Infowars.com
August 19, 2010

Join Austin’s fight to get added fluoride out of the water. Call city council today:

Mayor Lee Leffingwell: 974-2250
Mayor Pro Tem Member Mike Martinez: 974-2264
Council Member Chris Riley: 974-2260
Council Member Randi Shade: 974-2255
Council Member Laura Morrison: 974-2258
Council Member Bill Spelman: 974-2256
Council Member Sheryl Cole: 974-2266

Also visit:

www.fluoridefreeaustin.org
www.wearechangeaustin.org
www.theaustinfreepress.com
www.tagtexas.org

Music: Toadies Backslider

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 24, 2010

The United States is under attack by narco terrorists invading from the failed state of Mexico and Obama and the federal government are doing nothing about it.

	Los Zetas crossed the border near Laredo, Texas, and reportedly seized two ranches in the area indicated by the orange square above.

In June, the Mexican drug mafia forced the closure of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona. Authorities in Arizona admit that criminals now control a drug and human smuggling corridor that stretches from the border into metro Phoenix. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu explained in June that the Mexican Mafia controls three counties in his state.

Now drug smugglers are repeating the pattern in Texas.

On Saturday, the Cypress Times, an online newspaper in Cypress, Texas, reported that the murderous Los Zetas has crossed into the United States and taken over at least two ranches in the Laredo, Texas area. The owners of the farms have evacuated and were not harmed.

“I can personally vouch that this info came in late last night from a reliable police source inside the Laredo PD,” Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, told the online newspaper. “There is currently a standoff between the unknown size Zeta forces and U.S. Border Patrol and local law enforcement on two ranches on our side of the Rio Grande.”

Kimberly Dvorak, writing for the Albuquerque Examiner, reports that two sources inside the Laredo Police Department have confirmed the incident. “We consider this an act of war,” said one police officer on the ground near the scene. There is a news blackout of this incident at this time and the sources inside Laredo PD spoke on the condition of anonymity, writes Dvorak.

The DBKP blog contacted the the Laredo Police Department on Saturday. “We have been advised to say nothing. The Webb County Sheriff is taking the lead on this and they’re advising that they can’t confirm anything either,” a spokesperson told the blog.

On March 30, 2008, the Dallas Morning News reported Mexican drug cartels operated military-style training camps in at least six such locations in northern Tamaulipas and Nuevo León states, some within a few miles of the Texas border, according to U.S. and Mexican authorities and the printed testimony of five protected witnesses who were trained in the camps.

“Traffickers go to great lengths to prepare themselves for battle,” a senior U.S. anti-narcotics official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the newspaper. “Part of that preparation is live firing ranges and combat training courses…. And that’s not something that we have seen before.” In the state of Tamaulipas, Los Zetas train with other mercenaries, including the Kaibiles from Guatemala, the officials said.

Obama announced his anemic response to border violence in May.

The Justice Department warned local police in Arizona and California about Los Zetas violence along the border. “The violence will spill over the Mexican border into the United States and law enforcement agencies in Texas, Arizona and Southern California can expect to encounter Los Zetas in the coming months,” warned an intelligence bulletin issued by the feds. The Justice Department and Homeland Security consider the Mexican drug cartels as the greatest organized crime threat to the United States.

Los Zetas was founded by an elite force of assassins from Mexican Army deserters and is now integrated by corrupt ex-federal, state, and local police officers. Los Zetas was first hired as a private mercenary army for Mexico’s Gulf Cartel, but since February of this year have gone independent and are now enemies of its former partner.

In the first eleven months of 2008, Los Zetas killers were directly responsible for the deaths of 5,300 people, including soldiers, their own operatives, civilians, journalists, and rival drug traffickers.

In 2006, Mexican president Felipe Calderon supposedly declared war on the drug cartels. Since Calderon’s declaration, more than 25,000 people have been killed in Mexico due to drug violence. In June of this year alone hundreds of people in Mexico died from drug-related violence.

Last week CBS News said Mexico’s drug Mafia had adopted “al-Qaeda tactics” after a car bomb exploded across the border from El Paso, Texas, in Ciudad Juárez, killing two federal officers and a musician and injuring 11 people, including several bystanders. In late June, the El Paso City Hall was struck by gunfire from a deadly narco terrorist attack across the border in Juárez.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  
  

In May, Obama announced that 1,200 troops would be sent to the border to crack down on smuggling and drug cartel violence. Critics have called it political posturing in the run-up to November congressional elections and a response to Arizona’s recently passed immigration law.

Republicans in Texas consider the deployment of 250 troops in their state an insult. “The National Guard troops are not an adequate or long-term solution — they’re only a Band-Aid,” a spokeswoman for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White told the Star-Telegram. “Maybe Texas should sue the federal government for not doing its job,” added U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville.

Senator Kyl of Arizona said in June that Obama is refusing to secure the border until Congress passes so-called immigration reform. “The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform,” Kyl said at a town hall organized by a local Arizona Tea Party.

In June, the banksters admitted they fund the Mexican drug Mafia. Wachovia and Bank of America have moved money for Mexican drug smugglers.

“The admission came in an agreement that Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia struck with federal prosecutors in March, and it sheds light on the largely undocumented role of U.S. banks in contributing to the violent drug trade that has convulsed Mexico for the past four years,” Bloomberg reported. “Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations,” Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case, told Bloomberg.

Bankster participation has also financed the Mexican Mafia’s expansion into Texas and Arizona.

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl said in June Obama plans to do nothing about the border in order to push for immigration “reform.”

by BlackDak22

There has been a new ruling on the right to keep and bear arms. It was this past week in a supreme court case, McDonald v. Chicago, involving a suit filed against a gun ban law in Chicago. The court ruled by a slim 5-4 decision that their last ruling against a federal gun ban in Washington D.C. also applied to state and local governments. So this would be received by most second amendment supporters, including myself, as good news. And it is good news. It keeps alive and continues to strengthen the correct belief that ownership and bearing firearms is a Constitutional right.

BUT there is something un-mysteriously missing from the entire debate. And that is an indepth discussion about what the second amendment is really about. Over and over, we hear from gun rights groups that the right to keep and bear arms is about personal safety and defence. They also like to throw in hunting as a legitimate reason why the 2nd amendment cannot be overruled or expunged. Really? Is that what the second amendment is trying protect? Is that why it is positioned in the second spot right after the right to free speech and to assemble? And why would the Founders position an amendment which decrees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed directly after the first amendment? The answers in order are no, no, no, and the reason for its positioning is that the second amendment PROTECTS the first. And who does the second amendment protect the first from? Why it is blatantly obvious. It protects the first from those who would seek to stamp it out, who would seek to curtail it, who would seek to make it history. I ask you. Would that group threatening the first amendment be street criminals or even organized crime? When in the history of the Republic has a political gathering or any other mass protest or event been driven out by common criminals? Perhaps the renegade deer and bear are the hidden threat to our rights to speech and organization.

No friend, the threat to the first amendment that the second defends against is the government. It is the government, at all levels, federal, state, and local that has ALWAYS been the threat, the interested party in curtailing our rights. And it will ALWAYS be the threat. It is the government who intrudes and regulates what we can say or write and when and where we can say it. It requires permits to organize. It sends battalions of police to ensure order and to intimidate when people decide to gather for any purpose, political or otherwise. It prevents the people from protesting at the organized rallies of the elite, witness the recent political conventions of both parties in 2008. It prosecutes those whose speech steps out of line with what the latest perimeters of the day are. It is time that those would speak out on the second amendment inject some truth and courage into their basis of argument.

What these so called guns rights groups actually do, when they invoke the pedestrian side benefits of gun ownership to validate the second amendment, is cheapen it. Indeed, the idea of listing hunting as any part of the second amendment is a fool’s ranting. Hunting? We have a Constitutional right to hunt? What writings can these people point to in the Founders’ work that invoke the reasoning of home defence and hunting as the activity at stake in the second amendment? These shallow excuses allow the enemies of the Constitution to essentially laugh at the second amendment. What fool would spend hours of their daily life, donate hundreds of dollars annually, attend large rallies and conventions, and vote for the leadership of the Republic based on a right to have the means to hunt? These worthless arguments do nothing more than undermine its profound utility in the order of natural rights. They deny its philosophical derivations that date back to the Magna Carte. And that is that a free man MUST BE ARMED.  To be free a nation must be armed. There is no alternative. A nation disarmed is nation of slaves. The Constitutional rights listed are there to offer protection to our NATURAL RIGHTS to LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY. And the second amendment stands alone as the guarantor of everything above it.

The right to keep and bear arms is the right TO BE ABLE to destroy the government. Do you understand that? Read it again if you must. The ownership of weaponry gives the PEOPLE the right to be able to reform the state. It does not confer the automatic right to attack the state, but it gives the people the right to be and remain an everpresent threat to a government. This understanding was dramatically underscored in a supreme court case from 1939, Miller v US. In this decision the court wrote the following as the basis for upholding the conviction of Mr. Miller for transporting 2 sawed off shotguns for sale across state lines:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

What Chief Justice McReynolds is saying that only weaponry used by the states militia or the military of the day are protected by the second amendment. That is that the infantry weapon of the time is precisely the weapon that is the subject of second amendment.  Unfortunately for Miller, what the supreme court was unaware of, due the defence failing to offer any rebuttal, is that the US Army had made the short barrel shotgun a standard military issue weapon since WW1, some 30000-40000 were sent to the troops for guarding of German POWs. The majority of subsequent court decisions have erroniously misinterpreted this ruling as only protecting the right of the state militia to own firearms. It takes quite a willful misreading of the text to arrive at that conclusion, but nevertheless it is what has occurred.

So the only case to seriously investigate the meaning of the second amendment, without referring to stare decisis as a crutch, determined that the weapons of war are the protected class of firearm by the second amendment. It is the M-16 and the AK-47 that are foremost protected for civilian ownership and much less the 9mm handgun. They are the weapons that allow the people to stand and defeat the state when that day comes. And this precisely validates what the Founders envisioned to be the basis for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The people must retain the capability to throw down a corrupt state when they determine by mass consensus that the state has ceased to be a net positive. When the state has overgrown and metastisized to an ungovernable entity, tyranny is the result. A nation disarmed has no recourse for this.

“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.” – T. Jefferson

The guns rights groups are not as ignorant as we may want to believe. The NRA and its leader LaPierre know exactly what the second amendment is. They are simply afraid to put what they know is right out on the table. They fear that the public will not accept such radical ideas. But this is a false rationalization. It is time for the gun rights groups to stand unabashed at what the significance of the second amendment really is. At what it truly protects. And against whom it guarantees recourse. To fail in this will allow the enemies of an armed people to enact ever more regulation and restriction on the basis that the “right” to hunt deer or defend against a street thug is outweighed by the domestic risks of mass gun ownership. And that the most vital weaponry for the people to maintain liberty, the assault rifle, can be restricted as being necessary for neither.

A Major Victory for Texas

I am pleased to report that last week we received notice that the Texas Department of Transportation will recommend the I-69 Project be developed using existing highway facilities instead of the proposed massive new Trans Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway.  According to the Texas Transportation Commissioner, consideration is no longer being given to new corridors and other proposals for a new highway footprint for this project.  A major looming threat to property rights and national sovereignty is removed with this encouraging announcement.

Public outcry was cited as the main reason for this decision.  I was very impressed to learn that the TxDOT received nearly 28,000 public comments on this matter, and that some 12,000 Texans attended the 47 public hearings held earlier this year.  They could not ignore this tsunami of strong public opinion against the proposed plans.  I was especially proud of how informed my constituents became on the subject, and how eloquently and respectfully they spoke and conducted themselves, considering how upsetting the plans were for our communities in Texas .

This is a major victory for the people of Texas , and a reminder of what we can accomplish with civic involvement.  The informed and active citizen truly is a force to be reckoned with, as we have seen with the defeat of this proposal.  We must keep fighting the good fight, and remain ever diligent against the encroachments of big government.  We must do this if we wish to maintain our traditional standard of living in this country.  As tempting as it may be to simply live our lives with no regard to government, apathy will inevitably be punished by ever more government intrusion.  That is what this fight was all about.  We can win if we stick together.

However, now is not the time to rest on our laurels.  The bittersweet aspect of this victory is that we had to fight at all.  We took time away from family and friends, doing other things, to attend these meetings, inform others, write letters, post signs and submit our complaints, and we should not have had to.  Government should let us be, if we are peaceful citizens, harming no one.  In a perfect world, government could be trusted to act in the best interests of the people without overwhelming pressure of this kind.  This is not a perfect world.  Constant pressure is needed to keep government in check, and we succeeded this time.  But this will not be the last time citizen efforts and involvement will be required.  We still face many unreasonable encroachments of big government today, from confiscatory, economy-strangling taxation to creeping disregard of the right of habeas corpus and other Constitutional rights, to thousands of nuisance bureaucratic regulations interfering with our every day lives.  We have drifted far from what the founding fathers envisioned for this nation.  Last week was just one victory towards getting back on the right path.  We must continue to hold politicians’ feet to the Constitutional fire.  If I had to guess, they will probably try to implement the NAFTA Superhighway again sometime in the future.

It is a never-ending battle, but it must be fought, and can be won.  I am proud to stand with my constituents in this fight, and in the other fights we have ahead of us.