• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Bill Clinton: Gun Control Push Bringing Back the Tea Party

Bill Clinton: Gun Control Push Bringing Back the Tea Party



When Republicans won historic landslide victories in 1994, it was due in large part to the fact that a ...

When Republicans won historic landslide victories in 1994, it was due in large part to the fact that a
relatively moderate Democrat Party had promoted and passed an “Assault Weapons Ban” (AWB)which
cut across the grain of gun owners of all parties and all walks of life.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 2 2



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Bill Clinton: Gun Control Push Bringing Back the Tea Party Bill Clinton: Gun Control Push Bringing Back the Tea Party Document Transcript

    • Bill Clinton: Gun Control Push BringingBack the Tea PartyAWR Hawkinsammoland.comJanuary 21, 2012When Republicans won historic landslide victories in 1994, it was due in large part to the fact that arelatively moderate Democrat Party had promoted and passed an “Assault Weapons Ban” (AWB)whichcut across the grain of gun owners of all parties and all walks of life.Fast forward to 2013, gun owners of all walks of life exist in even greater numbers, and the DemocratParty is showing them even greater disrespect.And now, radicalized Democrats are pushing a new AWB, which contains bans on many semi-automatic handguns, 20 and 30 round ammunition magazines, private gun sales, and transfer offirearms between family members. Bill Clinton is warning Democrats to stop.Drunk on the power they weld in the Senate and the White House, Democrats have once againunderestimated to the passions of the common man and stand at the threshold of sparking a grassrootsextravaganza that will sweep them out of power in 2014.Speaking to Democrat donors from the business world, Clinton said of gun owners: “A lot of thesepeople live in a world very different from the world lived in by the [politicians] proposing these [guncontrol measures].” He went to intimate that these worlds are increasingly in conflict, and that the guncontrol push could be setting Democrats up for a long fall with a hard landing. Clinton warned that gun owners cannot be “patronized” and that it’s a mistake to “[look] down your nose at them.” As he spoke, it was clear that Clinton thinks Obama may be overplaying his hand, giving birth to a reinvigorated Tea Party movement that is already diminishing votes for Democrats in 2014. In hopes of stopping this momentum shift, Clinton warned that the tactics Obama used to win in southern states like Florida has to be employed now, as “that’s the only way [Democrats] will ever be able to even up votes in the midterms as [issues like guns] come up.”The bottom line: Democrats who know history know that this new gun control push is not going toend well at the polls.
    • Law Would Force Gun Owners to “Surrender”Magazines to PolicePaul Joseph WatsonInfowars.comJanuary 21, 2013New York’s ‘Safe Act’ continues tocause controversyNew York’s Safe Act will mandatethat all gun owners “surrender”magazines that can hold more than10 rounds to law enforcementofficials, according to a fact sheetreleased to accompany the new law.A 4 page fact sheet releasedyesterday on the NYSenate.govwebsite states, “If you own a largecapacity magazine greater than 10round capacity that was agrandfathered magazine as a result ofthe 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban, within a year, you must do one of the following: dispose of it toanother person outside New York State, surrender it to law enforcement officials, or permanentlyalter such to only accept 7 rounds.” (emphasis added)The warning will only increase fears that a widespread gun and ammunition confiscation programcould be in the works. As we highlighted last week, back in December, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomoadmitted that “confiscation could be an option,” when it came to enforcing the new law. However,provisions in the original bill that included confiscation were removed in order to prevent thelegislation from being voted down.Sheriffs across the country have put the Obama administration on notice that they will not carry outgun or ammunition confiscation programs if similar laws are passed locally or nationally. However, nota single Sheriff from New York or other cities with stringent gun control have joined the chorus.Last week, Gloversville Mayor Dayton King warned that laws like the Safe Act could lead to a “Waco-style standoff” in rural areas of America.“Most people are law-abiding citizens and may go ahead and sell those or turn those over, but you’regoing to have a fraction of people that are going to take a stand, and I can just predict a Waco-stylestandoff in some rural area and it’s not going to end well,” Mayor King told Fox 23 News.As Martin Hill points out, people in New York will also “be required to give their social securitynumber and other personal data,” as part of the new law if they own a pistol.“Every 5 years you will need to verify the following information on your pistol permit to the New YorkState Police: name, DOB, gender, race, residential address, social security number, the firearmspossessed, and if you want, your e-mail address. The purpose of the recertification is to updateinformation,” states the document.
    • Thousands of protestersgathered at the Capitolbuilding in Albany, NewYork on Saturday to protestthe Safe Act, which passedNew York’s Assembly on a104 to 43 vote.“This legislation, as itstands currently, would nothave stopped the violentattacks in Newtown,Connecticut or Webster,New York,” saidAssemblyman ChristopherS. Friend, who votedagainst the legislation.“This bill will, however,punish law-abiding citizenswho value their Second Amendment rights, while doing little to address the real problem.”
    • New York’s Psychiatric Police StateJon RappoportInfowars.comJanuary 21, 2013It’s a done deal.Governor Cuomo, along with Democrat and Republican legislators, is ramming through a bill to restrictgun ownership, re-classify weapons in order to ban them—and, in a far-reaching move, createpsychiatrists as cops who must report patients to law-enforcement, in order to keep the patients fromowning a weapon. Psychiatrists must report patients “who could potentially harm themselves orothers.” If such a patient owns a gun, it will be confiscated.This means a comprehensive data base, accessible by law-enforcement personnel and anyone elseinvolved in doing background checks. These “problematic” patients will be kept from buying a newweapon, too. Otherwise, the law would have no teeth.As usual, the devil is in the details. Psychiatrists will err on the side of caution and report manypatients. No shrink wants to blink into television cameras after one of his patients has just shot hisfather.Patients who want to own weapons will lie to psychiatrists about their thoughts and feelings, neveradmitting they’re considering suicide or murder.After such a murder, a psychiatrist will say: “He never said anything about killing anybody. Here, lookat my notes. There’s nothing there.”For this and other reasons, such as the existence of the data base, doctor-patient confidentiality will goout the window.
    • Therefore, the practice of psychiatry, which already minimizes talk therapy and merely dispensesdrugs, will move even further in that direction. Tight-lipped patients, who don’t want to go on a policelist, will seek an office visit with the sole motive of obtaining a drug.Since all the emphasis is now on “mentally ill patients who are prone to violence,” the possibility ofindicting the drugs in violence will recede over the horizon.SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) and other brain drugs do, in fact, cause people to gocrazy and commit violent crimes, including murder. This is an open secret in the psychiatric profession,and the public is becoming more aware of it every day.But it will be swept under the carpet.Under the new law, a psychiatrist can’t be prosecuted for failing to report a patient who later commitsmurder, as long as the psychiatrist “acted in good faith.” The meaning of that phrase is broad enough toautomatically cast blanket exoneration on most shrinks, which closes off the chance a psychiatrist willbe pilloried for prescribing a drug he knows can induce violence in the patient.This New York law will be copied and passed by other states, and in the end, we will see a national database of psychiatric patients.The official attitude will be: anyone who sees a psychiatrist is a potential killer.This will give rise to protests on behalf of “a new underclass”: psychiatric patients. Advocates willarise to take up their cause. Court cases will abound. The whole business will devolve into a completemess.But out of it will come a hands-on partnership between cops and shrinks, who’ll march should toshoulder into their version of a psychiatric police state.Seventy-two hour mandatory holds in psych wards for “observation” will expand. During this period ofincarceration, shrinks will dose inmates hard with drugs, in order to make them more docile, becauseno psych ward wants to be accused of releasing a patient who then goes on to kill people.Drugs to subdue the mind in that way are very powerful. They are called anti-psychotics, or majortranquilizers. As has been shown, they induce tremors, which are signals of motor brain damage.We can expect to see hundreds of thousands more people, perhaps millions, who are damaged,permanently, by these drugs.The motto will become: destroy the patient, before he can destroy others.
    • As the crown on all this, people who have ever professed political ideas outside the mainstream, and soend up in a database of “potential threats to the State,” can be kept from owning a weapon, merely byfinding a way to get them into a psychiatrist’s office, on any pretext. Once there, the psychiatrist canreport them as prone to harming themselves or others, and that will function as a bar to possessing agun.New York has just created a door that swings in both directions. A huge number of people who areseeing psychiatrists can be kept from gun ownership. And people who can see with their eyes what thiscountry has turned into can be turned, on cooked-up technicalities, into psychiatric patients. Once in thesystem, they, too, can be denied all 2nd Amendment rights.It will undoubtedly be called “The 2nd Amendment Exclusion.”Coming to your neighborhood.Jon Rappoport is the author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was acandidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a PulitzerPrize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine,and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers andmagazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health,logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails atwww.nomorefakenews.com
    • Put Not Your Trust In FederalizedSheriffsWilliam N. GriggFreedomInOurTime.blogspot.comJanuary 21, 2013He sold his soul at a steep discount: Richard Rich (l.) displays the badge he earnedthrough collaboration.“You look depressed.”“I was lamenting. I’ve lost my innocence.”“You lost that some time ago. If you’ve only just noticed, it can’t have been very important to you.”Exchange between Thomas Cromwell — the Machiavellian Lord Chancellor of England — andRichard Rich, an ambitious functionary who had sold his soul in a buyer’s market, from A Man for AllSeasons.“I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen of Smith County,” insisted Sheriff LarrySmith. The sheriff wants his constituents to believethat he would refuse to participate in a federallymandated gun grab, or permit one to be carried outby federal officials within his jurisdiction. Yet tendays before Smith offered that assurance, hisoffice had taken part in an early-morning SWATrampage throughout East Texas in which 73warrants were served as part of the federalgovernment’s patently unconstitutional war ondrugs.During a December 2011 campaign debate, Smithsaid that he wanted to “invest more resources” –that is, redirect wealth plundered from theproductive – into a “Drug Task Force,” and
    • insisted that under his administration the Sheriff’s Office would embrace a “Task Force mentality” indealing with law enforcement issues.The problem with the mindset Sheriff Smith was extoling should become obvious once it’s understoodthat the German term for “task force” is einsatzgruppe. By their actions many multi-jurisdictional taskforces in contemporary America are increasingly faithful to their historic pedigree.Smith’s devotion to narcotics task forces might be the residue of his early law enforcement career,which included two years as a special agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration – an agency thatcould be considered the mentally deficient stepchild of the CIA, which is the world’s largest narcoticssyndicate. Twenty years ago, an ATF einsatzgruppe launched a murderous raid against an isolated religious group at Mt. Carmel outside Waco. The warrant they were enforcing was clotted with falsehoods. The investigation that produced it was haphazard. Its target, Vernon Howell — aka David Koresh — was suspected of trivial violations of federal firearms regulations, and had indicated his eagerness to cooperate with ATF investigators to clear the record. If an arrest were to be carried out – and one was neither necessary, nor justified – it could have been performed during one of Koresh’s frequent solitary jogging expeditions, or one of hisroutine visits to town. Instead, the ATF – seeking a dramatic, high-profile enforcement action togenerate headlines for the scandal-plagued agency – staged a paramilitary assault on the religioussanctuary. They did so even though the raiders had lost the element of surprise, and when they arrivedat Mt. Carmel they opened fire on the building despite the fact that an unarmed Koresh had confrontedthe stormtroopers with his hands up, pleading for them not to shoot.Four ATF agents were killed during that Sunday morning raid. Their deaths were utterly unnecessary,and entirely well-deserved: They were attempting to murder innocent people, and the would-be victimsacted within their rights in using deadly force to defend their homes against that assault. The criminalclique that had sent the ATF to attack the Davidians sent a larger contingent to lay siege to theirresidence, and eventually arranged for the holocaust that annihilated 76 people, including seventeensmall children.Like most gun owners in Eastern Texas, Smith canremember where he was the morning of April 19, 1993,when the Mt. Carmel refuge went up in flames. He was onthe scene as an agent of the ATF, which he had joined in1989. Smith believes that the initial ATF raid on theDavidians was justified, and that the entire operation was atleast a partial success. It’s doubtful that his assessment isshared by many gun owners in his jurisdiction.Larry Smith is among dozens of sheriffs who have gone onrecord in opposition to the Obama administration’s impending firearms restrictions. All of them havepromised to intervene to protect their counties from federal tyranny. And all of them are activecollaborators in the same.
    • Kieran Donahue was sworn in as the new Sheriff of Canyon County, Idaho on January 14. Three days later he joined the ranks of “refusenik sheriffs” by promising not to implement any federal gun policy at odds with his responsibility to “uphold the Constitution.” Unfortunately, that resolute statement of principled defiance was fatally undermined when Donahue – in the same press conference — expressed his willingness to continue his office’s collaboration in the federal “war on drugs” and displayed his indecent eagerness to accept new federal subsidies to deploy deputies to guard public schools as soon as the funds are available. Wendy Olson, the official assigned by the regime to act asthe federal regime’s legal sub-commissarina for Idaho, has said that her office will fully comply withnew federal firearms mandates. She pointedly noted that the Canyon County Sheriff’s Office – likemost others in the country – has officers who are cross-deputized to serve on federal einsatzgruppen.During last year’s campaign the future sheriff proudly boasted of his work as an “undercover officer”with the FBI-supervised METRO Violent Crime and Gang Task Force.“In these changing and difficult economic times it is a great benefit to have all law enforcementagencies working together in order to share costs and resources,” insisted Donahue. Those words willalmost certainly come back to haunt Canyon County gun owners when – not “if” – the Feds make itclear that they are willing to “share resources” only with sheriff’s offices who are on board with thegun grab.Donahue insisted on playing coy about the fact thathe’s for sale. Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mimswas shameless. She told the local ABC affiliate thatwhile she will not enforce unconstitutional gun laws,she also “backs the added funding for local lawenforcement, especially in schools.”Her office has a huge budget, a small but significantportion of which is derived from proceeds seizedthrough a federally supervised “asset forfeiture”program.In 2009, Mims was the “local” face that was pastedonto the Obama administration’s “Operation Save Our Sierra” marijuana crack-down, which was personally supervised by federal Drug War Commissar Gil Kerlikowske. This campaign involved 300 personnel from local, state, and federal agencies – including military pilots that flew Black Hawk helicopters over targeted areas. The manpower and hardware were deployed in a mission best described as militarized horticulture. It’s quite easy to see how the personnel and assets used against “illegal” plants could be employed to confiscate “illegal” firearms in the future.
    • A few years ago, when Mims and her department faced a $4 million budget deficit, the Fresno Countycommission had to scrounge up $10.6 million in plundered funds to prevent layoffs in the Sheriff’sOffice. That money most likely won’t be available next time Sheriff Mims wants to avoid handing pinkslips to her deputies. It’s quite easy to imagine a scenario in which her federal supervisors willintroduce her to a new variety of alchemy — converting confiscated “illegal” firearms into federalsubsidies.Four sheriffs in Oregon have announced their opposition to the renewed campaign to disarm citizens.Among them is Sheriff Brian Wolfe of Malheur County (who, in the interests of full disclosure, is achildhood friend). In a letter to Vice President Biden, Sheriff Wolfe declared: “I believe that theConstitution stands above all laws and executive orders of this Country. I want to be very clear that noone employed on our team at the Malheur County Sheriff’s Office will enforce or support any laws orexecutive orders that are not consistent with the Constitution of this great land.”If only those inspiring words were consonantwith Sheriff Wolfe’s actions. Like every othersheriff in the country, Brian Wolfe violates theConstitution on a routine basis.Last August, the Malheur County Sheriff’sDepartment casually announced that it hadfound several small marijuana gardens duringa two-week aerial surveillance operationconducted with the help of the NationalGuard.Acting as the department’s official stenographer, the Argus Observer newspaper reported that SheriffBrian Wolfe will now “contact property owners and acquire search warrants if needed.” Warrantswould not be necessary, Wolfe observed, if the property owners consented to the searches. The Sheriffpointed out that the plants may be part of legal medicinal marijuana operations, or could have beenplanted without the owner’s knowledge or consent. At this point an actual journalist would have asked Wolfe why his office was conducting warrantless aerial searches of private property without probable cause. After all, the Sheriff has admitted that none of the property owners was a criminal suspect. The Malheur County Sheriff’s Department spends part of each summer arresting marijuana plants – that is, dispatching its SWAT team to barren locations in rural Oregon to clear out patches of marijuana. Sheriff Wolfe insists this is necessary to “protect the public,” which is more acutely threatened by the unconstitutional, paramilitary operations of his own department. Wolfe’s department spends a great deal of time seizing contraband and prosecuting people who possess it. That experience will prove quite useful when – once again, not “if” – the Feds decide to treat legally owned firearms as illicit contraband.
    • There isn’t a single county sheriff’s office in the country that hasn’t compromised itself by acceptingfederal funds, and collaborating in unconstitutional federal enforcement operations. They’ve long sincelost their innocence, but are pretending that they’ve just noticed that fact.Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Feds to prohibit the consumption of narcotics or anyother substance. Indeed, last time the Feds undertook a campaign of national prohibition, they had tochange the Constitution in order to do so. Unless they’re investigating charges of treason orcounterfeiting, sheriffs should not collaborate with the Feds – and in such circumstances the Fedsthemselves should be treated as the primary suspects.If you take the nickel, you take the noose. If a sheriff’s office receives so much as a farthing of federalfunding, it will be subject to federal mandates. That principle was underscored about seven years ago inthe case of Josh Wolf, a 24-year-old video blogger imprisoned for refusing to turn over a portion offootage he shot of tumultuous street protests during the G-8 summit in San Francisco.The Feds claim that Wolf, who spent two-thirds of a year in prison on civil contemptcharges, possessed footage of a police carbeing set on fire. Wolf maintained that hedidn’t have the material the Feds were after,and that under California’s very liberaljournalist shield law, he wasn’t required toturn over his confidential, unpublishedmaterial. A Federal District Court Judgeignored Wolf’s argument and incarcerated himin a detention center in Dublin, California forcontempt.The alleged assault on a San Francisco police car would be a municipal matter, and the Californiashield law is obviously a question of state law. Why was this dealt with in a federal court?As Time magazine pointed out: “The Feds say they have jurisdiction over the case because the policecar is partly U.S. government property since the SFPD receives federal anti-terrorism money.”Note well that the Feds didn’t claim that the regime paid for the specific cars that were reportedlydestroyed, only that the police department had been subsumed into the federal law enforcementapparatus because it had received some quantity of Homeland Security funding.What this means, in principle, is that any police agency that receives a dime of federal HomelandSecurity money is effectively an appendage of the Department of Homeland Security (or, to use theappropriate German expression, the Heimatsicherheitsdienst).This is obviously true of municipal police departments, which are innately illegitimate paramilitary bodies in no way accountable to the public they supposedly serve. We’re invited to believe that local elected sheriffs are different – at least where the incipient gun grab is concerned. The ranks of the refuseniks will continue to expand, and they will feed gun owners a steady diet of bold talk about their willingness to interpose on behalf of
    • their constituents if the Feds come for their guns. Some of them may be sincerely committed to do so.But until they stop actively collaborating in existing federal abuses, why should we assume they wouldbe willing to take the side of the public against the Feds when the Regime decides to come for ourguns?By Way of Illustration…… we see the following act of felonious assault and kidnapping by Citrus County, Florida DeputySheriff Andy Cox, who threatens to murder innocent, law-abiding gun owner. It took less than twoseconds for this this cretinous, foul-mouthed tax-feeder to drop the pose of superficial geniality. Hisfirst instinct, on learning that this harmless man was armed, was to threaten to murder him, because hehad been indoctrinated in the belief that Mundanes simply cannot be permitted to bear arms.When assessing the credibility of “constitutional sheriffs” as protectors of the right to bear arms, bearin mind that sheriffs are politicians and administrators; the patrol officers in their departments arepeople like Andy Cox.Put Not Your Trust In Federalized Sheriffs video belowhttp://www.infowars.com/put-not-your-trust-in-federalized-sheriffs/Video: Big Bend Police State: VisitorsNot Welcome!Alex JonesInfowars.comJanuary 20, 2013Every time I go to a national park the nannystate antics only get wilder. Every park rangerI talked to had a huge attitude, in fact thisreport only covers some of what we saw. Ourfounders were right, keep government on ashort leash or they will put you on one.Big Bend Police State: Visitors Not Welcome!http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y0QyNcsj-9kAlex Jones On The Mountain: Freedom Workshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Dw6xcV8uNZMhttp://www.infowars.com/