The real goal is to restrict gun ownership by conservatives?

Attorney General Lynch was on five network shows on Sunday. The last time this happened was Susan Rice spinning the Benghazi video lie. So indeed, what the regime has in mind is editing out the reality of the 9-11 calls. Any mention that the terrible killing of 49 people was an Islamic terrorist. The office of propaganda is in full swing to focus on guns, guns and guns. We have been set up earlier with stories that the right is as dangerous, thus when the government comes knocking at your door it will be more than Islamic terrorists they will be after. First an earlier post, then at the end I will throw in a couple of earlier posts as examples.

West Point Think Tank warns of dangerous “Conservatives”

The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.” And just who are these “Violent Far-Right” folks?

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.

“The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

What will put you on the list:

1. Posting things the government doesn’t like onto social media.

Tweeting and posting to Facebook could contribute to getting oneself landed on the no-fly list. According to the 2013 document:

“[P]ostings on social media sites… should not be discounted merely because of the manner in which it was received.”

As the Huffington Post notes, the document contains language to protect Americans “engaging solely in constitutionally protected activities,” meaning that one can freely express themselves, pending no other suspicions.

2. Someone thinks that you are a terrorist — or maybe just does not like you.

If a fellow American so chooses, that individual can submit names they deem to be suspicious, which the federal government must consider until they can determine the legitimacy of the tipster.

3. The government made a mistake.

The federal government is not perfect, and can often make mistakes. Sometimes, those mistakes have resulted in lawsuits.

4. You have the same name as a potential terrorist.

5. Traveling the globe.

If an American likes to travel to exotic locations, they too can be placed on the no-fly list. Areas of the planet that are particularly rife with terrorist activities set off red flags, which can complicate one’s good standing in air travel.

While the average American doesn’t travel to terrorist-heavy countries, many immigrants wish to visit family members. In addition, some professions require overseas travel to dangerous parts of the world, such as journalists and government contractors.

More at Independent Journal

Posting that may be of interest:

Obama to go after guns of those on Social Security disability

The Social Security Administration has announced the details of a new rule that would bar many receiving federal disability payments from owning firearms.

“The Social Security Administration’s proposal doesn’t require an individual to be adjudicated mentally defective or to pose a risk to himself or others,” Lars Dalesiede, a NRA spokesman, said. “Instead they are set to strip away your constitutional rights just because you meet a set of criteria established by a group of faceless bureaucrats you’ll never meet. That puts thousands of Americans in the terrible position of choosing whether to pay their bills or give up their constitutional rights.”

The group called the president’s push for the new rule “embarrassing and shameful.”

Will taking an anxiety pill let Obama take your guns?

The Obama administration quietly released a press statement,

The Department of Justice is proposing to change rules for the federal background check system to clarify who under U.S. law is prohibited from possessing a firearm because of mental health problems.

…..confirming President Obama will be signing two new executive actions defining who can buy a gun based on mental health issues.

Earlier this year, the State of New York used similar mental health regulations to classify anxiety as a mental health issue. Because of that, anyone who has ever reported feeling anxious could be at risk of losing their 2nd amendment rights. In fact, there are already a number of cases making their way through the court system in New York, where people actually lost their rights because they were prescribed anti-anxiety medications.

Since almost 25% of the population now takes anti-anxiety / depression medications, almost a quarter of the country could be at risk of being labeled mentally unfit to own a firearm, if these same policies take hold at a federal level.

They’ve already started going after Vets with these regulations.

Advertisements

Will taking an anxiety pill let Obama take your guns?

Strange isn’t it? I posted the intent to limit our guns the first time back exactly two years ago. Obama has never been shy at telegraphing what he has in mind regarding destroying our rights. In return, we as American voters have done our best to install a defense via the GOP. First the Tea Party develops, then we take the House, the Senate, and the moribund Grand Old Party does nothing but join the Democrats in our demise. Keep in mind, Obama said his “orders” would be coming out over the next couple of weeks. He is not done with us yet.

Recall New York takes guns away from 34,500 without due process
Here (2014).

But this little number may be starting us on the worst of it. Why did he take so long in moving forward? That is the question.

Obama to tighten Gun Control for those who ever took an anxiety pill? 

We saw this freight train coming now didn’t we? So now Eric Holder and the DOJ will comb our prescription plans which they will secure from the Insurance company no doubt, and put everyone on the watch list who ever took a medication for a non physical condition. You betcha. Which is estimated to be about 25 percent of the population.

The Obama administration quietly released a press statement,

The Department of Justice is proposing to change rules for the federal background check system to clarify who under U.S. law is prohibited from possessing a firearm because of mental health problems.

…..confirming President Obama will be signing two new executive actions defining who can buy a gun based on mental health issues.

Earlier this year, the State of New York used similar mental health regulations to classify anxiety as a mental health issue. Because of that, anyone who has ever reported feeling anxious could be at risk of losing their 2nd amendment rights. In fact, there are already a number of cases making their way through the court system in New York, where people actually lost their rights because they were prescribed anti-anxiety medications.

Since almost 25% of the population now takes anti-anxiety / depression medications, almost a quarter of the country could be at risk of being labeled mentally unfit to own a firearm, if these same policies take hold at a federal level.

They’ve already started going after Vets with these regulations.

The restrictions will try to limit who can buy a gun, based on past mental health issues. The new mental health restrictions, which are being enforced as regulations through the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, will allow the government to get around certain privacy laws so they can access your private medical records. It also allows them to yet again sidestep congress.

One of regulations allows the feds to access your private medical records to determine your “mental stability” in relation to owning a firearm. If you are found to be mentally unstable, the Justice Department can then deny your right to own a firearm.  But the problem really comes from who’s defining what “mentally unstable” actually means.

More and  H/T: goes to Off Grid Survival

Hitler

New York takes guns away from 34,500 without due process

Why should this little reported story concern us? Once again it is about Due Process. Yes, that nasty part of the Constitution that Progressives find so annoying in implementing their agenda. Should guns be kept away from the mentally ill? The standard up to now has been someone who has been committed involuntarily to a mental institution and is a danger to himself or others. Now, all we need is to have someone report you and you can lose your Second Amendment rights with no way out. It is the usual slippery slope that we begin. Hot air has the full screed, but this will get you started.

The NY Times has now released details of a database kept by Empire State law enforcement of people who have had their Second Amendment rights terminated on the basis of being “mentally unstable.” The number of people in this database – created as a result of the odious New York SAFE Act – has swollen in a little over a year to more than 34,000 names.

For the vast majority of the people on this huge list, they have never had a day in court to challenge their accusers as to their fitness to exercise their Second Amendment rights, nor have they been adjudicated as being truly dangerous. In New York you can show up on this list and lose your rights simply because some anonymous “medical professional” (who doesn’t even have to be a doctor) has reported you. A newly created database of New Yorkers deemed too mentally unstable to carry firearms has grown to roughly 34,500 names, a previously undisclosed figure that has raised concerns among some mental health advocates that too many people have been categorized as dangerous.

The database, established in the aftermath of the mass shooting in 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and maintained by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, is the result of the Safe Act. It is an expansive package of gun control measures pushed through by the administration of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. The law, better known for its ban on assault weapons, compels licensed mental health professionals in New York to report to the authorities any patient “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

This should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Andrew Cuomo and the New York Democrat party. Efforts to get this blatantly unconstitutional law overturned in the courts have thus far failed, but this revelation should add new fuel to the fire and inspire people to redouble their efforts.

More over at Hot Air

Update: This may be of interest: Obama to tighten Gun Control for those who ever took an anxiety pill? January 6, 2014

Obama to tighten Gun Control for those who ever took an anxiety pill?

We saw this freight train coming now didn’t we? So now Eric Holder and the DOJ will comb our prescription plans which they will secure from the Insurance company no doubt, and put everyone on the watch list who ever took a medication for a non physical condition. You betcha. Which is estimated to be about 25 percent of the population,

The Obama administration quietly released a press statement,

The Department of Justice is proposing to change rules for the federal background check system to clarify who under U.S. law is prohibited from possessing a firearm because of mental health problems.

…..confirming President Obama will be signing two new executive actions defining who can buy a gun based on mental health issues.

Earlier this year, the State of New York used similar mental health regulations to classify anxiety as a mental health issue. Because of that, anyone who has ever reported feeling anxious could be at risk of losing their 2nd amendment rights. In fact, there are already a number of cases making their way through the court system in New York, where people actually lost their rights because they were prescribed anti-anxiety medications.

Since almost 25% of the population now takes anti-anxiety / depression medications, almost a quarter of the country could be at risk of being labeled mentally unfit to own a firearm, if these same policies take hold at a federal level.

They’ve already started going after Vets with these regulations.

The restrictions will try to limit who can buy a gun, based on past mental health issues. The new mental health restrictions, which are being enforced as regulations through the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, will allow the government to get around certain privacy laws so they can access your private medical records. It also allows them to yet again sidestep congress.

One of regulations allows the feds to access your private medical records to determine your “mental stability” in relation to owning a firearm. If you are found to be mentally unstable, the Justice Department can then deny your right to own a firearm.  But the problem really comes from who’s defining what “mentally unstable” actually means.

More and  H/T: goes to Off Grid Survival

Bloomberg to restrict Pain Killers at Hospitals

While laying fallow these many days with who knows what illness, I looked forward to my returning debut as a blogger, healthy enough to be able to find some news that may have gone under the radar. So here we go. A story that sums up all that we are fighting for. The government loses its senses, and morphs into a dictatorship. Here is a prime example why we must not allow, cannot allow any form of restriction on our guns, and Ammo. Yes Ammo. Let me get to the point. If a non-physician can dictate the amount of pain medication one can receive, just think what we have in store for gun control, Obamacare, any of our freedoms. So I give you Mr. Bloomberg, who heralded the banished Big Gulp, now moving on to pain medication.

“The city hospitals we control,” he said Friday in
response to critics, “so … we’re going to do it and we’re urging all of
the other hospitals to do it, voluntary guidelines. Somebody
said, oh, somebody wrote, ‘Oh then maybe there won’t be enough
painkillers for the poor who use the emergency rooms as their primary
care doctor.’

According to Bloomberg, the over prescribing of
painkillers has led to a rise in violent crimes as well, as no-goods
have been hanging around pharmacies to ambush patients.

“You see there’s a lot more hold-ups of pharmacies, people getting held up as
they walk out of pharmacies. What are they all about? They’re not trying
to steal your shaving cream or toothpaste at the point of a gun. They
want these drugs.”

Of course, the city could allow people to carry
guns to defend themselves, but that would be too easy and would allow
people to be responsible for themselves.

Much better to ban medicine. Besides, where’s the fun of electing a liberal mayor if you
can’t leave sick people writhing in agony? Soda Head

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a total control freak. NYT reports:

Some of the most common and most powerful prescription painkillers on the market will be restricted sharply in the emergency rooms at New York City’s 11 public hospitals, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Thursday in an effort to crack down on what he called a citywide and national epidemic of prescription drug abuse.

Bunkerville: God, Guns, Guts Comrades

British Health System kills 130,000 Elderly people a year

A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal recommends dehydrating dementia patients to death to save money.

The revelations are not new, as NHS has long been a focus of criticism from pro-life advocates for euthanasia and rationing medical care or basic needs like food and water.

A May 2011 story in the Daily Mail showed how patients were being starved and dehydrated to death.

Anyone still wondering if we are going to have Death Panels? If anyone thinks that a dehydration and food denied death is a pleasant one, think again. Any life that is denied food and water suffers. Under the guise of doing no harm, they might just as well shoot old folks by firing squad. That is what I suggest if they wish to carry out these untimely deaths. First they will say the patients are demented. After them, they come for us. See, it keeps getting easier, the call to do it, is not as difficult.

Pullicino admitted patients are too quickly put on the pathway who need basic medical treatment and have long lifespans ahead of them. He said he personally intervened to take a patient off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated and told the paper it is “palpably false” that all patients subjected to euthanasia have a grim medical prognosis.

In the example he revealed a 71-year-old who was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia and epilepsy was put on the LCP by a covering doctor on a weekend shift.

Professor Pullicino said he had returned to work after a weekend to find the patient unresponsive and his family upset because they had not agreed to place him on the LCP.

‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant resistance,’ he said.

‘His seizures came under control and four weeks later he was discharged home to his family,’ he said.

Lifesite News reported:

The courts should not interfere with doctors who want to dehydrate to death incapacitated patients who are a drain on scarce financial resources, according to an editorial in this week’s edition of the prestigious British Medical Journal.

Raanan Gillon, emeritus professor of medical ethics and former chairman of the Institute of Medical Ethics governing body, wrote that a ruling last year by the High Court against dehydrating an incapacitated patient to death was “profoundly disturbing” because it took the life and death decision-making power out of the hands of doctors and required that the principle of the “sanctity of life” take precedence over other considerations. More from Thoughts from a Conservative Mom

H/T: Gateway Pundit

%d bloggers like this: