News & Analysis
Massive Psy-op? Obama Can Ban Guns By Himself – And He Will
Even without Congress, Obama could act to restrict guns ... Unburdened by re-election worries and empowered by law to act without Congress, U.S. President Barack Obama could take action to improve background checks on gun buyers, ban certain gun imports and bolster oversight of dealers. Prospects for gun control legislation intensified in the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, as more pro-gun rights lawmakers said on Monday they were open to the possibility while Obama and three cabinet members met at the White House to discuss the subject. – Reuters
Dominant Social Theme: Gun control is necessary now. Too much blood has been spilled.
Free-Market Analysis: We would be all for gun control except for two things: It doesn't work and it seems to be part of what we call directed history. The goal is to reduce the ability of individuals to fight back against world government.
There is almost no doubt more "controls" are on the way. This Reuters article explains how and why. Reuters is a bought-and-paid-for mouthpiece of the power elite, in our view. So when Reuters publishes an article like this, we pay attention.
The thrust of the Reuters article is that President Barack Obama has plenty of power within the executive branch to curtail the purchase and usage of firearms. The article also points out that because Obama has won a second term, he doesn't have to make so many political calculations.
Here's some more from the article:
Having just won a second four-year term, Obama does not need to fear alienating voters who favor gun rights and he could press ahead without lawmakers on fronts where federal law enables executive action ...
His administration has the power to issue executive orders or new rules, options that Obama is likely to consider in combination with possible new laws.
The National Rifle Association, the largest U.S. gun rights group with 4 million supporters, relies largely on its ability to influence lawmakers in order to block legislation.
Obama's appointees at the U.S. Justice Department have been studying ideas since the January 8, 2011, shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and 18 others at a public meeting. Giffords survived but six people died.
Christopher Schroeder, who ran the Justice Department's review, said it looked at possible legislation to send to Congress as well as action the administration could take itself.
"You always look at both, because if you can do it administratively it's certainly a less involved process," said Schroeder, who has since returned to a professorship at Duke Law School.
Many of the ideas have to do with the background checks that licensed gun dealers run on potential buyers.
Critics say the system has holes because it does not include all the data it should on those ineligible to buy guns. The FBI, which runs the system, could incorporate more data from within the federal government - using evidence of mental incompetence, for example ...
It is not clear what changes to the background checks would have prevented the mass shooting in Newtown, because the killer appeared to have used weapons his mother bought legally.
Other proposals for executive action by Obama include sharing information with state and local law enforcement about possibly illegal purchases; maintaining data on gun sales for longer periods to help with investigations; and restricting the importation of certain military-style weapons, as President George H.W. Bush did in 1989.
We see in this a number of subdominant elite themes. The idea that the US executive branch has extended power through executive orders is one such. There is no Constitutional authority that we know of for the kind of broad-reaching executive orders that POTUS is now signing or intends to sign.
Additionally, there is no clear-cut mandate for gun control or confiscation from a Constitutional point of view. The antecedents of the Second Amendment are fairly clear. Study them and the idea that people were not to be armed at will becomes tenuous.
So what is behind the current gun control push? Well ... obviously, recent gun shootings have contributed to it. But from our point of view, it is the power elite that is making the push for gun control and gun confiscation because global governance demands it.
Significant millions in the US are armed and determined to resist the encroachments of an international order. That's a problem for the elites driving the current global agglomeration.
The US has seemingly always been a primary target of those who want one world. The US's republican culture and tradition of agrarian independence has been attack since the nation's inception and even before, from what we can tell.
Thus, the current gun control agitation is a kind of endgame to a process that has been underway for at least two centuries or more.
What is most worrisome to us about the current push is its apparent ruthlessness. Obama may be traveling far beyond what is constitutionally justified but the larger issue must be the shootings themselves.
As we've pointed out in numerous articles now, beginning with Columbine (if not before) the questions regarding official narratives have multiplied. In almost every prominent case there have been reports of additional shooters and other inexplicable events.
Who is responsible ... and why? We don't know what can be done to assure the truth gets out but some sort of additional public or private investigatory body is surely needed.
It is unfortunate but true that official investigations into these sorts of events are yielding more questions than answers. And that goes for such shattering episodes as 9/11, as well.
Obama can indeed make it more difficult for those in the US to locate and purchase weapons. But it still remains a misguided policy. It empowers an elite that apparently wants to create world government, negates the US Constitution and uses events such as the recent massacre at Sandy Hook as a justification.
Conclusion: It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is some sort of strange and subterranean – yet national – psy-op designed to facilitate increased internationalism at the expense of individual freedom.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by tittiger on 12/24/12 11:54 AM
And where the hell is the uselss NRA?
(out suggesting unconstitutional solutions to non-problems)
Check out the Tenth Amendment Center for some real soltions:
Click to view link
|
Posted by tittiger on 12/24/12 11:51 AM
Please contact your State rep, and get him to introduce and sponsor the "2nd Amendment Preservation Act". A State act that will nullify any executive order or act of legislature infringing upon the Second amendment!! Contact every gun group and every liberty group that you can and get them behind it! Re-post this on every liberty page that you can find.
Click to view link
Click to view link
 |
Posted by Tolstoyan on 12/24/12 12:44 AM
I'm sure the Daily Bell is keeping up on this and I apologize if I am just repeating someone else here, but I just wanted to share two short videos that I thought were shocking - actors pretending to mourn family members of the alleged victims at Sandy Hook.
For the first video, look at 1:34 - it appears the woman actor is named Jennifer Greenberg Sexton (along with her actor husband) - it is clear they are crying those famous crocodile tears (recently cried by Obama):
Click to view link
The second video bothered me even more. This "grieving" father is an actor - I don't think any rational person would disagree with me:
Click to view link
|
Posted by Danny B on 12/23/12 02:59 PM
I suppose that I should mention the DICK ACT.
Click to view link
|
Posted by tittiger on 12/22/12 01:48 PM
Contact your state reps, and make them familiar with the model bill that the "Tenth Amendment Center" has written.
It calls for a pre-emptive nullification of any gun related executive orders OR legislation.
Click to view link
Learn about nuification. Read Tom Woods book "Nullification"
|
Posted by Tolstoyan on 12/21/12 04:27 PM
@ Daddy Warbucks.
Respectfully, I disagree with the idea that our threat lies within the United Nations. For many years I feared that the U.N. was going to take over "Amerika" and that all of our soldiers were going to be wearing blue helmets as they confiscated our firearms. I now believe I was entirely wrong.
Is world government here? Yes, and it is not in the name of the U.N. This fact occurred to me several years ago when I heard about the FBI/DEA busting some drug ring in Africa. The tyrannical world government is not found in the scary U.N., it is hidden under the name of the seemingly innocuous United States of America.
What is the name of the world government's police force? It's the United States military (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria). What is the name of the world government's monetary force? It's the Federal Reserve and its similarly placed banking institutions. What is the world government? It is the United States government as operated throughout the CIA and its other agencies. The world government has already been built!
The elite are never going to ever have us surrender our cosmetic American name to a world government under the name of the U.N. Yet, a hundred years from now, liberty-minded individuals will still be writing about the threat of the U.N. to America.
I'm not saying the U.N. is not a tool of the elite. All I am saying is that the elite get freedom-minded people to look at the U.N., while at the same time they are constructing a world government right under the so-called American patriots' noses but in the name of the United States of America (other countries only act as satellites to the United States of America).
In my opinion, it is a brilliant sleight of hand that has effectively built a world government without any protest in America. Maybe down the road the elite may switch from the United State of America as the center of the world government to China, but the modus operandi will be the same.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Excellent.
 |
Posted by rossbcan on 12/21/12 03:00 PM
"They" can make all the laws and regulations "they" want. People still have a choice whether or not to "obey" and, the threatened "or, else" is an initiation of aggression if "disobey" is peaceful with no victims apart from the thwarted ambitions of tyrant's whom opine "their right to impose their opinions on others, trumps the self-determination all others because of reasons that cannnot EVER bear truthful examination".
There is only ONE LAW and, those whom obey it will have "peace on earth" once they personally defend themselves from the aggressions of those who disobey:
Click to view link
It is ALWAYS "a time for ACTION" because we live in an "action precedes consequence" reality. Want different consequences? Try different actions:
Click to view link
 |
Posted by dave jr on 12/21/12 11:09 AM
I agree with Tolstoyan that increased gun ownership in the population may be an elite goal at this period of time. Within the context of a divide and conquer strategy, it makes sense that the "conquerer" would like the "divided" to do it to themselves. So the real battle is in uncovering buried realities in order to bridge the divide.
Meanwhile, the mechanisms of economic upheaval cause increased unrest and desperation. So as we seek to expose the conditioning, it is still necessary and our right to defend ourselves.
That being said, it is foolish to believe that firearms would be an effective means to push back against the State. Consider that already, if Fed Agents decide for whatever reason to kick in your door; they would gladly shoot you in the head for merely holding a firearm. One can escalate the confrontation until your home is a pile of smoldering splinters, if you want.
Again the real battle is in exposing the truth and to stop supporting offensive maneuvers. Oh, and thank you Oath Keepers.
|
Posted by daddy warbucks on 12/21/12 09:10 AM
More focus on defunding the UN would help claw back our freedom and liberties (not to mention better use of our taxes).
Through uninformed politicians, the UN is increasingly allowed to insert itself nationally and locally in every country. It has become a behemoth, tax eating, authoritative, supra-nationally sovereign, bloated, producing no product, no revenue bureaucracy that is desperate for relevance as 'world dominating regulatory' pushing Agenda 21, carbon taxes, gun control and needs more and more of our taxes to reach these goals to please their boss; the NWO intellectual elites and world bankers and their march toward a world monarchy. The UN is not there for your benefit, quite the opposite, as it lulls you with sweet sounding phrases (sustainable, peace, greater good, green).
Dis-arming the USA is part of their 'collective security' strategy (to defend them against you, as you pay for it). Reflect on the results of their 'collective defense' strategy which is now NATO and how out of the people's control it now is (congressional approval requirement to go to war is meaningless).
The UN & its agencies are immune to the laws of the countries where they operate' - Wikipedia
The IMF and WB are UN agencies.
Much of the membership of the UN are 3rd world dictatorships (easily bought votes) that would like nothing better than to spread western wealth to themselves through UN resolutions.
There is no question the UN is forcing it's control already over our sovereignty and needs to be defunded and kicked out of our country, our so-called representatives need to be woken up. Dis-arming the USA will open the gates of a world tyranny unlike anything the world has ever seen. We are being hit simultaneously from all sides; Agenda 21, climate change, gun control, 'terrorism', financial crisis, etc. all planned.
 |
Posted by Edgar Friendly on 12/20/12 09:44 PM
I can't get the image of the small female Bobby out of my head= correction.
|
Posted by Edgar Friendly on 12/20/12 09:32 PM
I can't get the image of the small female Bobbie in England during the riots they had, calling for help on her cell phone while rioters were beating a man right in front of her.
Here in America, we're not subjects. We're citizens. We're supposed to be responsible citizens, but we've been encouraged and baited to the entitlement life. no country, no person is perfect. For those of us who still believe, only GOD is perfect.
However, as for individual liberties and basic human rights, we're the only country that ackowledged our basic rights as coming from a divine source ; rather than our fellow man.
the Constitution still means something to a very large percentage of the American population. To try and alter this 224 year old constant is going to take more than a traitorous marxist/muslim/globalist and a few thousand of his cronies. Trust me.
|
Posted by Edgar Friendly on 12/20/12 09:03 PM
The problems with such tragedies are these two glaring realities that most people are aware of;
1.) Gun Free Zones- each and every atrocity takes place in such an environment. Such environments invite the psychotics and sociopaths to prey upon defensless people because they know it is highly likely they will not be confronted by an armed citizen there. Th4y may be insane; but these perps are not stupid.
2.) Psychiatric medicines. Both Anti-depressants and anit-psychotics work 180 degrees from advertised; they actually cause the violent episodes, and come with warnings that they can cause suicidal thoughts, and homicidal impulses.
Any national dialogue that fails to take these two realities will be cause for exasperation from all rational, thinking , civil Americans (not liberals) If Obama decides to play dictator; and use executive powers to ban all these magazines, and rifles, which never produced any drop in crime when Bill Clinton did it; will result in the type of citizen action we saw the last time a tyrant tryed to take away the people's arms here in America. plain and simple!
 |
Posted by 1776 on 12/20/12 07:17 PM
Going After Guns: 'You can't have police state and armed population"
Click to view link
 |
Posted by James Jaeger on 12/20/12 06:31 PM
We are working on a movie about the Second Amendment. We just interviewed Ron Paul for the movie. You can see a clip at http://youtu.be/XQChsCZV2yQ
Help up get this film -- MOLON LABE -- completed. See Click to view link for details (script, trailer, narration, budget, etc.)
 |
Posted by sama81 on 12/20/12 06:04 PM
The problem is with our society not guns. We teach our kids about violence from the time they are toddlers; we allow them to watch hours upon hours of violent T.V. and play video games that promote killing , and not only killing, but killing Cops. This crap is ingrained in their minds from very, very early ages. Then to top it off, the parents and other adults engage in these games only to reenforce the validity of this crap. GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM.
Strange how Hollywood doesn't mind making fortunes doing movies that engrain killing and violence, yet they want gun control... .WHAT HYPOCRITES.
Over 25,000 people die each year in the U.S. from ALCOHOL related accidents. This is another form of murder and I don't see all the Bleeding Heart Liberals marching to BAN Alcohol. How many people die each year from Heart Attacks, predominately brought on by Smoking and Obesity??? Where are the marchers to Ban McDonald's (Except Mike Bloomberg, who is a rich idiot) and Phillip Morris?
I have heard (and don't know if it is true) that one of the reasons Japan never invaded the U.S.Mainland was they feared that too many citizens had guns. It is not the legal gun owner that should be feared, it is the crazies out there that will find some way to do the killing they have been indoctrinated to do or the revenge they seek.
I would only guess that most gun killings are done by Drug Addicts, gangsters or someone who has gone blitzoid. And if he doesn't have a gun he will find another avenue to do his killing. You can learn how to make dynamite on the internet, or for that matter virtually any type of explosive and only the Good Lord knows what else. Nazi Germany and Russia took guns away from citizens, only to become Police States….IS THAT WHAT WE WANT??
 |
Posted by Ol' Grey Ghost on 12/20/12 05:07 PM
@ Tolstoyan
"I can't think of any other reasonable reason as to why gun rights have remained so unmolested all of these years."
Let me give you another "bone to gnaw on" in regards to that line of thought. A few years ago Wal-mart, because of all the government regulations, reduced the number of stores that would sell firearms to only one per its market zones.
My older son and I noticed that in the last few months just about every Wal-mart is carrying firearms again and many were carrying that Bushmaster rifle in their merchandise selection. Okay, there is a profitable customer base for selling firearms like this, and people have the right own them, but why all of a sudden do they appear on the scene when Wal-mart had cut back just few years ago due to "government red tape?"
What can I say? They brought back "Layaway" due to customer demand...
|
Posted by hbalfour on 12/20/12 04:44 PM
Gotta love coincidence: Lanza and the Aurora shooter (name escapes me) - both fathers of these 'lone gunmen' are under orders to testify at the LIBOR scandal investigation. What are the odds ?
|
Posted by Tolstoyan on 12/20/12 04:14 PM
@ Ol' Grey Ghost:
Thanks for the link. I think your well-written musings are correct - it seems that Americans are being "steered to slug it out amongst themselves until everyone is exhausted and then someone can step in take over and start to run everything as they see fit," - a "Bellum omnium contra omnes" or a Syrian free-for-all as described by Dimitri below. I can't think of any other reasonable reason as to why gun rights have remained so unmolested all of these years.
What I fear is that the elite's 1984 American military dictatorship is intentionally going to be built on the lives of those who love liberty who get suckered into a bloody civil war designed for their demise.
Is it plausible that "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands," is in fact an elite meme? - Now that is frightening.
|
Posted by Wrusssr on 12/20/12 03:38 PM
Who could possibly benefit from the massacre of children? What possible motive would they have to carry out such a heinous act? Is there a model or operational pattern attached to these tragedies?
To answer these questions, we first turn to an investigative report and an eye witness posted by DB reader hbalfour revealing details about the Tasmania massacre in Australia that was used by their politicians to confiscate and ban Australia's guns.
http:// www. biblebelievers. org. au /palies1.htm
Wendy Scurr was working in the cafe on the afternoon that the Tasmania shooters executed those people. She unequivocally opposes the 'official' story, and has been demonized for telling the truth by the boys behind the curtain. Now why would they be concerned about an event like this with a track record and penchant for starting wars for profit? This video is her eye witness account of the Tasmania murders.
http:// www. youtube. com/watch?v=UdYxtultxZU
Next we can turn to the Dunblane School Massacre that was used by paid politicians to confiscate and ban all handguns throughout the UK. It is a clear, quick, concise summary of Dunblane with additional massacres also formatted for quick review. Set aside the writer's bias as you read these accounts and focus on the MO.
http:// blockyourid. com/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/dunblane_school_massacre.htm
The playbook for these horrors is a classic, textbook, State-sponsored MO that has been/is being used worldwide that provides perps the façade of '. . .saving the children and other innocents' that masks their hidden agenda of eliminating armed citizenries, IMO. An attempt to apply the model in New Zealand was not successful when politicians there refused to eat the whole apple handed them; enacting regulations that applied to automatic weapons only.
The money changers do this, in my opinion, because they are global financial criminals of evil heart who lie wadded in riches in their lair at a place called The City in London where they control an estimated two-thirds of the world's wealth; a financial center from which they seek to obtain the rest of earth's wealth and resources, including the food, fiber, water, money, minerals, land, industry, information, jobs, people, and hope.
http:// youtube /X5L_x6RHE4s
Like the ancestral financial criminals before them, though, they still fear an armed citizenry. The guns are their last stumbling block on their yellow brick road to total wealth and world control; their end game being to confiscation it all, continued monetary control of humanity with a one world currency, and an appointed world government with themselves in charge by default for 'having collected the most' during the last two or three centuries.
A nation's politicians, laws, constitution, press, and money don't concern them because they already own them.
|
Posted by dimitri on 12/20/12 02:54 PM
Tolstoyan's argument seems plausible. Not only are the PTB looking to incite armed revolutionary protest. Their ideal may well be a full out civil war. Maybe along the lines of Blue States vs. Red States. Or whatever. The divisiveness would be manufactured to generate something more than a good street brawl. Disarming the public would make it even more interesting because it would instantly generate a black market in arms and ammunition.
What if we have a color revolution all of our own which then deteriorates into a Syrian style free for all? Followed by (The Solution) a military dictatorship? We seem to be damned well prepared for that already.
|
|
