hey looky ,looky D. Fruckenstein child of ... 
Opinion
By Sergey Baranov
When I heard first about the Washington
Navy Yard shooting which happened on Monday, I registered two thoughts
in my head in a blink of an eye. First, of course, was the question of
whether that was another false flag attack, intended to strip the
American people of their second amendment while blaming gun violence on
their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and second I thought;
how long will it take before Senator Feinstein will make an attempt to revive the gun law debate.
Just as I thought, it wasn’t too long before her words on the matter were publicly heard: “Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country,” she said. “We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”
Pondering over her statements, I was thinking about countless lives loss in illegal, fraudulent wars like Iraq. It was just weeks ago when Senator Feinstein showed her support for another invasion in Syria to support Al Qaida terrorists to overthrow Assad’s regime. She claimed that the American people are against the war on Syria because they don’t know what she does (1). Well, regardless of her claim to know more, the American people knows just enough to vote against the war, while being well informed by the alternative media which played a major role in putting WW3 on hold.
Who else would support war on Syria, knowingly supporting coldblooded extremists whose horrendous atrocities goes beyond the definition of violence? I got sick to my stomach while choosing a few of those scenes for my article written last week. Use your discretion for viewing. It is extremely graphic and sickening (2)
So I wonder why senator Feinstein didn’t express concern over the loss of American lives in the war zones, areas designated as such by the corporate interest, using patriotism as a motive to send young people to die for cheap oil and arm sales, while forcing an independent nation into the central banking system. (3)
Why during the gun debate have we never hear an expression of reason and logic, let alone mention about the Law of the Land, which is the Constitution?
A question is rising as to how disarming law-abiding citizens will prevent gun violence in America if the gun violence is not committed by law-abiding citizens to begin with? It is usually done by the criminals who don’t buy a gun in the gun shop in the first place. Criminals buy guns on the black market, which allows them to commit gun crimes without being tracked. Any shot made from a legally purchased firearm is easily tracked to its owner. So what good will it do to disarm those who would not do harm to others, unless it would be a matter of self-defense, while giving criminals a green light to commit more crimes, knowing that law-abiding citizens are now defenseless? It is tragic and yet not surprising that this simple and logical argument is not a part of judicial hearings.
It is erroneous to think that stripping the population of legally purchased firearms will decrease the level of violent crimes. For example, let’s look at Chicago, a city with the toughest gun laws in the nation, is three times as deadly as NYC and twice as violent as Los Angeles. (4) Does it not show that those gun free zones, generously designated for the convenience of the criminals, are the most dangerous places to be and the most open for violence?
But here I would like to address something else which has struck me even more. I find it very disturbing to see an open attack on the First Amendment right which clearly states that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’’
You see, if the gun debate can be twisted and spun in order to push for the gun ban, building the case on the lethality of the firearms, it would be immeasurably harder to ban words, using same argument. Nevertheless an attempt to silence free speech is made once again.
In her speech Senator Feinstein gives thanks to senator Schumer, who previously voted YES on the illegal NDAA Act, ( 5) signed by president Obama on December 31, 2011, which allows the Government to indefinitely detain Americans without the right to due process, violating both the 5th and 6th amendment to the Constitution:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation’’
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense’’( 6)
Following her speech, senator Feinstein made an attempt to redefine journalism, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, while referring to first amendment RIGHT as to a privilege.
By definition a privilege is a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances as opposed to the RIGHT, which is not granted by a government body but rather inherent by birth. Thus no one can legally suppress our right to free speech, unless done by force, in which case it would be considered criminal action.
Furthermore, these natural birth rights are not limited to one nation. Rather they are Universal and applicable to all people on Earth. And as the people begin to wake up and question what it means to be human, those rights will be claimed and tyranny overthrown.
One doesn’t need to be a constitutional lawyer to realize that an attempt to exercise the authority over the people in order to suppress their constitutional rights simply mean disregard to the Law, disrespect to the people and a move toward totalitarianism. This is why the Founding Fathers embedded these rights into the U.S. Constitution in order to protect the people from government tyranny. When crafted, they were ratified as the Bill of Rights, not as a list of privileges.
Sources:
[1 ] Dianne Feinstein: American people against attacking Syria because they don’t know what I know – Headline Clicker
[2] October surprise and the looming Obamagedon – Intellihub
[3] All wars are bankers wars – What Really Happened
[4] Chicago is three times as deadly as NYC and twice as violent as LA - Chicago Muckrackers
[5] Senator Chuck Schumer Says Questioning NDAA is “Biased” – Youtube
[6] Bill of Rights Transcript – Archive
Amerika – from Freedom to Fascism in Just a Decade
Following Navy Yard shooting tyrants in America immediately attack gun rights and free speech
WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 06: U.S. Sen.
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (C) talks to members of the media after a
members-only closed briefing on Syria for the U.S. Senate and the House
of Representatives September 6, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
U.S. President Barack Obama will address the American people on Syria
from the White House on Tuesday. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
By Sergey Baranov
Intellihub.com
September 19, 2013
When I heard first about the Washington
Navy Yard shooting which happened on Monday, I registered two thoughts
in my head in a blink of an eye. First, of course, was the question of
whether that was another false flag attack, intended to strip the
American people of their second amendment while blaming gun violence on
their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and second I thought;
how long will it take before Senator Feinstein will make an attempt to revive the gun law debate.Just as I thought, it wasn’t too long before her words on the matter were publicly heard: “Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country,” she said. “We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”
Pondering over her statements, I was thinking about countless lives loss in illegal, fraudulent wars like Iraq. It was just weeks ago when Senator Feinstein showed her support for another invasion in Syria to support Al Qaida terrorists to overthrow Assad’s regime. She claimed that the American people are against the war on Syria because they don’t know what she does (1). Well, regardless of her claim to know more, the American people knows just enough to vote against the war, while being well informed by the alternative media which played a major role in putting WW3 on hold.
Who else would support war on Syria, knowingly supporting coldblooded extremists whose horrendous atrocities goes beyond the definition of violence? I got sick to my stomach while choosing a few of those scenes for my article written last week. Use your discretion for viewing. It is extremely graphic and sickening (2)
So I wonder why senator Feinstein didn’t express concern over the loss of American lives in the war zones, areas designated as such by the corporate interest, using patriotism as a motive to send young people to die for cheap oil and arm sales, while forcing an independent nation into the central banking system. (3)
Why during the gun debate have we never hear an expression of reason and logic, let alone mention about the Law of the Land, which is the Constitution?
A question is rising as to how disarming law-abiding citizens will prevent gun violence in America if the gun violence is not committed by law-abiding citizens to begin with? It is usually done by the criminals who don’t buy a gun in the gun shop in the first place. Criminals buy guns on the black market, which allows them to commit gun crimes without being tracked. Any shot made from a legally purchased firearm is easily tracked to its owner. So what good will it do to disarm those who would not do harm to others, unless it would be a matter of self-defense, while giving criminals a green light to commit more crimes, knowing that law-abiding citizens are now defenseless? It is tragic and yet not surprising that this simple and logical argument is not a part of judicial hearings.
It is erroneous to think that stripping the population of legally purchased firearms will decrease the level of violent crimes. For example, let’s look at Chicago, a city with the toughest gun laws in the nation, is three times as deadly as NYC and twice as violent as Los Angeles. (4) Does it not show that those gun free zones, generously designated for the convenience of the criminals, are the most dangerous places to be and the most open for violence?
But here I would like to address something else which has struck me even more. I find it very disturbing to see an open attack on the First Amendment right which clearly states that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’’
You see, if the gun debate can be twisted and spun in order to push for the gun ban, building the case on the lethality of the firearms, it would be immeasurably harder to ban words, using same argument. Nevertheless an attempt to silence free speech is made once again.
In her speech Senator Feinstein gives thanks to senator Schumer, who previously voted YES on the illegal NDAA Act, ( 5) signed by president Obama on December 31, 2011, which allows the Government to indefinitely detain Americans without the right to due process, violating both the 5th and 6th amendment to the Constitution:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation’’
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense’’( 6)
Following her speech, senator Feinstein made an attempt to redefine journalism, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, while referring to first amendment RIGHT as to a privilege.
By definition a privilege is a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances as opposed to the RIGHT, which is not granted by a government body but rather inherent by birth. Thus no one can legally suppress our right to free speech, unless done by force, in which case it would be considered criminal action.
Furthermore, these natural birth rights are not limited to one nation. Rather they are Universal and applicable to all people on Earth. And as the people begin to wake up and question what it means to be human, those rights will be claimed and tyranny overthrown.
One doesn’t need to be a constitutional lawyer to realize that an attempt to exercise the authority over the people in order to suppress their constitutional rights simply mean disregard to the Law, disrespect to the people and a move toward totalitarianism. This is why the Founding Fathers embedded these rights into the U.S. Constitution in order to protect the people from government tyranny. When crafted, they were ratified as the Bill of Rights, not as a list of privileges.
Sources:
[1 ] Dianne Feinstein: American people against attacking Syria because they don’t know what I know – Headline Clicker
[2] October surprise and the looming Obamagedon – Intellihub
[3] All wars are bankers wars – What Really Happened
[4] Chicago is three times as deadly as NYC and twice as violent as LA - Chicago Muckrackers
[5] Senator Chuck Schumer Says Questioning NDAA is “Biased” – Youtube
[6] Bill of Rights Transcript – Archive
No comments:
Post a Comment