Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Operation Choke Point, Operation Communism

    Operation Choke Point, Operation Communism

    by Guest Post • September 1, 2014

    by Sara Noble and Rosalie Hanson

    The Department of Justice’s Operation Choke Point gives unlimited power to the executive branch to just shut down bank accounts of businesses at will! That means a business can’t run. It is communism.
    It is a clearly anti-Capitalist initiative of the United States Department of Justice first announced in 2013. They are investigating banks in the United States and the business they do with payment processors, payday lenders, and other companies believed to be at higher risk for fraud, money laundering, and terrorist financing.
    The executive branch gets to decide who the offenders will be outside any oversight by Congress.
    They have gone way beyond their stated intents. It is being used to choke businesses they don’t like and banks they want to menace. It poses an existential threat to due process.
    The program cuts off companies’ access to banking services without having to show that the targeted companies are violating the law. Innocent businesses are being made to suffer and perhaps fold. Businesses cannot survive without a bank to do business with.
    Some of the merchant categories that the FDIC had listed until July 2014 as being associated with high-risk activity include, but are not limited to (until the FDIC revised the original policy in July 2014) these listed below, and of course they include firearms – what a great way to destroy the Second Amendment!

    Who will get to decide what is a home-based charity or racist material or a travel club and so on? There are serious implications for our First Amendment.
    Governor Huckabee described Operation Choke Point last evening on his Fox News Show.

    This administration’s attack on Capitalism doesn’t end there. They have been extorting money from banks since Obama came into office. The collapse is the excuse even though the politicians contributed far more to the collapse.
    There is hardly a month goes by where we don’t hear about a bank having to pay a hefty fine – extorted money by an overly-powerful government.
    JP Morgan Chase was pushed by the government to buy corrupt companies that helped cause the 2008 meltdown. The government then extorted billions of dollars from them and gave it to Obama cronies.
    The $13 billion dollar settlement agreed to by JP Morgan Chase was retribution for the economic collapse of 2008 – supposedly.
    At the time of the 2008 collapse, JP Morgan was asked by the US government and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsen to buy WAMU and Bear Stearns to stave off colossal systemic failure.
    “Bear Stearns would have gone down if JP Morgan hadn’t acquired it,” Henry M. Paulson Jr., the former Treasury secretary, said in October on CNBC. “If that had happened, it would have been a real disaster,” said Mr. Paulson, who helped oversee both deals.
    The government acknowledges that it urged Chase to buy the two banks.
    Hank Paulson said that even though JP Morgan was “begged” to make the Bear Stearns and the WaMu acquisitions, the government did not make any guarantees on legal liabilities. “Jamie knew that at the time,” Paulson said.
    Others remember it differently. JP Morgan was promised that if they bought WAMU and Bear Stearns, they would not pay for the crimes committed by the two entitites.
    Whatever the case, JP Morgan was made to give $13 billion to the government for crimes committed primarily by WAMU and Bear Stearns. About 80% of the liabilities/mortgages were in fact owned by the two companies and not by Chase. Chase said that the FDIC backed the mortgages and bears the responsibility.
    The government rejected that argument.

    Published on Dec 9, 2013
    There is one error in this clip. Judge Napolitano says that JP Morgan Chase bought Countrywide. Bank of America bought Countrywide. Chase bought WAMU and Bear Stearns. The rest of the clip is accurate.

    The 2008 economic collapse is being used by the Obama Administration to rob private corporations of earned profits so the government can redistribute the money to their favored constituents.
    The DOJ forced the $13 billion dollar settlement on JP Morgan Chase investors, investors that include unions, seniors, and average working people.
    The settlement creates a more threatening relationship by government towards private corporations.
    Usually governments try to attract investment and encourage an environment in which private companies thrive, which in turn leads to economic growth, innovation, jobs and profits. The more predictable the environment, the more worthwhile the investment and risk for companies.
    The JP Morgan settlement does the opposite.
    The Obama Administration has been disrupting the relationship between government and private business for the last five years. The government abandoned investors for their favored unions in the auto bailout despite agreements to the contrary, they have given unearned grants and subsidies to Obama bundlers in the solar industry, they have bullied guitar companies, and have threatened insurance companies.
    The government is again pressuring banks to give loans to minorities to buy homes they cannot afford.
    The recent forced settlement with JP Morgan Chase is more of the same and epitomizes the new relationship between companies and the government. The government is now in control of private corporations when it chooses to be in control. The government now has the right to steal private property under the guise of fines, retribution, and criminal prosecution.
    The government can beg you to buy up entities to save the country from economic collapse as they did with JP Morgan and then fine you for it.
    Banks are easy targets and they now serve as another ATM for the government.
    No one feels sorry for bankers and their investors.
    The money did not go to the victims of the collapse, it went to Democratic donors and other special interest groups.
    The government recently did the same thing to Bank of America. After demonizing banks with the public, they go in for the kill and extort money from them.
    Radical Democrat activist groups stand to collect millions from Attorney General Eric Holder’s record $17 billion deal to settle alleged mortgage abuse charges against Bank of America.
    There are $7 billion in political payoffs to Democrat special interests. The bank will also have to make billions in new loans while also building affordable low-income rental housing in those areas.
    They will be providing legal aid for the poor and left-wing causes, some of which are to attack banks and Capitalism. The organizations include radical shakedown communists. ACORN is one of the recipients. Others are IOLTA, Operation Hope, Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America whose director calls himself a “bank terrorist”, and National Community Reinvestment Coalition, among many others. These people will spend some of their riches to indirectly buy votes.
    Bank of America is being forced to bankroll the same parasites that bled them for risky loans that caused the mortgage crisis.
    The money does not go to the victims of the crisis. It was done without due process or evidence. Read about the details at Doug Ross, Director Blue.
    This is a direct attack on Capitalism and is in no way set up to protect the American people though that is how it is being sold.
    Stephen Lerner explains one plan to destroy Capitalism by SEIU and other communist-run organizations.

    If it looks like a duck and walks/quack/flies etc. like a duck, it is a duck. Mr. Obama and his administration are ducks. Don’t listen to their eloquent language, watch what they do and you will find the undeniable evidence.
    Last edited by kathyet2; 09-01-2014 at 11:18 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Tea Party

    Shared publicly - 10:39 AM

    Gun Maker Blocked from Processing Credit Card Sales, Blames Obama’s ‘Operation Choke Point’

    Gun Maker Blocked from Processing Credit Card Sales, Blames Obama’s ‘Operation Choke Point’ - Tea Party News
    (The Blaze) – An Oregon-based gun maker said Thursday that it has been blocked from processing credit card transactions by its long-standing credit card company, and believes it is the latest victim of the Obama administration’s “Operation Choke Point.” The Obama administration has said Choke Point lets the Departments of Justice and Treasury crack down ...

    Gun Maker Blocked from Processing Credit Card Sales, Blames Obama’s ‘Operation Choke Point’

    (The Blaze) – An Oregon-based gun maker said Thursday that it has been blocked from processing credit card transactions by its long-standing credit card company, and believes it is the latest victim of the Obama administration’s “Operation Choke Point.”

    The Obama administration has said Choke Point lets the Departments of Justice and Treasury crack down on illegal businesses by blocking their access to banks and other parts of the U.S. financial system.

    Gun makers say they are threatened by the Obama administration’s Operation Choke Point; one producer in Oregon was told he could no longer process credit card transactions, and blames Choke Point.

    But critics of the program have said the administration is using it to crack down on businesses it doesn’t approve of, under the guise of trying to stop illegal activities, even when they have done nothing illegal.

    Calico Light Weapons Systems believes it is the latest victim of the administration’s overreach. In a statement released Thursday, Chris Holmgren, the company’s owner, says he was unexpectedly warned in mid-July that his credit card processor would have to close his account due to “illegal activities.”
    Firearms producers are prohibited by law from selling guns over the Internet. But Holmgren says his company does not sell guns online, and only sells certain parts.

    “The [credit card] company thought that I sold firearms over the Internet, which I do not,” he said. “My company only sells parts online, like screws, washers, and other soft goods.”

    After several phone calls to his credit card processor, Intuit Merchant Service, Holmgren was told a “policy change” related to “illegal activities” is what was forcing Intuit to close Calico’s account.

    “By this point, I wondered if my company had been a target of Operation Choke Point,” he said. “I had heard of the program, but never believed that my company’s accounts could be at risk since we do nothing illegal.”

    Holmgren said that his company later indicated it would re-open his account, but said this has not happened yet.

    “I am certain that this is the work of Operation Choke Point, and that my company was targeted because it is considered a ‘high risk’ by the Department of Justice and FDIC, even though we do nothing illegal,” he said.

    In the meantime, Calico has managed to recover from the setback by partnering with what Holmgren says is a “pro-Second Amendment” credit card servicer — McMillan Merchant Solutions, which is based in Arizona. Holmgren told TheBlaze he is already using McMillan to process transactions again — he says the difference between Intuit and McMillan is simply that McMillan has decided that it won’t be cowed by the government’s strong-arm tactics.
    While Holmgren has not been told Operation Choke Point is the reason why he got the boot from Intuit, his experience is similar to that of other companies that have been targeted by the program.

    According to people familiar with the program, Obama administration officials have targeted several industries, including those dealing with guns, gambling, credit repair services, payday lending and others.

    Under the program, officials have told banks and other financial institutions that they are responsible not just for their clients, but for their clients’ customers. Officials warn these institutions that they should not provide financial services to companies in these high-risk industries.
    Close observers of the program have said these warnings often have the effect of forcing banks to quickly jettison any client that could pose a possible risk, which leads to sudden notices to companies like the one received by Calico.

    “Operation Choke Point isn’t just targeting online merchants, it’s targeting entire industries, regardless of their clean records and law-abiding practices,” Brian Wise, senior advisor for the U.S. Consumer Coalition, told TheBlaze.

    “Calico Light Weapon Systems reached out to the U.S. Consumer Coalition as the first gun manufacturer who came forward as a victim of Operation Choke point,” he said. “Now it is clear that the administration is not just going after gun dealers, but manufacturers as well. This program represents the single biggest threat to gun ownership that U.S. consumers have ever seen.”

    The scheme has gotten the attention of Congress, but so far, members have not been able to pass legislation to try to scale back the operation.
    In July, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Operation Choke Point, at which Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said the program has stopped some illegal activities, along with an “unacceptable level of collateral damage.”

    Goodlatte also said there is evidence that the program is being abused, as officials seem to be going after entire industries that they don’t support, instead of just those involved in illegal activities.

    “For example, the committee obtained a jarring account of a meeting between a senior FDIC regulator and a banker contemplating serving a payday lending client,” Goodlatte said. “The official told the banker, ‘I don’t like this product and I don’t believe it has any place in our financial system… Your decision to move forward will result in an immediate, unplanned, audit of your entire bank.’ ”

    “This sounds more like strong-arming than law enforcement,” Goodlatte concluded.

    Also in July, Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas) spoke on the House floor to warn about the abuse of the program.
    “Operation Choke Point began quietly last year as a way for President Obama and the Justice Department to intimidate and strangle businesses they no longer support,” he said. “By forcing banks to cut ties with law-abiding businesses like sporting goods stores [and] licensed gun dealers, these business owners have no recourse.”
    Read Calico’s statement here:

    My name is Chris Holmgren, and I own a company called Calico Light Weapons Systems that sells guns through distributors. We also sell gun parts (like screws and washers) and accessories online. This July, my business has been a victim of Operation Choke Point, the DoJ's program to shut lawful businesses out of the banking system and payment processing networks.Like other Operation Choke Point victims, I had no warning that my company would be cut off from our financial resources. Late on Friday, the 18th of July, 2014, I received a call from my credit card processor, Intuit Merchant Service. A woman from the company, Mary, left a message and number, asking me to call her back. On Monday the 21st, I called back and asked for Mary. No one at Intuit knew who she was. After many transfers, a man finally was able to tell me that my account had been closed. He did not know why, so he transferred me to the "risk management" department, where I was told that it was due to "illegal activities." The company thought that I sold firearms over the internet, which I do not my company only sells parts online, like screws, washers, and other soft goods. After explaining this to him, the risk management department said that all I needed to do was fax our FFL to the risk department under a case number to resolve the issue, which I did. On Wednesday, my wife told me that the account still was not working. I called back, and after being bounced among multiple different representatives, I finally got ahold of a lady named Diane. She told me that my account could not be reactivated due to illegal activity, and explained to me that selling firearms over the internet is illegal. Again, as I had explained to the gentleman on Monday, I said that we do not sell guns, but only parts. I was then transferred to a lady named Jan, and she again was under the impression that my company was involved in illegal activity. After going back and forth with Jan about the nature of my company, Jan transferred me back to Diane, who told me that the account closing was actually due to an ambiguous "policy change" made in December of 2013. By this point, I wondered if my company had been a target of Operation Choke Point. I had heard of the program, but never believed that my company's accounts could be at risk since we do nothing illegal. I asked Diane if the account closing was due to the DoJ's Operation Choke Point, and she laughed and said no. I then asked her if she knew about that program, and she laughed again, and said yes, but that this was not affecting my case. The issue was not resolved.On Thursday, I received a call from yet another Intuit representative, this one named Jennifer. In what had become a Comedy of Errors, Jennifer asked me why I had closed my account with Intuit. I explained that it was not I who had closed the account, and that Intuit severed the account. She put me on hold to further explore the issue, and came back to the line to apologize and say she would look into the matter. On Friday morning, Jennifer called me back and told me that my account had been closed due to illegal activity. She said that Intuit would like to reopen the account, but by this point, I told her that Intuit had burned the bridge. She said that she was going to reactivate the account anyway, and that we could use it if we decided to. I finally agreed to this. Intuit has said that they reopened the account, but it has been a week and a half, and I am still not able to process any credit cards. I am certain that this is the work of Operation Choke Point, and that my company was targeted because it is considered a "high-risk" industry by the Department of Justice and FDIC, even though we do nothing illegal.
    The US Consumer Coalition is a grassroots consumer advocacy organization working to protect and expand access to free-market goods and services. For more information, please visit
    Laura Keehner Rigas (202) 999-9028
    Chris HolmgrenPresidentCalico Light Weapons Systems

    - See more at:

    Last edited by kathyet2; 09-04-2014 at 03:40 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Bloomberg Back in News Biz After Gun Control Efforts Fail

    Share this Tweet this Google +
    September 4, 2014 8:58 am

    (Breitbart) – With gun control failing nationally, The New York Times reports that Michael Bloomberg is heading back to private business at Bloomberg L.P.
    This comes after he dumped $150,000 into the August 12th Milwaukee County Sheriff’s race in an attempt to beat Sheriff David Clarke’s “conservative pro-gun policies.” Clarke won. Bloomberg lost.
    It also comes after his gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety aired a video meant to justify firearm confiscation for women’s safety, but which inadvertently made the case for women to own guns to protect themselves. Breitbart News reported that after a female panel reviewed the commercial on ABC’s The View, three of the four panelists came away telling women to get a gun to protect themselves and their children.

    Bloomberg’s return to private business also comes after the most visible gun control group he supports, Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America, only managed to convince five businesses–Chipotle, Jack in the Box, Chili’s, Sonic, and Target–to ask law-abiding citizens to come to their stores unarmed. Moms Demand was able to get a sixth business–Starbucks–to ask customers who openly carry firearms not to be so flamboyant about it.
    On the other side of the coin, Breitbart News recently reported that 57,000 businesses were fighting this push by putting a “guns welcome” sign on their front doors.
    And all this comes after Bloomberg pledged $50 million to defeat the NRA in November 2014. But if red state Democrats are any indicator, the NRA is a much safer bet than the $50 million.
    In the end, Bloomberg may still win a few scattered races or a state initiative here or there, but right now, his gun control legacy is characterized by defeat–like the kind of defeat he was handed in Colorado in 2013 when he spent hundreds of thousands to help state Senators John Morse (D-Colorado Springs) and Angela Giron (D-Pueblo) survive recall, only to see them both lose.
    Interestingly, the day before Giron was defeated, she warned that Bloomberg’s gun control push through groups like Mayors Against Illegal Guns was over even if only one of the two senators lost, stating, “If they lose even one of these seats, they might as well fold it up. And they understand that.”

    Share this Tweet this Google +

    - See more at:

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    The British Banned Guns On Our Founding Fathers & It Brought About A Revolution

    Published on: September 4, 2014

    Many today don’t realize that we are facing the same sort of tactics by our own Federal government that our forefathers faced from the British just prior to the War for Independence. In fact, I’ll venture to guess that most people never were taught in school what follows in this article. That’s right, gun control is nothing new now, nor was it even new in the twentieth century. It was very much alive in the eighteenth century. So when someone comes along telling you “the founding fathers wouldn’t have envisioned this or that” with regards to arms, just remind them of what they faced during their lifetimes when the primary weapons were single shot muskets and cannons.

    Following the events of December 16, 1773 in which the Sons of Liberty in Boston made a political protest of the tax policy of the British government and the East India Company that controlled all the tea that was imported into the colonies in Boston Harbor. Disguised as Indians, a group numbering anywhere from 30 to 130 men dumped 342 chests of tea into the sea over the course of three hours.
    As a result of this protest, Parliament, with the direct encouragement of King George III, passed the Coercive Acts, or as they were properly known the Restraining Acts, in 1774. These acts are as follows:

    Boston Port Act
    (June 1, 1774)

    Quartering Act (June 2, 1774)
    Administration of Justice Act (May 20, 1774)
    Massachusetts Government Act (May 20, 1774)

    Though Parliament was warned by men like Edmund Burke and Lord Chatham that such legislation would not be wise and would only provoke the colonists more, they failed to listen to reason.
    Patriots that heard of the Acts determined that they would fight and die rather than see such laws enforced upon them by the British Army. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” Interestingly enough, a South Carolina newspaper essay, which was reprinted in Virginia at the time, recorded that any law that required the military to enforce it was “necessarily illegitimate,” according to David B. Kopel.
    In Massachusetts, the Royal Governor, General Thomas Gage, forbid town meetings from taking place more than once a year. So when an illegal meeting was taking place in Salem, he sent in the British Redcoats to break it up. They were met with 3,000 armed Americans and they retreated. Interestingly enough, Gage’s aide, John Andrews, said that anyone in the area that was 16 years or older owned a firearm and had gunpowder. If you were wondering, yes this is where the issue of the First Amendment came from and where “town hall meetings” originated from. Let’s just say in Massachusetts, it was “getting real.”
    The British realized that they could not control the people with only 2,000 troops in Boston. So what did they do? They sought to eliminate the people’s ability to firearms and gun powder.
    Remember, at one time it was law in the colonies for militiamen to own their own firearms and have a minimum quantity of gunpowder on hand, though all could not afford it. Remember too, that this powder was not stable like that we use today.
    On September 1, 1774, just before dawn, Gage sent approximately 260 Redcoats up the Mystic River to seize several hundred barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house and this became known as the “Powder Alarm.”
    The militia at the time produced 20,000 men who mobilized and began marching towards Boston. American colonists believed that if the British were going to use force or violence to seize arms or powder, it was an act of war and they would respond in kind. This is what happened the following year.
    Kopel writes,
    Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention.
    That same day, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point Resolves complained about the Powder Alarm, and then took control of the local militia away from the Royal Governor (by replacing the Governor’s appointed officers with officers elected by the militia) and resolved to engage in group practice with arms at least weekly.
    The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians.
    Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”
    Perhaps you are seeing exactly where the Bill of Rights came from. It was borne out of the injustices that were done to the Colonists by a tyrannical government.
    The Massachusetts Assembly convened so that representatives could reassemble as the “Provincial Congress.” Gage declared the assembly illegal. Notice that didn’t stop it. Then on October 26, 1774 they adopted a resolution which condemned military rule and criticized Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large quantities of ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.”
    Gage was urged a week prior by Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America, to disarm New England. Two days after the letter was dispatched from Dartmouth, King George III and Parliament blocked the importation of arms and ammunition to Americans. While the order required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America, the reality was that no permits were granted. This effectively blocked arms and ammunition being imported to the colonies. Does this sound familiar to the kind of talk we hear today regarding certain types of weapons and ammunition? I think it does.
    Founding Father Ben Franklin set out to import arms and ammunition from France, Spain and the Netherlands.
    Paul Revere took to New Hampshire to warn of British ships approaching with the express purpose that they were going to be seizing firearms, cannons and gunpowder at Fort William and Mary. Four hundred New Hampshire patriots moved preemptively to capture those arms on December 14, 1774. A prominent New Hampshire paper at the time said the capture was both “prudent” and “proper.” They also reminded their readers of the ancient Carthagians who consented to “deliver up all their Arms to the Romans” and then overcome by them soon after.
    Kopel gives great insight as he writes,
    “The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.”
    Things became more heated and pressed in the following months. On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry gave his famous speech to the Virginia legislature. During that speech Henry declared, “The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.”
    That convention put forth a committee which included Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. The purpose of this committee was “to prepare a plan for the embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient” to defend their commonwealth. This convention then urged “that every Man be provided with a good Rifle” and “that every Horseman be provided . . . with Pistols and Holsters, a Carbine, or other Firelock.”
    Can you imagine our legislature putting forth something like that today? Frankly, I would love to see it!
    Ultimately, do you know what started America’s War for Independence? That’s right, it was a tyrannical government that soft peddled “self-defense” while banning firearms and gunpowder.
    On April 19, 1775, British and American soldiers exchanged fire in the Massachusetts towns of Lexington and Concord. On the night of April 18, the royal governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, commanded by King George III to suppress the rebellious Americans, had ordered 700 British soldiers, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith and Marine Major John Pitcairn, to seize the colonists’ arms and gunpowder stores in Concord.
    At Lexington Green, the British were met by approximately seventy American Minute Men led by John Parker. At the North Bridge in Concord, the British were confronted again, this time by 300 to 400 armed colonists, and were forced to march back to Boston with the Americans firing on them all the way. By the end of the day, the colonists were singing “Yankee Doodle” and the American Revolution had begun. You can read a timeline of the events that followed here.
    With the Americans pushing back against the British use of military force to seize their firearms, Gage sought to offer the people of Boston the opportunity to leave town, but only if they surrendered their arms. Some accepted the offer and some 2,674 guns were surrendered. Gage didn’t let the people go.
    While Benjamin Franklin had just returned from London on an unsuccessful diplomatic trip, he “was highly pleased to find the Americans arming and preparing for the worst events.”
    On June 19, 1775, Gage finally gave an ultimatum to the Bostonians. They were to surrender their arms. Anyone that was found in possession of arms would be deemed guilty of treason.
    Just weeks later on July 6, 1775 the Continental Congress issued A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms. This was written by Thomas Jefferson and Pennsylvania lawyer John Dickinson.
    Jefferson wrote:
    We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force.—The latter is our choice—We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery.—Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.
    Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable… With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.
    Kurt Nimmo recites what followed:
    The document was drafted after England sent soldiers to “restore order” in the Colonies and the Second Continental Congress thought it necessary to raise an army and justify its actions.
    It also underscored the necessity to bear arms against tyranny – a concept that is almost entirely lost today as the United Nations conspires to register and confiscate the firearms of Americans and ill-informed citizens defend the Second Amendment as the right to own a gun for hunting.
    Two days later, on July 8, 1775, the Olive Branch Petition was issued. It proposed a final peace deal with England and promised loyalty to the British government if it repealed the Coercive Acts and ended its taxation without representation policies.
    The Olive Branch Petition was summarily dismissed by King George’s official, stating that the Colonies were in a state of rebellion. The English Parliament then passed the American Prohibitory Act, which forbid any further trade with the Colonies. In other words, they imposed what we call today sanctions, which became a further act of war against the colonies.
    The rest, as they say is history, but this is the history before that.
    Now we are facing similar infringements upon our liberties, not by a tyrannical government on the other side of the globe with a few troops here on our soil, but by our own Federal government. They are taking the same steps that the British did against our forefathers. The question for you my fellow Americans, is this: Will you surrender to tyranny or will you stand against it? No one can make that choice for you, but remember the lessons of the past that those who surrender their arms, inevitably surrender their liberty and with it their lives. May God grant you strength to stand against tyranny.

    Don't forget to Like on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.


Similar Threads

  1. More Abuse Of Presidential Power-Operation Choke Point
    By Newmexican in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-03-2014, 03:23 AM
  2. New Group Takes Aim At Obama Administration’s ‘Operation Choke Point’
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-23-2014, 04:23 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 11:12 AM
  4. Operation B.E.E.F.
    By Jean in forum News & Releases from Other Groups
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2007, 05:48 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts