An Air Force captain discovered he was banned from Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California, due to pending charges against him from a previous encounter with a cop who had tried to arrest him for entering his own home.
The charges — resisting arrest and obstructing an officer — have infuriated Captain Nicolas Aquino, a first-generation immigrant whose parents came to the United States from Paraguay as political exiles.
If you don’t remember John Cinque, he’s the Connecticut gun activist and Navy veteran who is credited as starting the non compliance movement in regards to Connecticut’s new registration laws.
In a video released last year (at the bottom of this article), Cinque delivered testimony to state lawmakers saying that he would not comply with any gun registration requirements. Cinque’s video went viral when it was first release and is making a second viral lap around the web in recent weeks as the situation in Connecticut continues to develop.
In a new video, Cinque is shown talking to Republican gubernatorial candidate Joe Visconti. While talking to Viconti, Cinque reveals that he has faced threats over this stance and comments.
My name is Mike Vanderboegh. Few of you will know who I am, or even will have heard of the Three Percent movement that I founded, though we have been denounced on the national stage by that paragon of moral virtue, Bill Clinton. Three Percenters are uncompromising firearm owners who have stated very plainly for years that we will obey no further encroachments on our Second Amendment rights. Some of you, if you read this carelessly, may feel that it is a threat. It is not. Three Percenters also believe that to take the first shot in a conflict over principle is to surrender the moral high ground to the enemy. We condemn so-called collateral damage and terrorism such as that represented by the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Waco massacre. We are very aware that if you seek to defeat evil it is vital not to become the evil you claim to oppose. Thus, though this letter is certainly intended to deal with an uncomfortable subject, it is not a threat to anyone. However, it is important for everyone to understand that while we promise not to take the first shot over principle, we make no such promise if attacked, whether by common criminals or by the designated representatives of a criminal government grown arrogant and tyrannical and acting out an unconstitutional agenda under color of law. If we have any model, it is that of the Founding generation.
Manasquan, NJ –-(Ammoland.com)- News is breaking that an outspoken critic of New Jersey’s draconian gun laws is being actively targeted with an arrest warrant issued by the New Jersey State Police.
With less then 72 hours before a scheduled Law and Public Safety Committee Hearing on Assembly Bill A2006, a New Jersey proposed law to limit magazine capacity to a maximum of ten rounds of ammunition. Additionally the Assembly Bill A2006 would ban more than 30 models of common .22 plinking rifles. Is it coincidental that the New Jersey State Police should suddenly find need to issue a warrant for Mr. Kaleda’s arrest only days before he would be expected to appear and testify at this type of hearing?
James Kaleda, is a well known outspoken critic of New Jersey gun laws and New Jersey Assembly abuses of parliamentary procedure. Mr. Kaleda was famously thrown out of a similar hearing last year by Democrat George Norcross for being “Out of Order“. Today via social media Mr. Kaleda revealed that he received a phone call from the New Jersey State Police that a warrant has been issued for his arrest over allegations of falsifying portions of an application for a New Jersey Non-Resident Firearms Owner ID Card.
Mr. Kaleda was understandably and wisely reluctant to say exactly what the allegations were when I spoke to him, but he did acknowledge that the State Police contacted him approximately two weeks ago and suggested there was a problem with his paperwork and offered an opportunity to “come in and make corrections”. Mr. Kaleda declined, correctly deducing that presenting himself to make such changes would be viewed as an implicit acknowledgement of actually committing the offense of falsifying the document, essentially admitting to guilt of a technical violation.
While the mainstream press and politico elites like Mitt Romney and MSNBC’sJoe Scarborough, dilly dally and debate the relevancy of revisiting Hillary’s unelected co-president role during the Clinton White House era, the National Enquirer goes where the mainstream press treads not and called me last weekend about Hillary and the death of Clinton White House lawyer Vince Foster.
Days later, suddenly I’m Secret #1 and Secret #2 in the Enquirer’s “blockbuster world exclusive” cover story: 8 Shocking Secrets that will Wreck Her Presidential Bid. What Hillary’s Hiding! Revealed! The Plot to Destroy her.
It was such a well kept secret that I didn’t know about it either.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens believes the Second Amendment should be amended.
In order to clear up what one commentator calls the “exquisitely awkward 18th century syntax,” Stevens proposes adding five words to the present version of the Second Amendment. Stevens’ revised Second Amendment would read:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.
In his newest book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Stevens offers the following defense of his proposed change:
Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.
Slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands? The fact is that it is governments, not civilians, that have been responsible for the killing of over 300 million people in the 20th century alone.
Stevens’ proposal not only would allow regimes to retain access to their weapons, but would leave private citizens powerless to oppose future slaughters.
With civilian branches of the government arming to an unprecedented degree, is it possible that the Obama administration views American citizens as dangerous adversaries? Alan Caruba wonders if these days paranoia is justified.
An organization, Patriots for America, is calling for millions of Americans to descend on Washington, D.C on May 16 for Operation American Spring whose purpose is to demand that President Obama and others in his administration be removed from office.
Among the rules of engagement set forth on their Internet site include (1) no weapons. No ammunition. “The Communist forces that control Washington, D.C. do not recognize the 2nd Amendment and have banned all weapons and ammunition from the district. Do not give them the opportunity to arrest you and prosecute you.” (2) Follow all rules of the road. (3) Comply with all constitutional requests of local authorities. And (4) travel in groups of four or greater.
Geoff Ross is identified as the senior chief of the organization that wants participants to be prepared to stay as long as it takes for Congress to take action. The event suggests that he and many supportive groups think the U.S. is at risk of losing its constitutional government so long as Barack Obama is President.
The worst possible scenario to the event would be if some element of the law enforcement authority is ordered to fire on the gathering, but I recall that in July 2008 presidential candidate Obama said that Americans could no longer “…continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
America does not need a civilian national security force.