“The Hunt” is on for those that believe and support The Constitution, freedom, and liberty and reject fascism. They have already begun to hunt virtually. Goebbels and Eichmann would be so proud.
“Those who resist will perish”
The puppets of the DNC walked right into it again. With special thanks to the people of Hong Kong who know that their freedom will be over soon if they do not fight for it. Taiwan will be next.
What does DNC stand for? There are the standard abortive definitions, but probably the most re levant is DAZI: Democratic American Socialists. And we all know that fascism rides in from the left. And now we also know what the “Universal” part is.
NBC’s Universal Pictures plans to release “The Hunt” despite backlash.
By: Brian Flood, Fox News
NBC Universal still plans to release the controversial movie “The Hunt” as scheduled on September 27 despite significant backlash over the film that depicts privileged vacationers hunting “deplorables” for sport.
“There are no plans to not release the movie. No plans to move the release,” a studio source told Fox News.
NBC Universal executives are aware of the widespread objections to the movie’s plot but have decided not to take significant action at this time.
“The Hunt” is billed as a satirical take on wealthy thrill-seekers taking a private jet to a five-star resort where they embark on a “deeply rewarding” expedition that involves hunting down and killing designated humans.
NBC’s Universal Pictures, which shares parent company Comcast with NBC News and MSNBC, told Fox News on Wednesday that the movie’s marketing campaign would be “temporarily paused” on the heels tragic mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.
Universal Pictures declined further comment on Thursday.
The Hollywood Reporter reported on Tuesday that the “violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum’s Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals.”
According to the Hollywood trade publication, characters in the film refer to the victims as “deplorables,” which is what Hillary Clinton infamously dubbed Trump supporters during the 2016 election.
The report also noted that a character asks, “Did anyone see what our ratf–ker-in-chief just did?”
Multiple NBC Universal executives, including CEO Brian Roberts, did not immediately respond when asked for comment by Fox News.
The movie has caused outrage, with conservatives calling it everything from “political violence” to “sick murder fantasies about right-wingers.”
Editor’s Note – Adding to the fear many Americans have over drone use by Law Enforcement, we learn that the drones were designed with extra bells and whistles. These are designed for domestic use by most accounts and fuels the fire of losing our liberties by the continuation of the militarization of our domestic forces. Now they can tell if you are carrying a concealed weapon. You be the judge:
DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones
Homeland Security’s specifications say drones must be able to detect whether a civilian is armed. Also specified: “signals interception” and “direction finding” for electronic surveillance.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show.
The documents provide more details about the surveillance capabilities of the department’s unmanned Predator B drones, which are primarily used to patrol the United States’ northern and southern borders but have been pressed into service on behalf of a growing number of law enforcement agencies including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Texas Rangers, and local police.
Homeland Security’s specifications for its drones, built by San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, say they “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not,” meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify “signals interception” technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and “direction finding” technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center obtained a partially redacted copy of Homeland Security’s requirements for its drone fleet through the Freedom of Information Act and published it this week. CNET unearthed an unredacted copy of the requirements that provides additional information about the aircraft’s surveillance capabilities.
The prospect of identifying armed Americans concerns Second Amendment advocates, who say that technology billed as securing the United States’ land and maritime borders should not be used domestically. Michael Kostelnik, the Homeland Security official who created the program, told Congress that the drone fleet would be available to “respond to emergency missions across the country,” and a Predator drone was dispatched to the tiny town of Lakota, N.D., to aid local police in a dispute that began with reimbursement for feeding six cows. The defendant, arrested with the help of Predator surveillance, lost a preliminary bid to dismiss the charges.
“I am very concerned that this technology will be used against law-abiding American firearms owners,” says Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. “This could violate Fourth Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights.”
Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection agency declined to answer questions about whether direction-finding technology is currently in use on its drone fleet. A representative provided CNET with a statement about the agency’s unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that said signals interception capability is not currently used:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is not deploying signals interception capabilities on its UAS fleet. Any potential deployment of such technology in the future would be implemented in full consideration of civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy interests and in a manner consistent with the law and long-standing law enforcement practices.
CBP’s UAS program is a vital border security asset. Equipped with state-of-the-art sensors and day-and-night cameras, the UAS provides real-time images to frontline agents to more effectively and efficiently secure the nation’s borders. As a force multiplier, the UAS operates for extended periods of time and allows CBP to safely conduct missions over tough-to-reach terrain. The UAS also provides agents on the ground with added situational awareness to more safely resolve dangerous situations.
During his appearance before the House Homeland Security committee, Kostelnik, a retired Air Force major general who recently left the agency, testified that the drones’ direction-finding ability is part of a set of “DOD capabilities that are being tested or adopted by CBP to enhance UAS performance for homeland security.” CBP currently has 10 Predator drones and is considering buying up to 14 more.
If the Predator drones were used only to identify smugglers or illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican and Canadian borders, or for disaster relief, they might not be especially controversial. But their use domestically by other government agencies has become routine enough — and expensive enough — that Homeland Security’s inspector general said (PDF) last year that CBP needs to sign agreements “for reimbursement of expenses incurred fulfilling mission requests.”
“The documents clearly evidence that the Department of Homeland Security is developing drones with signals interception technology and the capability to identify people on the ground,” says Ginger McCall, director of the Open Government Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “This allows for invasive surveillance, including potential communications surveillance, that could run afoul of federal privacy laws.”
A Homeland Security official, who did not want to be identified by name, said the drones are able to identify whether movement on the ground comes from a human or an animal, but that they do not perform facial recognition. The official also said that because the unarmed drones have a long anticipated life span, the department tries to plan ahead for future uses to support its border security mission, and that aerial surveillance would comply with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other applicable federal laws.
The documents show that CBP specified that the “tracking accuracy should be sufficient to allow target designation,” and the agency notes on its Web site that its Predator B series is capable of “targeting and weapons delivery” (the military version carries multiple 100-pound Hellfire missiles). CBP says, however, that its Predator aircraft are unarmed.
Gene Hoffman, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who’s the chairman of the Calguns Foundation, said CBP “needs to be very careful with attempts to identify armed individuals in the border area” when aerial surveillance touches on a constitutional right.
“In the border area of California and Arizona, it may be actively dangerous for the law-abiding to not carry firearms precisely due to the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the border in those areas,” Hoffman says.
CBP’s specifications say that signals interception and direction-finding technology must work from 30MHz to 3GHz in the radio spectrum. That sweeps in the GSM and CDMA frequencies used by mobile phones, which are in the 300MHz to 2.7GHz range, as well as many two-way radios.
The specifications say: “The system shall provide automatic and manual DF of multiple signals simultaneously. Automatic DF should be able to separate out individual communication links.” Automated direction-finding for cell phones has become an off-the-shelf technology: one company sells a unit that its literature says is “capable of taking the bearing of every mobile phone active in a channel.”
Although CBP’s unmanned Predator aircraft are commonly called drones, they’re remotely piloted by FAA-licensed operators on the ground. They can fly for up to 20 hours and carry a payload of about 500 lbs.
Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People’s Money column for CBS News’ Web site.
Editor’s Note – Athens, Tennessee, ever heard of the battle there? Most have not, or think it was a Civil War Battle – what it really was is a prime example of government tyranny and how the second amendment was intended to protect the citizen from that tyranny.
In the whole discourse about gun control, gun violence, and the second amendment, the public often is misled, or does not understand that the founders meant for the citizens to be armed to prevent government tyranny. The anti-second amendment apologists always ask if we really believe our government would ever become so tyrannical to be a danger to its citizens.
The answer is – YES – it has already happened, on a smaller, local scale, but now it appears we are heading down that path in a big way. Please read below and watch the video – you will be shocked! If you do not believe this could happen nationally – we suggest you look very closely at the last election and locales like Philadelphia and Cleveland, Ohio to name but just two of many examples.
When Politicians Demand Gun Control, Remember Our Founders
Many are asking the question “Why should we allow guns?” Those who want gun control at the levels that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has put forth have the idea that citizens do not need certain types of weapons. However, those same people will be very quick to say that our government will never turn on the very people they intend on keeping from acquiring these arms. Just by placing the “assault weapons ban” bill on the record, Senator Feinstein has violated the Oath of her office (and as such has committed an act of treason.)
Now back in 1946, a local sheriff had developed a political machine that had taken over the area known as Athens, Tennessee. The political machine had forced people to leave the voting booth, and those who opposed them faced a beating for their opposition. Now had the gun control ideology of present day been in effect in 1946, the people of Athens would not have been able to take back the ballot boxes that were about to be filled with fraudulent ballots by those who had taken over the town of Athens.
There is a plaque showing that a number of World War 2 veterans stood up for their fundamental rights of a fair election; but this was done due to a very powerful part of the United States Constitution, the Second Amendment. An interesting video was made about this action taken by the Citizens of Athens, Tennessee, which displays that the government not only can, but did, go way out of control.
It should not only be watched but shown to all who have the false idea that the government would not go beyond the law.
It has become a very dark day within the United States today when the Senator from California presents a bill that really does nothing at all that would help ensure that another Sandy Hook massacre does not happen (but does infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.) No one has addressed the root of the problem at all; instead, they go after the legal gun owners. Senator Feinstein has forgotten that Lanza had broken about 20+ laws before even going to the school. She also seems to forget that the man had a very serious mental problem and that if he had been under watch, he would have been stopped from stealing his mother’s guns (not to mention breaking nearly every gun control law on the books in Connecticut.)
Many people will quickly and wrongly say that the Second Amendment was never meant to allow people to have weapons like those now attempting to be banned, but they are totally wrong. When we look back at many of the statements by the men who started the United States and signed the Constitution, we see the exact opposite of what is being put forth in the legislative process today.
“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… (Where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison
“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” –James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t. ” – Ben Franklin
“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
These great men either wrote, signed, or fought for the Constitution of the United States; and their words show clearly what they had in mind with the Second Amendment. It was with such forethought that they knew that if the people were properly armed, they would “preserve” liberty and freedom. This cannot be denied, and any individual who acts against the Second Amendment acts in a way that should be declared as treason against the very Constitution they took an oath to “support and defend”!
It has come down to “We the People” to preserve the founders’ ideology and not be drawn into the extreme Socialistic views of the far left “progressive” party.
It also must be stated that it is very bad to kill children; but our nation allows the murder of 4,000 children every day through abortion, and very little is done about that. They have heartbeats at 4 days, but our government has legalized their premeditated murder. With this in mind, why is it that our nation seems to take such strong action for 26 people being killed by guns when the very people crying about the innocent children being killed will turn a blind eye to 4,000 being killed each day?
While the issue in Athens, Tennessee was about a ballot box and fraudulent voting, the issue in America today is about much more; and there is far more at stake. However, in the end, the same problem exists; there are lawless men and women who wish to force their ideology on the people by undermining and even directly attacking the United States Constitution.
Editor’s Note – As Joe Biden and his ‘task force’ crew conduct their dog and pony show on gun violence, it is clear to most in America that there are foregone conclusions already in place – executive conclusions. The fact that the NRA will be interviewed tomorrow is just a singularly large “dog act” in the process. You can suffice it to say though, that the ‘Executive Pen’ will be in frequent use soon after along with a major legislative push. Here is what Joe Biden said yesterday:
“The president is going to act,” said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. “There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”
In fact, before the Sandy Hook incident, several other Executive Orders and legislation forced down our throats gives us clues as to what is ahead. Even in the PPACA (Obama Care) Law, the NRA successfully had language added to help prevent the gun control issue from becoming a health care issue. We ask why would anything to do with the Second Amendment be in that law? Here is what is reported by the Blaze:
The Washington Post first reported on Dec. 30 about the presence of this controversial wording. Under a section with the headline “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights,” the NRA-advocated wording is nestled deep within the law. The Post called the inclusion, “a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.”
As the outlet also noted, it was in the final stretch of the debate over Obama’s health care legislation that the NRA successfully pushed to insert this language. Below, see the portions of the Affordable Care Act that include mentions of firearms and the parameters through which doctors must operate in questioning patients (read the entire health care bill here):
We can already see where the pen has been used to make it especially onerous for gun dealers in southern border states. When the Federal Government does not enforce the laws equally, we have tyranny. Why is it legal to use executive powers in only four states to control private business that is not exacted on the other 46 states and territories? Read the following article and consider the “equal protection clause” in the 14th amendment.
(Reuters) – A federal appeals court signaled on Wednesday it was prepared to uphold a regulation designed to detect the sale of semi-automatic rifles to Mexican drug cartels, one of the few gun control measures put forward so far by the Obama administration.
Gun retailers and manufacturers, including a trade group based in Newtown, Connecticut, scene of the December 14 school massacre, say the rule is burdensome and violates federal law.
It requires stores in the four U.S. states bordering Mexico to send a notice to federal law enforcement whenever someone buys two or more of rifles during any five-day period.
The measure applies only to high-caliber, semi-automatic rifles that can use a detachable magazine.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which regulates gun sales, adopted the rule in 2011 amid rising cartel violence and at the urging of gun control groups for President Barack Obama to act.
Thousands of firearms are thought to cross the border illegally into Mexico each year, and semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines are a favorite of drug traffickers, the ATF said in a report last year.
Mexican authorities recovered more than 68,000 U.S.-sourced guns from 2007 to 2011, the ATF said.
The rule applies to retailers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas who, perhaps without realizing it, could be sources for those firearms.
Gun stores “have to create a new system to keep track of that,” Richard Gardiner, a lawyer for retailers Foothills Firearms LLC and J&G Sales Ltd, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Federal law does not allow law enforcement to require that system, he said, calling it burdensome because store workers do not always know which of the guns they sell are covered.
COURT DOUBTS BURDEN
The court’s three judges, though, repeatedly doubted whether the rule creates much additional work.
“I don’t remember the record containing any evidence of confusion,” said Judge Harry Edwards.
ATF has a special phone number for retailers to call if they have questions, such as whether the rule covers a particular rifle, but few people have called, government lawyer Michael Raab told the court.
“Any dealer worth his salt” should know whether most guns he sells fit the criteria, Raab said, echoing the wording of a lower court judge.
Gardiner responded that evidence of the rule’s burden is unnecessary because it is a government overreach.
The court is expected to decide within the next few months.
Gun rights advocates have also argued that the ATF measure could lead to a federal database of guns, which they fear would infringe on their rights. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have tried to cut off money to enforce the regulation.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group for gunmakers and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, is based in Newtown, where gunman Adam Lanza killed his mother, 20 children and six school employees before shooting himself in one of the worst U.S. school shootings.
Lower court judges in Texas and Washington have upheld the ATF rule, which is an example of steps Obama can take outside the proposed gun control laws he is expected to send to Congress this month.
The case is National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc, et al, v. B. Todd Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 12-5009.
Editor’s Note – Here it comes – the knee jerk reaction – change the gun laws they say! Well, Connecticut is a strong gun law state, so what’s the next question? No guns for anyone? Again, its the inanimate object people focus upon, not the criminal.
Mental health issues be damned, societal decline be damned, political correctness be damned – just ban guns… and cars, and rocks, and bricks, and glass, and baseball bats, and knives, and tire irons, and martial arts, and fast food, and 16 ounce soft drinks in New York City…
While you are at it, ban large SUVs that were driven by drunk drivers without licenses. Ban the inanimate weapon (Ford Explorer in this case) the drunk used to kill someone. Its exactly the same – we are on a slippery slope, but since when did sanity rule the opinions of those who prefer ignorance, those who vote to re-elect categorical failures – its all emotion.
Wait for it, wait for it…after that speech last night, here comes the Obama “Gun-scare” Law. Let’s call this one Obama-gun-s-care… Federal laws that make no sense other than to control you!
The problem now is education – get the facts before you speak. The stats do not lie, but beware of those who cherry pick them, and the second amendment is not about hunting and target shooting, its about tyranny. More too come…
Below, we look at a few different maps comparing Connecticut to the other 49 states by the strictness of their gun laws.
Here’s a map from February from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which is in favor of gun control. As you can see, Connecticut is ranked as having one of the strongest gun control regimes in the country, ranking in the second tier behind only California.
And here’s a similar map from Brown University from October 2011 showing very much the same thing, with Connecticut ranking only behind New York and New Jersey.
When it comes to concealed weapons, Connecticut is also one of the strictest, according to this map from the Christian Science Monitor.
As the gun debate heats up in the coming days, expect those who oppose additional gun control measures to point to these maps.
Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) preemptively fought back against that argument Sunday, saying gun-makers can get around half-measures and that federal action is needed.
“Connecticut has a pretty aggressive law — probably of the 50 states, I think we’re ranked fourth most aggressive in trying to limit access to these kinds of weapons,” Malloy said. “But what happens in the absence of a Brady bill, in the absence of federal legislation, people use descriptive terms to try to get around the limitations that are built into our statutes here in Connecticut, or might otherwise not happen if we had federal legislation on this issue.”
Connecticut is one of just a few states with at least a partial ban on assault weapons.
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.