Archive for May 19th, 2010

Exclusive in-depth investigation, part 3–what is ‘government 2.0’?

May 19, 2010

With the development and advancement of the Internet, malevolent forces that have joined together in a big government/big corporation conglomeration have a powerful and effective tool by which to obtain their objectives–ultimate power and huge sums of money.

In Part One of this investigation we discovered that the Obama Administration is preparing to expand the size and scope of government to unprecedented levels.  In Part Two we uncovered a report, issued by the Rand Corporation and commissioned by the U.S. Army and the Administration in Washington, to put into place a new national police force that will have unprecedented powers to enforce the new initiatives of this oppressive regime–Obama’s 4th Reich.

Today we examine how these malevolent forces are presently using the Internet to violate every known principle of liberty as set forth in the Constitution and place each citizen under constant surveillance reminiscent of George Orwell’s nightmare, 1984.

The Internet is tailor-made for totalitarians.  The manner in which the web has been configured, allowing tracking cookies and other such spy-ware, is a tyrant’s dream.  While it can be used for great good, in the wrong hands it can become a tool for government and corporate snoops, spying on ordinary citizens, and then using the information gathered to coerce, intimidate, and corral the herds of the populace into submission.

Some of this, of course, is already being done.  Google and other search engine corporations are known for privacy violations and their reckless attitude toward the rights of citizens.  Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, as we shall see, are also major offenders.

But the key to understanding the present push toward totalitarian government can be found in numerous statements issued by the Obama Administration contending that there is no inherent right to privacy on the Internet, not even with regard to email.

The Canadian government echoed this sentiment when it stated that there is no right to privacy with the Internet, because ‘that’s the way it was designed.’

In conjunction with the notion that there is no inherent right to private communication on the Internet is the push by the Obama  Administration to make having Broadband Internet ‘a basic human right.’

The Left has been advancing such a notion for several years now.  During the 2008 Presidential campaign Democratic candidate John Edwards was asked in a TV interview to describe the things he considers to be ‘inherent, basic human rights.’  At the top of the his list was ‘Internet access,’ while failing to mention a single guaranteed right contained in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.

This is no accident.  By making Broadband Internet access a human right, thus expanding the scope of Internet communication to nearly everyone on the planet, the notion cited above that ‘there is no inherent right to privacy on the Internet’ takes on an entirely different tone.

The moguls of big government and big corporations want everyone communicating on the Internet so that they can monitor the thoughts and activities of citizens, leading to preemptive action if necessary, to control the population.

And that brings us to something called ‘Government 2.0.’ And there is even already a concerted effort to wage war on those who would attempt to oppose it.

The basic thrust of the concept of Gov. 2.0 is to bring together the brightest minds on the planet, along with the moguls of government and corporations, to take both the government and the Internet to an entirely new level, based upon the world-wide web.

One of the investigative sources for this series, who shall remain anonymous, stated the following:

So, a burgeoning, massive database appears to already be forming, beyond the “Evil Empire,” Google.
There’s Web 2.0. Now there’s “Gov 2.0.”
Blogs, photos, or seemingly innocent opinions…recorded as isolated incidents, are to be gathered
from numerous social networks and indeed, across the Internet. The massive power of the ongoing
“collective.” Once gathered & indexed they can be sorted in powerful ways to spur further
investigations and enable its use, years later… “evidence” as ammunition or tools for political coercion.

So, who are some of the main players invited by the Obama White House to be part of the start-up of Government 2.0?

We will name the names in the next segment.

For commentary on the issues of the day, visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere.

Anti-Gun ObamaPet Nominated to the Supreme Court

May 19, 2010

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The next justice of the Supreme Court could well cast the deciding vote on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  And that justice will almost certainly preside, during the next thirty years, over dozens of cases which could very well chip away at the DC v. Heller decision, telling us which gun laws the court views as “constitutional” and which “unconstitutional.”

So it is more than a little interesting that Barack Qbama has reached into his closet of political leftists to bring out Elena Kagan — a woman whose legal views have been shaped by the most extreme socialist voices in Washington.

Kagan doesn’t have a record of judicial opinions. She hasn’t been a judge. So the crafty Obama figures that, without a paper trail, we won’t know of the ways she is moving American jurisprudence to the left until it’s too late.

But Kagan’s views on the Second Amendment are no mystery.  According to columnist James Oliphant, Kagan was part of “a small group of staffers work[ing] behind the scenes to pursue an aggressive policy agenda” during President Bill Clinton’s second term.

Oliphant writes: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., [Kagan] drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles. She also helped prepare a question-and-answer document advocating the campaign-reform legislation then proposed by Sens. Russ Feingold and John McCain.”

Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

President Obama has made it very clear that he expects Kagan’s “powers of persuasion” to make her and Justice Anthony Kennedy the swing votes to uphold his anti-gun ObamaCare legislation.

Kagan’s opinion of the “greatest lawyer” of her lifetime was her former boss — the consistently left-wing Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Bloomberg News reported on May 13 that while working for Justice Marshall, Kagan urged him to vote against hearing a gun owner’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

Kagan wrote that she was “not sympathetic” toward the gun rights claim that was made in Sandidge v. United States — an amazing statement for a woman who is being heralded for supposedly showing a “special solicitude” for the interests of certain groups.

Alas, it seems that gun owners are not a part of those groups for whom she would like to show special concern.

After the Heller case was handed down, Kagan did concede that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.”  But that makes her no different than the talking heads at the Brady Campaign.

Kagan, like the President who nominated her, is an extreme leftist.  According to WeeklyStandard.com (May 6, 2009), she is so far to the left she has lamented that socialism has “never attained the status of a major political force” in our country.

And according to Politico.com (March 20, 2009), she says that foreign law can be used to interpret the U.S. Constitution in “some circumstances.”  Considering that most of the world does not respect the freedoms that are protected in our Second Amendment, this is a bad sign.

While every Senator needs to hear from us, there are seven Republican Senators in particular who need to hear from their constituents.  These seven Republicans voted for Elena Kagan last year when she was confirmed as Obama’s Solicitor General:

* Coburn (R-OK)
* Collins (R-ME)
* Gregg (R-NH)
* Hatch (R-UT)
* Kyl (R-AZ)
* Lugar (R-IN)
* Snowe (R-ME)

ACTION: Contact your Senators and urge them to vote NO on Elena Kagan — and tell him or her that you want Kagan’s nomination filibustered and defeated.  As Kagan could be the deciding vote on the constitutionality of ObamaCare and many other gun cases, it is imperative that Republicans stick together and filibuster every anti-gun nomination from the President.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

Please vote NO on the nomination of Elena Kagan.  The next justice of the Supreme Court will almost certainly preside, during the next thirty years, over dozens of cases which could very well chip away at the DC v. Heller decision, telling us which gun laws the court views as “constitutional” and which “unconstitutional.”

But Kagan’s views on the Second Amendment are no mystery.  Columnist James Oliphant writes: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., [Kagan] drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles.”

She was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

Bloomberg News
reported on May 13 that while working for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan urged him to vote against hearing a gun owner’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated.  Kagan wrote that she was “not sympathetic” toward the gun owner’s claim.

Sure, after the Heller case was handed down, Kagan did concede that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.”  But that makes her no different than the talking heads at the Brady Campaign.

According to WeeklyStandard.com (May 6, 2009), she is so far to the left she has lamented that socialism has “never attained the status of a major political force” in our country.

And according to Politico.com (March 20, 2009), she says that foreign law can be used to interpret the U.S. Constitution in “some circumstances.”  Considering that most of the world does not respect the freedoms that are protected in our Second Amendment, this is a bad sign.

Please vote NO on Elena Kagan and support any filibuster attempt against her.

Sincerely,


GOF Brief in McDonald v Chicago

Speaking of the Supreme Court, the next high-court judicial battle regarding gun rights will be an attempt to rule Chicago’s notorious gun ban as unconstitutional as the one struck down in Washington DC in the landmark Heller case. In essence, will the “individual right” affirmed in Heller apply to every state or just DC?

To view what Gun Owners Foundation is doing to influence this upcoming Supreme Court decision, and/or to make a tax-deductible contribution to further these legal efforts, please see:
http://www.gunowners.com/mcdonald.htm

Matt Mead for Governor, Star Tribunes latest praise spells caution

May 19, 2010

Matt Mead for Governor

From a Casper Star Tribune opinion – Mead could follow in Freudenthal’s footsteps :

“In a crowded GOP gubernatorial primary, Matt Mead is the candidate who most reminds us of the states current Democratic governor, Dave Freudenthal”

It seems that the Casper Star Tribune has named their pick for Governor. I must say if you’re looking for a liberal leaning candidate you might have to agree with them.

As a former U.S. Attorney, Mead would be the most likely candidate to side with the Feds, JUST LIKE Dave Freudenthal.

The Star-Tribune goes on to praise Matt Mead even lifting him up to Freudenthal’s pedestal, on more than one occasion.

The Red Flag – when the most liberal, anti-gun rag in the state virtually endorses Mead, I believe it sends a strong message to the voters, here it comes…

CAUTION! – Matt Mead another Freudenthal for Governor!!!

no rinos
Image A.Bouchard

The Casper Star Tribune also goes on to say –“Mead is well qualified for the job. In addition to serving as a federal prosecutor, where he had to make decisions that he noted involved ‘life, liberty and property’”.

On this point Mead is right, “he was involved with such decisions”, but what Mead and the Trib fail to tell you is, Matt Mead was on the WRONG SIDE of the decisions. Mead actually fought against gun rights and state sovereignty in one flailing swoop.

When I questioned Mead on this, all he had to say was…

“You should see my gun collection”…and …I was just doing my job”.

Neither of which qualifies Mead to be at the helm of the Independent State of Wyoming.

Remember like Mead the Nazi soldiers also “had gun collections” and claimed “they were also just doing their job” while throwing corpses in the trenches.

FACT – When given a choice to protect the state of Wyoming or take the money and fight AGAINST IT, Mead took the money as shown in the case Wyoming vs. BATF. Honestly, the group I hang with would rather die than fight for the gungrabbers.

Despite the truth of the court case which is on the Brady Anti-Gun Campaign web-site, Mead has spoke out saying- “Do not to believe anything on the internet”. Also at events in Sheridan and Cheyenne, Mead stated that “Some blogger is spreading lies”. Mead also said that this blogger (apparently me) wouldn’t meet with him, as if we never spoke with each other. Here’s the rub: it is certainly disingenuous of Mead since we have had two phone conversations about his Venomously Anti-Gun Record.

Further, Meads Campaign Manager Bill Novotny “got in my face” at an event in Cheyenne saying to me – “you must work for someone”, he was apparently attempting to stifle me but, these establishment style tactics are nothing more than a case of “we can’t dispute the message, so let’s kill the messenger”.

More rhetoric comes as if to say Mead isn’t pandering to the Democrats, Novotny said “he hasn’t heard of any Democrats supporting Mead”, really! Everyone else knows except Novotny, Mead’s Campaign Manager?

Again just “POLITICS AS USUAL” coming out of the Mead Campaign.

Is this what Wyoming needs, a Governor that reminds us of Freudenthal? I don’t think so.


Related Articles:

Matt Mead – rejected for governor by Wyoming Gun Owners

Matt Mead for Governor, wolf in sheep’s clothing

Matt Mead, deceptive with so called “rumor control”

You may also like these…

Colin Simpson and Matt Mead, possible early picks for Governor by the Democrats

Colin Simpson’s campaign manager speaks out


Anthony Bouchard is a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights and limited government – he is also the Director of WyGO – Wyoming Gun Owners Association, Wyoming’s Only No-Compromise Gun-Rights Organization.