~~~*Cracking the Eggs of All Known / Unknown Transformations Throughout All Creation*~~~
####Finding and Discussing Breaking Headlines, Theories, Philosophies, & Discoveries#### ^As Well As Expositing Lost or Obscure Paradigms of Ancient Timelines. Namaste Starseeds^
The current anti-gun president and his allies are moving forward with an apparent multi-pronged attack on gun owners as they seek to ban online ammo purchases, ban gun-related online internet communications, and to mandate firearms insurance.
Here’s more information about what your government is doing in this regard:
Online Ammo Purchase Ban
Barack Obama’s anti-gun allies in Congress are moving right now to effectively OUTLAW your freedom to purchase ammunition online.
The “Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2015″ was recently introduced and it already has cosponsors.
This crippling new law would:
FORCE you to submit a photo ID in-person every time you purchase any ammunition;
REPORT you to Obama’s anti-gun U.S. Attorney General if you purchase more than 1,000 rounds within a five day period;
REGISTER ammunition buyers like you in a database maintained by Obama’s bureaucrats at the Department of Justice.
According to the bill’s chief sponsor, this new law would give the Obama administration the power to “monitor” law-abiding gun owners and “flag them for law enforcement.”
Ban Gun-related Communication on the Internet
A State Department proposal may make information-sharing on guns illegal as part of the proposed regulations of the Arms
Export Control Act.
What these regulations would do is to define “export” to include potentially any gun-related communication on the Internet or social media. The regulation would apply to all private communications, so long as the “network” (e.g., the Internet) is, in general, publicly available.
With this in place, the Obama Administration would have the regulatory framework to comprehensively regulate gun-related speech in cyberspace, to whatever extent it desires. In the hands of an anti-gun administration such as Barack Obama’s, the regulations have the potential of granting the State Department an expanded ability to regulate and license gun-related speech on the electronic media.
Mandatory Firearms Insurance
Barack Obama’s gun-hating allies in Congress have just unveiled a new bill (H.R. 2546) that would force YOU to buy government-mandated liability insurance before you would be allowed to purchase a firearm.
And if you can’t afford this expensive new insurance mandate?
""A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.
The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.
“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.
Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.
The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.
Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts.
Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.
The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
A White House National Security Council spokeswoman declined to comment.
President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”
A Pentagon official who defended the directive said it was signed in December 2010 after four years of thorough consultations within the Pentagon and with other federal agencies The 2010 directive replaced several previously published directives in 1980, 1991, and 1993. The last time military forces were used to quell civil unrest was 1906 following the San Francisco earthquake to protect the federal mint and restore order in the city.
The official said: “I suppose that in a very extreme case, one can imagine a combination of natural and man-made disasters that result in the cascading failure of communication infrastructure, or some electro-magnetic pulse that shuts down all electronic communication.”
“In the event that it should happen in today’s day and age, we would want our senior military leaders in the field to do all they can to assist their fellow Americans to prevent significant loss of life or malicious destruction of property and to protect federal property or federal governmental functions,” the official said.
HOUSE HITS ONA DOWNGRADE
The House defense authorization bill passed last week calls for adding $10 million to the Pentagon’s future warfare think tank and for codifying the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) as a semi-independent unit.
The provision is being called the Andrew Marshall amendment after the ONA’s longtime director and reflects congressional support for the 92-year-old manager and his staying power through numerous administrations, Republican and Democratic.
Mr. Marshall’s opponents within the Pentagon and the Obama administration persuaded Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel this year to downgrade the ONA by cutting its budget and placing it under the control of the undersecretary of defense for policy. The ONA currently is a separate entity within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Members of the House Committee on Armed Services objected and added the $10 million to the administration’s $8.9 million request, along with a legal provision that would codify ONA’s current status as separate from the policy undersecretary shop.
The committee was concerned Mr. Hagel’s downgrade would “limit the ability and flexibility of ONA to conduct long-range comparative assessments,” the report on the authorization bill states.
“The office has a long history of providing alternative analyses and strategies that challenge the ‘group think’ that can often pervade the Department of Defense,” the report says, noting an increasing demand for unconventional thinking about space warfare capabilities by China and Russia.""
""Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a "gag order on firearm-related speech," the National Rifle Association is warning.
In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.
According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.
"Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities," said the NRA in a blog posting.
"This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second," warned the NRA's lobbying shop. "Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published," it added.
At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers.
The NRA said that the rules predate the internet, and now the federal government wants to regulate technical arms discussions on on the internationally available web.
State's proposal is highly technical. It took 14 pages in the Federal Register to explain. But the NRA boiled it down for gun owners with this warning:
"In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the 'public domain.' Essentially, this means data 'which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public' through a variety of specified means. These include 'at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.' Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.
"The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been 'exported,' as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.
"With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be 'clarifying' the rules concerning 'technical data' posted online or otherwise 'released' into the 'public domain.' To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the 'authorization' of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.""
How many of you believe that a planned currency collapse coupled with the implementation of a brutal martial law and gun confiscation will be the trigger events which will incite the coming revolution? This remains the leading candidate for the unfolding of a civil war. On May 24th, I interviewed Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers, and he believes that an economic collapse will set off the conflict and he also believes, as I do, that ISIS will wreak havoc in this country the midst of the chaos caused by the failure of the dollar. We both believe that under the cover of this chaos, we will see political dissidents extracted as per the intent of the Jade Helm exercise. It will be at this point, that the sides will be definitively drawn in the upcoming conflict.
Many of us in the Independent Media believe that this is the likely scenario that will very soon turn this country into the most dangerous country on the face of the earth. It might behoove us to look a little closer at the nature of revolution in order to predict where all of this is likely headed. Although I personally oppose the use of violence as a political tool, in the present political climate, I see no way to stem the tide of unthinkable brutality and violence which seems imminent. It is in this mindset that I set about to research the topic of revolution and this series of articles reflects the results of the research. And as a result of past and common patterns of revolution, it appears as if a clear picture is beginning to emerge and whether, or not, we choose to admit where Jade Helm will take us, the government is already practicing for what appears to be likely.
In an email from a forced Lt. General retiree, courtesy of President Obama, he provided some clues on where he believes the coming conflict is headed.
“…With modern antiaircraft systems (mobile and man portable) air power will be all but useless. What we will see is a ground war, city by city, street by street. Additionally what is coming will be unlike any civil war in history, it will be very personal, the government will call the Patriots forces terrorists and traitors, they will arrest, intern, torture and murder suspected terrorists families, this will result in bloody reprisals which will start a vicious cycle lasting for years”.
What kind of conflict is being described here? In order to answer that question, we must first examine the “Four levels of warfare”.
Four Levels of Warfare
Most military strategists identify four levels of conflict; (1) nuclear war is the trump card of all conflict; (2) conventional warfare; (3) guerrilla warfare; and, (4) terrorism.
It is safe to say that if our country does indeed descend into revolution, nuclear war will not come into play, for if it did, there would be nothing to rule over in the aftermath.
The United States has already witnessed civil war of a conventional nature. In the 1860’s as two mighty armies of that era locked horns in what proved to be the conflict in which America suffered her greatest loss of life. In the Civil War, both sides had equivalent weaponry and as a result, employed conventional tactics.
Initially, the coming civil war could very well consist of one American unit facing off against another as we saw in the civil war. However, the losing side would quickly resort to the use of guerrilla warfare tactics.
At the present time and given the disparity of technology and resources between the people the globalist controlled forces of the government, a conventional war would prove to be a disaster for the rebel forces. The likely mode of the revolutionary war conflict facing the people of the United States is that it will consist of either guerrilla warfare or terrorism.
Guerrilla Warfare Or Terrorism?
Terrorism is the least preferred option by any insurgent group. With terrorism, there is absolutely no hope of final victory because territory is never occupied. For that reason, nobody aspires to engage in terrorism if they have a viable alternative and the American people do have a choice given how well armed we are. However, terrorism arising out of a defeated guerrilla force is a distinct possibility as it would represent American guerrilla’s fallback position should they be defeated. Subsequently, does the MIAC Report which labeled Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Second Amendment Supporters, Ron Paul Supporters, Veterans and now Christians as domestic terrorists, make a little more sense as to why DHS made these bold proclamations? DHS understands and has demonstrated their understanding of these facts and has also prepared for what I just wrote about in the previous paragraph.
The Veterans Administration estimates that there are approximately 21.5 million veterans living in the United States. We also live in a country with over 300 million privately owned guns. These combined factors point clearly to a guerrilla war being the preferred and necessary mode of combat which will likely be visited upon this country.
What Is Guerrilla Warfare?
Guerrilla warfare, for most of human history, is not new. Tribal war, which traditionally pits one guerrilla force against another, is the oldest form of warfare. The new “conventional” form of warfare, which pits guerrillas against “conventional” forces, is more recent as it arose in Mesopotamia 5,000 years ago.
The good news for future American freedom fighters is that guerrilla war has been getting more successful since 1945, but unfortunately guerrilla fighters still lose most of the time. An analysis of past conflicts featuring guerrilla war, reveals that only 25% of guerrilla forces, out of 443 such conflicts since 1775, were successful. The government prevailed almost 64% of the time with the remainder of the conflicts ended in a stalemate. Conversely, since the end of WWII, the percentage of success for guerrilla forces has indeed gone up to 39.6%. Yet that still means that government forces have continued to prevail 51% of the time. When the American people engage in a guerrilla war in the upcoming years, the people have less than a 40% chance of success. However, if some retired military leadership estimates are correct, a sizeable number of U.S. troops will join the American people, this will greatly enhance the chances of success.
Length of Guerrilla Wars
Guerrilla wars are rarely short and as a result do not favor the American culture and our collective psyche of instant gratification. When Americans flip the switch on the wall, we expect the light to come on. Will Americans set aside their entitlements as well as their entrenched soft lifestyle and rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
The Vietnamese culture with an external locus of control predominating the people where the group is more important than the individual is the perfect mindset for guerrilla fighters. This could prove to be the American rebels biggest challenge because guerrilla warfare is not something that one does like driving over a speed bump. It is a way of life, a very hard way of life filled with misery, extreme sacrifice and unspeakable losses.
For my money, the best guerrilla fighters in the modern era were the Viet Cong in which Vietnamese people were involved in some form of guerrilla war from 1942-1975. After the Americans invaded Vietnam, the forces in the north had a saying, “born in the north, to die in the south.” There were nearly two generations of Vietnamese people in which war was an unavoidable part of life. What General Westmoreland and LBJ failed to recognize was that in order to defeat and totally subdue the Vietnamese people, the Americans would have had to have engaged in unspeakable genocide. Despite the fact that the US won every single battle of the war, the Vietnamese rebels were never going to give up. Do we Americans have that same tenacity to persevere like the Vietnamese?
Prior to WWII, guerrilla wars lasted an average of seven years. Following WWII, guerrilla conflicts lasted an average of 10 years. Will Americans embrace the tenets and sacrifices of guerrilla war and can it ever become a way of life? For this to happen, I believe that conditions would have to be unspeakably horrendous for America to embrace a conflict under these conditions. I think that things would have to be so bad, so completely genocidal, that fighting and dying would be the only viable alternative for America in order to embrace guerrilla warfare as a way of life. What I am saying here is that we are a very soft people. However, Jade Helm with the use of Special Operations Forces designed to extract “Red Listed” political dissidents, could push many Americans over the top.
How Close Is the Inevitable Conflict?
Successful guerrilla leaders such as Lawrence of Arabia, Mao, Castro and Giap all concur that there are three phases of any guerrilla war. However, before the phases can unfold there are two preconditions which must be met.
""Despite the Global elite’s best efforts as well as Obama’s best efforts to conceal the most draconian political act in the history of mankind through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, some disturbing details are beginning to emerge as to how encompassing this totalitarian piece of legislation is going to be.
Say Goodbye to Alternative Health Care and Growing Your Own Food
As we know, the United Nation’s Agenda 21, now known as Earth First, has long attempted to wipe out the alternative health care industry through the control of Codex Alimentarius.
The United Nation’s World Health Organization is holding an implementation conference in July of 2015 as the global elite are clearly making their move to go after all alternative health care as part of the TPP. Please note that the dates of the conference coincide with the announced and “formal” beginning of Jade Helm.
The leaked documents also speak to the fact that the TPP will also control all seeds and all planting. This will allow the UN and its host governments and corporate sponsors to gain control over all food and utilize food as a weapon. There are over 30 articles which provide an analysis of leaked documents that address both the Codex Alimentarius takeover as well as the control over all food.
This is tantamount to using food as a political tool in order to enforce political compliance. Could this be why there is a drought, to the magnitude in California, in which the state will run out of water within a year. What is inexcusable, is that California has not even attempted to use any form of weather modification. Since the 1970’s, where I grew up in Colorado, the state used primitive cloud seeding to bring moisture in the form of snow to the ski resorts in the Colorado Rockies. I say primitive, because if one reviews the weather modification permits on sites such as Dr. Nick Begich’s site in which he identifies patents and technology designed for weather control that are, in some cases, decades old.
Transferring the American Economy to a Corporate, Rollerball Style of Dictatorship
When something is secret and kept from you, it is usually very bad for you! As America races toward her date with destiny, there is yet another “fundamentally transforming” event coming her way and that event is known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is a plot designed to hand over control of the world’s governments to private corporate interests and it is all being done in secret. Even Congress is not allowed to examine the TPP provisions.
Under the TPP, for example, GMO labels for US food would not be allowed. To make matters worse, there is an obscure portion of the TPP and other trade agreements which is so diabolical, so devastating, that the planet will eventually resemble the movie, Rollerball, in which a small number of corporations will rule the planet.
Many of us in the media believe that some of the effects of the TPP will be felt before the coming war and martial law crackdown. However, after careful analysis, I am convinced that the brunt of the TPP will be felt after the America we know has been totally taken over in a post-war and post-economic collapse scenario. In other words, following World War III, the United Nations, as a body, will be replaced with the United Corporations. At the end of the day, it does not matter when the implementation of the TPP comes, because when it does, America will no longer be recognizable to anyone who has grown up in this once great country. The reason that America will no longer be recognizable is because America will no longer exist because of a key provision contained in the TPP.
Within a few short years, following implementation of the TPP, which will surely grow from the 40% of the world’s population that it will soon control as it will eventually encompass 100% of the planet. The TPP will eliminate all nation states as the ruling authority and it will be supplanted by corporate authority. This will be made possible because of an obscure provision of the TPP known as the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). ISDS is a key component of the TPP. Unfortunately, for the planet, ISDS principles are being negotiated as I write these words, outside of the TPP, in ongoing trade deals between the United States and the European Union. ISDS allows corporations to sue governments, for any government action (at any level, including local government level) which hinders a corporation’s future profits. Literally, Monsanto could provably be poisoning the entire population of a nation and the nation could do nothing which might result in the loss of profits to Monsanto. This also means that as a private citizen, if you organize a boycott against Monsanto, you could be sued in a foreign court for obstructing Monsanto profits and you should be aware that there are many foreign courts that jail legal participants for unpaid debts to corporations.
If a corporation feels that a government has impeded its ability to maximize profits, a suit is filed, outside the country being sued, and the case will be heard by an arbitration panel of trade lawyers, in a jurisdiction totally of the corporation’s choosing. Under ISDS, the dispute panel may only consider the ‘free trade’ values of the case. No other factors may be considered when deciding the case. This means that these corporate panels must disregard values of public health, civil liberties, environmental protection, or the rights of workers (e.g. working conditions) or any other Constitutionally protected liberties.
This is the end of representative government as we know and the commencement of oligarchic corporate control over every individual on the planet in which every life-sustaining resource on the planet can be denied for noncompliance.
The Concidence of TPP, Economic Collapse and Jade Helm
The American is in near free-fall. The Daily Coin published the following two days ago and this should send chills up and down every American’s spine.
“U.S. Macro “Suprise” index has never collapsed this fast (Zerohedge): click to enlarge
I wanted to show those graphs from Zerohedge with my edits (right graph) because they show the extreme dislocation between the true economic fundamentals and the financial markets in the U.S. “US Macro” data is the differential between Wall Street’s “brain trust” estimates for various economic data and the actual reported result. The negative differential between the expectations of supposedly educated, bright economic professionals and reality has never been greater.
The economic data – almost all of it – has been collapsing at a rate as great or greater than it was collapsing in 2008.”""
ACTION: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Orrin Hatch may soon give the President authority to write gun control restrictions into a “trade agreement.” So click here to contact your Senators –- whether they are liberal or conservative. Urge them to vote against the anti-gun “fast track” bill (S. 995).
Will UN-style gun control be rammed down our throats?
""Gun import bans ... Microstamping of firearms ... Ammunition bans ... The full implementation of the anti-gun UN Arms Trade Treaty ... Illegal amnesty which locks in millions of new, anti-gun voters.
This anti-gun wish list could be part of the secret trade agreement that President Obama is getting ready to spring on the Congress.
This trade pact is called “fast track,” and what it means is that Obama can write any form of gun control he chooses into a trade agreement -- import bans, amnesty, etc.
And this agreement DOESN’T need two-thirds vote in the Senate, as a treaty would. When completed, the agreement is merely subject to a majority vote in both Houses ... it can't be filibustered ... it can't be amended ... and the GOP can't refuse to consider it.
Top Secret TPP means you won’t know what’s in the bill
Reports have already surfaced that the TOP SECRET draft contains a whole chapter with a European Union-style provision allowing unlimited migration from Mexico into the United States. This would fulfill Obama’s dream -- which he begun with Executive Amnesty -- to import millions of new anti-gun (liberal) voters into the country.
Of course, we can't quote for you any of the language in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement because the document is TOP SECRET. Obama won't reveal it, even to most congressmen, until Congress has given it its imprimatur by allowing it to pass under fast track procedures.
On Monday, Politico reported:
If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.
If you’re a [congressional] member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.
And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read.
Truly, even more than with ObamaCare, this is a case of "You have to pass it to find out what's in it."
Some Republicans are being duped
But that's not all: The fast track authority being granted to Obama and his successor for the next six years applies to whatever type of trade negotiation Obama chooses to enter into.
So, if he can write the UN Arms Trade Treaty into a trade agreement, then it can't be filibustered or amended or prevented from consideration.""
