Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label FEMA camps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FEMA camps. Show all posts

Sunday, April 30, 2017

We Believe Scalia Was Assassinated



Leaked Podesta Email Suggests Justice Scalia was Assassinated


Leaked Podesta Email Suggests Justice Scalia was Assassinated

The late US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had become not only a critic of the decisions that the liberal wing of the Supreme Court made, but a critic of the Supreme Court itself, calling the institution a “threat to American democracy.”
He also went so far as to support what is often referred to as a “conspiracy theory,” that FEMA camps are being established for the purpose of the detention of Americans, stating that Americans were “kidding themselves” if they didn’t believe that the camps and their nefarious purposes exist.
Clearly this talk was not coming from someone on the fringe of society, but from a man who was at the pinnacle of his profession — a US Supreme Court justice, no less.  So when he made comments like these , it was not possible for opponents to write what he said off as the ravings of someone on the lunatic fringe.  Scalia, by his position and stature, demanded attention, forcing his statements into the national discourse while offering support for ideas those on the left want hidden from the public.
His comments undoubtedly made him a lot of enemies on the left.  Although it’s not a path we like to go down, given recent leaked emails, we have to think the unthinkable:  Was a US Supreme Court justice assassinated because he had become a danger to those on the left and their agenda?  That’s a very serious charge, and it demands a serious investigation  and a discussion of what we now know.  Something we will do on page two.

NEXT PAGE »

Friday, October 3, 2014

How Are Carriers Of Ebola Financing Their Trips To The US? What Should We Do With Them If They Enter The Country?

A friend called me today and asked me the question--Are the people coming to the United States with Ebola from Liberia and other countries being paid to do so?  Frankly, I had not even thought of that connection. However, it does make one wonder, how do they finance their travel? How many have already gotten here and they haven't gotten sick yet? How many "Typhoid Mary's" are there?

Could they be purposely being sent here to infect us? Who would be funding them? How is it that their travels were very circuitous and not directly to the US from Liberia or Nigeria?  Are these people Muslims or believers in Islam? What would be the end game?

Yes, a lot of questions and remarkably, we have heard this threat being discussed in the lame stream media or anywhere else. Could it be that no one has thought of this and my friend is just ahead of the rest of us? He's smart but...

It is obvious to us that our President and his administration have been trailing the rest of the country and world on this issue. It is a dangerous disease and  can spread quickly if the proper precautions are not taken. Are we being lulled into complacency?  Or is our inferior health care, according to the President and his staff, going to be overwhelmed by the disease. Are we being punished for being Americans as Farrakhan has said?

We wish that we knew more but here is where we are. First of all we must contain the disease. It must be controlled in the countries with the outbreak. That means anyone coming from or that has visited any infected region cannot enter the country until the incubation period has expired.  That means they cannot enter the US period.

Should they get past our "intrepid" TSA, we should establish quarantine zones. This would be a good use of the FEMA camps that have been set up by the government.  Keep potentially infected individuals housed separately from others until their time has run. However, the emphasis should be on keeping them away from our shores first which means sealing our borders.

Secondly, anyone who shows signs of the disease and any of his relatives who live with him/her must be immediately quarantined. Any place that they have visited in the last 30 days must be sanitized. Anyone exposed to the disease must also be quarantined.

Thirdly, any individual who conspires with others to hide an Ebola infection or to fund or to plan their travel to this country, should be imprisoned for a long period of time even if they live outside the US. This goes for the patient, his/her doctor or other medical professional, friends, relatives and acquaintances.

Fourthly, if we find the Centers for Disease Control has not adequately informing us of the nature and severity of the disease, the head of this agency should be brought up on endangerment charges. This is NOT the time to be politically correct. This a goes to anyone in government who withholds or "spins" information.  We are in a war with a disease and we cannot be meek.

Lastly,  the media must be tasked with informing the public of person who are infected, where they live, where they have been (shopping, working, anywhere else) in the past 30 days. This is not a privacy issue, it is a matter of life and death. The infected person's disease trumps their right to maintain their privacy.

If we take these onerous and very restrictive steps we might be lucky to get ahead of the disease and prevent the deaths of thousands. If not, each of us could become victims of what appears to be, an attack on this country.

What other steps do you think we should take? Let us know. Comment on the blog or write to us at tom.conservativemusings1@gmail.com

Conservative Tom









Thursday, August 1, 2013

Snowden Gets Asylum In Russia--For One Year--Where Does He Go From There?

Last night's revelation that the NSA can monitor individual key strokes that Americans are making on their computers as they type emails or even blog, should be chilling to every freedom loving American.  The use of this technology has far reaching implications and could very easily destroy lives of innocent Americans.

How many times have you expressed opinions about the government which if taken the wrong way, or for that matter, written using the wrong words could easily be mis-interpreted by someone looking for sinister motives?  We would expect many. How many times have you forwarded emails, cartoons or articles written by someone else who might be on the government watch list?  Maybe never, but who know who is being watched? How often has the government denied an event occurring, only later to find out that it actually did happen?  Countless! Any set of events or posting or forwarded emails could put you in a situation that you never foresaw.

As soon as Americans are afraid to write something on the internet for fear that Big Brother will be knocking on your door, we have lost our freedoms. We cannot stand for that. We must fight the government from taking away our Constitutionally rights each and every day.

Had Snowden not revealed the workings of the NSA, we would not know what was going on in this spy agency. We thank him for having the moral clarity to take the personal risk to reveal an agency that apparently is out of control. We are sure there might have been other ways of making the revelations other than talking to the Guardian, however,  when one sees the anger that our government has expressed toward him, our guess is that had he gone to his superiors, he would have been squashed. Worst of all, we would not know what was going on at this agency.

So if your faithful blogger suddenly disappears, you will know that we have been transported to one of the FEMA camps for re-education. Heck, we need the rest!

Conservative Tom



Russia Grants Snowden 1-Year Asylum

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS

MOSCOW — After a month holed up in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow, Edward J. Snowden, the former intelligence contractor wanted by the United States for leaking details of surveillance programs, has received temporary refugee status in Russia and left the airport, his lawyer said Thursday.
The Guardian, via Reuters
The former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden during an interview in Hong Kong in June.
World Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.
Russia24, via Associated Press
This image taken from Russian television shows Edward J. Snowden's temporary refugee status document.

Readers’ Comments


The movement from the airport’s international transit zone was a significant change in Mr. Snowden’s status for the first time since he left the United States and began leaking details of the National Security Agency’s surveillance.
The refugee status in Russia was the first formal support from another government for Mr. Snowden, 30, and seems likely to elicit strong objections from the United States.
The temporary refugee status allows Mr. Snowden to move freely within the country and is valid for one year, Anatoly Kucherena, a Russian lawyer assisting Mr. Snowden with the asylum request, said in a telephone interview.
Mr. Snowden has left the airport, Mr. Kucherena said, but declined to say where he had gone. “Yes, it is true he is out,” he said, but declined to disclose details.
Mr. Snowden had lived in the international transit zone of the airport since he arrived on June 23, one step ahead of an extradition request filed by the United States in his first stopover in Hong Kong.
For reasons that were unclear, the Russian Federal Migration Service delayed for longer than the typical week the processing of his temporary asylum application.
While the bureaucratic process has unfolded slowly, Russian officials, including President Vladimir V. Putin, have made clear that they have no intention of extraditing him to the United States — a position that has infuriated the Obama administration.
Mr. Putin has insisted that Mr. Snowden’s presence in Russia should not harm relations between the two countries, even as the White House has signaled that President Obama, amid mounting frustration, may cancel a planned summit meeting in Moscow in September.
The United States State Department had said that any move outside the airport — signaling a formal acceptance of Mr. Snowden as an asylum seeker — would be “deeply disappointing,” but has not publicly laid out any ramifications for Russia.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

What Will The New UN Treaty On Weapons Mean

It is sad when you need to go to Al Jazeera for the truth. We quote:

"The United States, the world's number one arms exporter, said last
 week it would vote in favour of the treaty despite opposition from the
 National Rifle Association, a powerful US pro-gun lobbying group.
The NRA opposes the treaty and has vowed to fight to prevent its
ratification by the US Senate when it reaches Washington - saying
 it would undermine domestic gun-ownership rights.
Every country would be free to sign and ratify the treaty. It will take
 effect after the 50th ratification, which could take up to two years.

The treaty will not control the domestic use of weapons in any country,
 but it will require all countries to establish national regulations to
 control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components
and to regulate arms brokers."

In this quote we see three things that bother us. They are:
       -First, the treaty will take effect even if the Senate does 
not ratify
       -It regulates small arms (hand guns and AR-15 type weapons)
 as well as tanks, missiles
       - It requires countries to set up "national regulations to
control the transfer of conventional arms..."

In other words, should this treaty be approved by 50 of the 
154 nations, the US will have to regulate all small arms, meaning
 that an individual could not sell a weapon he owned without 
going through some government regulation. A father could not 
sell to his son or daughter either.

The NRA is right and all the nay sayers are wrong! Obama and
 his minions will use the treaty as a hammer against gun owners.
 Once the treaty is passed, we can expect the government will
 insist that all gun owners either register all of their guns or turn
 them in.  Later on we fear the government will outlaw any
 transfer as it would violate the treaty which is not true. But 
who said the government would be honest.

Oh yes, the pieces are quickly falling into place. Massive 
ammunition, armored vehicle, and AR-15 purchases by DHS.
 Opening of FEMA camps and gun control and confiscation 
legislation from many city and states which will culminate in Federal legislation based on this new treaty.
Don't forget the armed drones that will soon (if not already)
 flying.

Americans are going to be disarmed and then taken over. 
 It is coming folks, and we are just around the corner.  

Conservative Tom


UN adopts landmark arms treaty

General Assembly passes first-ever pact by 154 votes to three, with 23 abstentions, to regulate global arms trade.

Last Modified: 02 Apr 2013 16:24
Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker
Email Article

Print Article

Share article

Send Feedback

The UN adopted on Tuesday the first-ever treaty to regulate the $80bn-a-year conventional arms trade [AFP]
The 193-nation UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved
 the first-ever treaty on global arms trade that seeks to regulate the
 $70bn international trade in conventional arms.
The resolution adopting the landmark treaty was approved by a vote
 of 154 to three, with 23 abstentions.
Al Jazeera's Cath Turner, reporting from New York, commented that
 the yes votes was a "significantly high number" for this type of resolution.
As the numbers appeared on the electronic board, loud cheers filled
 the assembly chamber.
A group of treaty supporters sought a vote in the world body aft
r Iran, North Korea and Syria blocked its adoption by consensus
at a negotiating conference last Thursday.
The three countries voted "no" on Tuesday's resolution.
"Despite Iran, North Korea and Syria's deeply cynical attempt to
stymie it, the overwhelming majority of the world's nations have
shown resounding support for this lifesaving treaty with human rights
 protection at its core," said Brian Wood, Head of Arms Control and
 Human Rights at Amnesty International, at the UN conference in
New York.
World's Top Arms Exporters: Big 'Five'
United States
Russia
Germany
France
China
Source: Amnesty International
Major arms producers China and Russia joined Cuba, Venezuela,
 Bolivia, Nicaragua and other countries in abstaining.
"Those countries that voted no are no surprise really...
23 other countries abstained. Most abstained instead of 
voting against it because they did not want to be lumped 
in with the other three countries," Al Jazeera's Cath Turner
 reported.
The United States, the world's number one arms exporter,
 said last week it would vote in favour of the treaty despite
opposition from the National Rifle Association, a powerful
 US pro-gun lobbying group.
The NRA opposes the treaty and has vowed to fight to
prevent its ratification by the US Senate when it reaches
 Washington - saying it would undermine domestic gun-
ownership rights.
Every country would be free to sign and ratify the treaty.
 It will take effect after the 50th ratification, which could take up to two years.

The treaty will not control the domestic use of weapons
 in any country, but it will require all countries to establish
 national regulations to control the transfer of conventional
arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers.

The first major arms accord since the 1996 Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would cover tanks, armoured
 combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft,
 attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile
 launchers, as well as small arms and light arms.

States would also have to assess whether a weapon could
 be used for genocide, war crimes or by so-called "terrorists"
 or organised crime before it is sold.
For more than a decade, activists and some governments
 have been pushing for international rules to regulating the
 arms trade.
Intensive negotiations
Hopes of reaching agreement at a UN negotiating conference
 were dashed in July when the US said it needed more time to
consider the proposed accord - a move quickly backed by
Russia and China.
In December, the UN General Assembly decided to hold a
final negotiating conference to agree on a treaty and set last
Thursday as the deadline.
After two weeks of intensive negotiations, there was growing
optimism as the deadline approached that all the member
 states would approve the final draft treaty by consensus -
a requirement set by the United States.
This time, the US was prepared to support the final draft treaty
, but Iran, North Korea and Syria objected.
Iran said the treaty had many "loopholes", was "hugely
susceptible to politicisation and discrimination", and ignored
the "legitimate demand" to prohibit the transfer of arms to those
 who committed aggression.
Syria cited seven objections, including the treaty's failure to
include an embargo on delivering weapons "to terrorist armed
 groups and to non-state actors".
And North Korea said the treaty favoured arms exporters who
can restrict arms to importers that have a right to legitimate
self-defense and the arms trade.
Amnesty International said all three countries "have abysmal
 human rights records, having even used arms against their
 own citizens".

Monday, March 18, 2013

Gun Control On Steriods

It is hard to believe that with nationwide sentiments against imposing any form of gun control that the supporters would continue pushing the issue. The ruling class has apparently decided that those of us who "cling to our guns and bibles" just aren't smart enough to know what is in our best interests. 

We have asked others for a cogent rationale on the massive Department of Homeland Security (DHS) purchases of ammo, the AR-15s and the armored personnel carriers and we get answers like "it's to offset the sequester on the military" or "it's for practice" or "the government always is buying stuff" or "you are just being paranoid. "  Yes, the government does buy stuff but not in the amount that is being done now and more importantly  not by a domestic law enforcement agency.  

Could the economy be very fragile and those in charge believe the citizens will riot when it crumbles? Or are they planning to confiscate retirement savings and know that would make people go crazy? Or are they concerned that cells of Muslim followers will create a war in the states? Or will gun confiscation become a reality and DHS will need the tools to control the rubes?  All of the above are scenarios which could become reality. Will they or are we missing something?

We have lots of questions and few answers. Bob Livingston, in the following article, believes it is all about gun control. That definitely is a possibility.  We are not sure what the reasons are, but one can only expect that the government is planning for a contingency about which they refuse to tell the American public. That is not good. 

The ruling class fears something otherwise they would not be furiously passing laws against guns and buying weapons, ammo and armored vehicles to protect themselves. Whatever is coming, we, the general public, will be on the outside looking in. (Or if the story on  FEMA camps is accurate, we will be on the inside looking out!!)

Conservative Tom 



Is Government Readying For A Shooting War Against Gun Owners?

March 18, 2013 by  
Is Government Readying For A Shooting War Against Gun Owners?
PHOTOS.COM
Gun grabbing lawmakers at both the State and Federal level continue to push forward with their anti-American, anti-2ndAmendment, anti-gun agendas, even as more individuals, State legislatures and manufacturers of weapons, weapons accessories and ammunition push back. It almost seems as if the elected class is itching for a fight.
And when one considers that the Department of Homeland Security has contracted for 1.6 billion rounds ofammunition — much of it hollow points or for use in sniper rifles — for its 55,000 armedagents, plus 2,717 armored personnel carriers and 7,000 select fire “personal defense weapons,” it seems even more apparent that’s the goal. For perspective, 1.6 billion rounds is enough to fight the Iraq war for 20 years. It’s enough to shoot every American five times. It’s 28,000 tons, or the equivalent of three guided missile destroyers. It’s almost 30,000 target practice rounds per armed agent — but of course, because they are more expensive, hollow points are not used for target practice.
These purchases have long concerned many of those who pay attention. But only the alternative media talked about it — to derision and catcalls — until Feb. 15. That’s when The Denver Post ran an article by The Associated Press about the purchases. That prompted a column by Ralph Benko at Forbes.com in which he said it’s time for a national conversation about the purchases.
More than that, it’s time for a national conversation on the link between the purchases and the ongoing push by the elected class to collapse the economy and pass legislation against the will of the people.
Recall that Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), speaking for the state, informed us that, “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday on a partisan 10-8 vote. The bill’s primary sponsor, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) — who has said she’d like to see all guns removed from the hands of Americans — knows “the road is uphill” for the legislation’s passage. If that’s the case, then why pass it if not just to poke in the eye a significant portion of the American population already upset over the anti-gun rhetoric and attacks on lawful gun owners by the gun grabbers?
But while the ban on so-called “assault weapons”  is more than likely to fail, it’s not unlikely that Republicans who want to go along to get along will glom on to legislation requiring universal background checks, which passed out of the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Universal background checks are the camel’s nose under the tent. As former Attorney General Janet Reno said in 1993 during discussions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (AWB): “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” Remember that the elites are content with incremental steps that I call gradualism.
Remember also that gun control is not a partisan issue, although it appears so now and conventional wisdom says so. Prominent Republicans (including much of the field for the last GOP Presidential nomination), in a bid to appear “reasonable” to the establishment crowd, have supported various measures that restricted gun ownership. The last GOP standard-bearer, Mitt Romney, said he would have signed the 1994 AWB if it came to his desk. If he were President today, a gun bill would be more than likely to pass because he would provide cover for statist Republicans to go along with a gun ban — as George W. Bush provided cover for Republicans to support anti-liberty measures like expanding Medicare and passing No Child Left Behind and other government-growing legislation.
President Richard Nixon, in a taped conversation with aides, said: “I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house. The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth.” He asked why “can’t we go after handguns, period? I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.”
Even more insidious — and likely more harmful to gun rights — are the States that are passing anti-gun measures against the will of the people. New York rammed through legislation banning weapons and large-capacity magazines, violating its own procedures in the process. Since then, 52 of New York’s 62 counties have introduced legislation calling for the repeal of the New York State Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act. The legislation has passed in 40 of them. Colorado has passed bans on magazine capacity, and a bill that would require background checks is close to passage. Governor John Hickenlooper has said he will sign the bills despite threats by gun supply manufacturers to pull out of the State if he does.
Sheriffs, other law enforcement agents, some groups and many individuals are vowing to resist gun-confiscation efforts. Twenty-eight States have introduced or passed bills to preserve the 2nd Amendment. Fourteen have introduced or passed Firearms Freedom Acts.
Manufacturers of guns, gun accessories and ammunition have put their financial health on the line by refusing to sell to State and local governments that pass restrictions on gun ownership by individuals. That list is at 136 and growing.
And the Outdoor Channel, a popular cable channel for outdoors enthusiasts, hunters, fishermen and shooters, has told Colorado it will pull its production out of Colorado if gun control measures are signed into law.
If gun grabbers thought the Sandy Hook shooting would cause Americans to stand passively by and allow their 2nd Amendment rights to be snatched away, they have learned differently. The question now is: How far is government willing to go now that it’s getting push-back?
President John F. Kennedy once said, “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life.”
It appears those people are stepping up.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Comparing 1776 With 2012--Same Issues?




  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger

I’ve been writing about it for over a year. Many of you may have thought that I was just trying to make a point and not serious about it. But, indeed I was always serious, as you should be too – as our Founding Fathers John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and company were serious in the years leading up to the Declaration of Independence in 1776. We no longer have a free nation! We no longer have a functional republic! What choice is there when the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government fail and refuse to take into account the profound grievances of the “We the People” and instead walk off to feather their own corrupt establishment nest?
The Founding Fathers and the colonies declared independence and waged a revolutionary war for a lot less than the current tyranny we face. First, the colonies were very prosperous but also subject to being heavily taxed – that is, financially raped by King George III – without representation in the British Parliament. They were hardly bankrupt as the nation is today. With the disgusting and revolting (no pun intended) actions on display just in the last days in Congress and the executive branch with regard to the so-called fiscal cliff legislation – which will increase onerous taxes and in fact increase the country’s bankruptcy by $4 trillion in debt over the next 10 years – it is clear that King George III was an amateur tyrant when compared with the nation’s current, self-serving and greedy establishment hacks in both major political parties.
Second, John Adams (who as a trial lawyer risked his career to successfully defend British soldiers who had been provoked to fire on and kill colonial protesters on Boston Common) and his fellow Founding Fathers were outraged that even after the American legal system had functioned properly and acquitted the British soldiers, King George ordered that all criminal defendants accused of felonies be subsequently tried in British courts in London. The king removed the legal right of the colonies to adjudicate serious crimes committed on American soil. Today, and as just one example among an ever-expanding array of disgraceful illegal acts by our judges on a daily basis, the refusal of courts to hear eligibility challenges concerning the status of Barack Hussein Obama as a “natural born citizen” reinforces the reality that we no longer have a functional legal system. Notwithstanding that the result is a black-Muslim, anti-white, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian “Manchurian candidate” fraudster socialist tyrant in the Oval Office – bent on tearing down and destroying the pillars of our formerly capitalist society – “We the People” have been left defenseless, legally, by the judges who have taken an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution, the law and mete out justice.
Third, the colonies objected to having King George impose what was in effect a trade embargo; the despot ruler ordering that the colonies could not engage in tea and other forms if trade with other countries, but instead had to primarily buy only British products.
Fourth, when the Founding Fathers and colonies sought to reason with the king to have him remove this bondage and heavy taxation without representation, the Crown reacted by sending its troops to seize and destroy American arms and weapons, to try to prevent the colonies from rising up in rebellion. The absolute right to bear arms was enshrined into the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a result. Today, with the overreaction to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and the convenient and opportunistic push by leftists led by Obama to begin the process of banning guns and seizing our weapons of self-defense against not just the so-called government but other criminals among us – we can see more than the similarities of our plight in 1776.
In short, our situation – whereby the nation has been intentionally bankrupted by the Democratic and Republican establishment and sold out to the equivalent of biblical money changers in the modern form of special interests who line the pockets of our government representatives with campaign contributions and other forms of cash, legal and illegal, to do their bidding – is far worse than in 1776. And, that is not even to mention the moral decay that has swept the nation and is rotting it from within, as manifested in our generally filthy and degenerate movies, television and music – which have been furthered by government entities like the Federal Communications Commission, whose commissioners come from both political parties.
Thus, the profound and moving words and self-evident truths contained in the Declaration of Independence ring even more true today than in 1776. They read just in part, “… when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them (meaning ‘We the People’) under absolute Despotism, its is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The time has come after a long line of “abuses and usurpations” for us to rise up and demand that our current so called rulers leave “Dodge City,” or suffer the consequences as King George III was forced to do.
I am currently in a deep contemplative mood on how to try to do this peacefully without resort to violence. The Founding Fathers, however, ultimately concluded that peaceful means were not possible.
We now find ourselves at a similar crossroads with little time to waste before the nation is totally destroyed by its corrupt and degenerate establishment rulers.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/revolution/#JtQX5x8zC6gwcwQs.99