.

George H.W. Bush was in Rio for the ceremonies and graciously signed on for America so that our Congress did not have to spend the time reviewing the treaty and learning then what dastardly deeds were in store for us — that protecting the environment would be used as the basis for controlling all human activity and redistributing our wealth.

Definitions of Sustainable Development

U.N. definition of Sustainable Development:

“meeting today’s needs without compromising future generations to meet their own needs.”

In actuality, Sustainable Development is not sustainable unless the population actually is reduced by the 85% called for by the globalists. The true purpose of Sustainable Development and all of its policies is the control of all aspects of human life — economic, social and environmental (see 3 Es of Sustainable Development further into article).

Much more to read at:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Marquardt/kathleen103.htm

By Sheriff Jim R. Schwiesow, Ret.
November 12, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Recently eight duly elected and active Oregon and California county sheriffs’ addressed, in a public forum, federal and state intrusions upon the unalienable rights of their citizens and the unconstitutional (illegal) incursions of warrantless state and federal endeavors in their jurisdictions. By their testimony these fine sheriffs’ verbally documented the assault on sovereignty and the abridgement of individual rights by the despotic strives that they have personally witnessed.

Most disturbing was the fact that federal encroachments were aided and abetted by state politicians who were willing to bargain away state sovereignty and the exclusive right to local control in exchange for federal dollars; a disturbing development given that states ought to employ a barrier against unconstitutional federal trespass upon the personal liberties of their people.

If you became aware of this event, via the mass media, friendly reader you were indeed a rare exception as the particulars of the forum had all of the earmarks of being a closely guarded secret by a media that totally eschews any moral obligation to apprise the public of other than sensationally motivated, politically correct, or politically actuated and patronage-directed substance. It is a bread and butter issue with the media why waste precious air-time and tabloid space on trivial matters such as constitutional devastation when there are so many millions of dollars to be garnered through sensationalistic enterprise and by political and corporate patronage.

ONE SWALLOW DOES NOT A SUMMER MAKE

And eight sheriffs do not a consensus make. Think not that these eight ethically inclined and morally sound sheriffs are indicative of the profession of which they are a part, or that they are suggestive of the majority of their counterparts that are spread across the length and breadth of this nation; because they are not.

God bless their selfless souls, I would like to be able to shake their hands and convey to each of them personally my words of thanks and to express my admiration and respect for the courage that enabled them to make a stand in the face of federal and state tyranny.

These eight lonely souls – and the few others of their caliber across the nation – who direct the powers of the office of sheriff to an unremitting and persevering preservation and enforcement of the unalienable and inherent protections of the Constitution are distressingly rare.

A CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC SERVICE

The power of the Office of Sheriff does not emanate from self-possessed privilege, nor is it established by political requisite or based upon legislative agency; the power of the sheriff is of and by the people.

Read more:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jim189.htm