Is Obama Using Gun Laws to Provoke Reaction?

Submitted by SadInAmerica on Tue, 01/12/2010 - 2:59am.

For the past year I have received countless reports through the internet, warning that Obama would press for gun laws, so that people would be defenceless against government and others, including violent illegal immigrants. ~ Barry Napier

I have been told that those who live outside the USA get more information about America than Americans do - so here's my view!

Since Obama took office ("˜took' being the operative word), many more reports have circulated, warning that Obama is clustering armed forces in strategic parts of the USA "˜just in case' of rebellion over swine flu jabs. I didn't take much notice of that one, but I do think trouble is brewing over the recent gun laws.

Patriot websites are overflowing with defiance. I have received a steady stream of emails from them, and from individuals, telling me they would shoot anyone who dared to arrest them for carrying or keeping guns. The language and tone tells me they really mean it, though I have an idea we are seeing another potential Waco forming, but on a larger scale.

I have also heard rumours from a number of sources, that Obama is using the gun law to provoke a reaction, so that he can bring in the troops. Now that one I am willing to consider as true.

We have a situation where a man who cannot prove his eligibility to be president, is moving very fast to establish not just a Red state but a whole Red country, one that he can offer sacrificially to the Marxist UN. He is literally ruining his own economy and bringing down the curtain on freedoms. That is why I consider the gun threat to be real, along with the threat of using armed forces to put down reactions.

We are talking serious stuff. It isn't about conspiracy theories, but about a real "˜president' causing real violence for his own ends, by his own deliberate actions… if the emails are right.

Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

A document called the "˜Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment" report (April 2009) was offered for download by the site. I tried to get it, but was told it could not be found. FBI already removed it? I think so… I also tried the copy held by Again, "cannot display the webpage". I then tried the site and was able to find the document. Same happened when I finally accessed via the infowars site.

But, here a problem arose… the front cover was completely different to the one shown by! And, the actual pages were gobbledygook. The Digg site merely forwarded me to the legitgov site. Amidst this confusion the ACLU requested that the Virginia document should not be so alarmist. ( The ACLU also states that the document does not give real references, and cannot back up what it claims about domestic terrorism. I don't really support the ACLU but its report on this is worth reading.

The document apparently splits terrorism into two types. Racism features strongly - that is, supposed opposition to Obama because of his colour. This, of course, is nonsense.  Unfortunately, there will always be racists, but most people oppose Obama because he is an arrogant, lousy president and is destroying America, not because he happens to be brown!

The other "˜terrorists' are groups and individuals who oppose socialism and the current form of government. That makes me a terrorist. So are readers of the CFP. So are all political commentators who come to rational conclusions.

So, who is telling the truth in all this mayhem of words?

Governor Tim Kaine

Not that I have much trust in any political figure nowadays, but Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia, does talk about the document as fact, and he does comment on its claims. Seeing as he is "˜on the ground' maybe he is telling the truth (on this occasion)?

With reference to the Virginia Report, he said that he was proud of the state's universities, and said that the Report implied a link between them and terrorism. He went on to say the report was distributed illegally to the public (like the CRU report from East Anglia University reporting on science fraud?). Who cares if that is true, so long as the information is correct!

Well, that bit of self-preservation over with, he went on to say that "I find the depictions in the report misleading and believe it improperly implicates these fine academic institutions." ( I think maybe he was between a rock and a hard place. He had to make valid comment on both the accused and the accusers, both of which are on his patch!

He went on to say that a review showed there was no factual link at all.

Now I hate to be a devil's advocate (no, I don't really!), but I live in a city where the university did spawn terrorists. Or, rather, terrorists used the university as a suitable place to learn how to make bombs, after being taught basic chemistry and physics. The university wasn't at fault. So, we can't blame a university if some of its students use the place to launch (excuse the pun) a career in rocketry or bomb-making.

The same report, by the way, marked groups of people as "˜terrorists' because they gathered outside the Fusion Centre with placards. And others for taking photos of the building.

It sounds too much like a government centre trying to make a case for its own survival. Hence the supposed 400 thwarted al-Qa'ida encounters in Virginia in 2007! Come off it - 400 encounters with actual terrorists? Nothing about them in the media, even the socialist media owned by Obama? Pull the other one.

Fusion Centres

Fusion centres are terrorism and response centres, the love-child of Department of Homeland Security and the US Department of Justice. They get information from government and "˜private' sources, including fire departments, sanitation workers, public employees, and so on. says that a number of criticisms have arisen in the past concerning the Fusion Centres' claims and reports. So, the current one is only one in a long line. We must bear in mind that any department will try to keep itself alive, even if it has to invent problems and targets. If it keeps the funding coming, they are more than ready to lie and cheat. 400 terrorist encounters in Virginia alone, in 2007?

The Privacy Office gives eight reasons why we should be cautious about the Fusion Centres, all related to privacy:

  • Justification for Fusion centres
  • Ambiguous lines of authority, rules and oversight
  • Participation of the military and the private sector
  • Data mining
  • Excessive secrecy
  • Inaccurate or incomplete information
  • "˜Mission creep'

In 1970 I was involved in a union lock-out in the UK. I had never belonged to a union before but found myself propelled to the position of strike coordinator. We were outside the main gates for a few weeks.

One day, a black car arrived and stopped on the road opposite us. Three men in dark suits got out, and one took photos. Before I knew it I was on the files of MI5. I was now listed as a threat to homeland security and am forever filed with government.

A few weeks later I gave up the strike and the union. And, to my knowledge, I am also monitored by the CIA. I am, then, still a "˜terrorist'!

Notice how the Fusion Centres involve the military. Which brings me back to the earlier idea of the military being used to quell uprisings of the people… maybe it isn't so far-fetched after all.

As for "˜inaccurate information': Obama is very good at producing that, if he bothers to give any at all. For Obama, being opposed is bad enough. He also hates critics, including Christians. So, certain Christian groups are listed as "˜terrorists' by the Virginia Report. Any other Fusion Centres with similar listings? Apparently, the Missouri Report is far more radical.

The Virginia Report was completed by both the Fusion Centre and Virginia police. See how tentacles spread out? Between them they scour Twitter and other social networks for clues. But, can they interpret those "˜clues' properly and accurately? The Privacy Office thinks not.

Other groups are called "˜terrorists': such as people opposed to environmentalism. That's me in shackles next week! And, so are people who oppose Obama and his administration. That's me shackled twice!

Christian Action, who specialise in warning the public about jihad, is also listed by Virginia as suspect terrorists. After all, here is Obama trying his best to slither up to Islamic extremists, and there are Christians telling the truth about Islamic violence. Of course, it is obvious that the Christians are wrong, not the Islamics.

I Know, Let's Play Games

The west is predicating its global plans for world government on the "˜threats' to society, including terrorism and global warming. It has gathered with friends in the woods to play games called "˜Let's pretend there are terrorists'. Then, they point to someone strolling through the trees and say "See! See! There goes one now!"

Yes, there are real terrorists around. But… 400 in Virginia in just one year? Please, talk sense! By upping the threat level, governments are creating a sense of fear (needed by Obama to help bring in acceptance of his "˜security' measures).

By claiming we are under direct threat from global warming, they can impose drastic laws and tax demands. (It doesn't matter what the threat is, real or imagined, so long as it can be used to scare the daylights out of people). Virginia Fusion centre must be seen in this nasty murky light.

Real terrorists are no longer called terrorists - they are now called "˜Anti-Islam'. Eh? Islamic terrorism is part of the Koran! It is genuine Islam, not a fake. But, how many ordinary folks know that anyway? So, Obama uses ignorance to create a (another) lie.

The Virginia Report came out in April 2009. But, its contents have been recirculated now, this month. And just as well, given the rising heat over gun laws. In effect, everyone with a gun, and who refuses to hand it over, is a terrorist, according to Fusion centres.

It is just a short step in logic to "˜join up the dots' (as one CFP reader aptly put it, about another issue), and conclude that the Report is only one step in demonising people of the USA who want to remain Americans and not UN pawns.

By creating a law against the people, who naturally resent it, Obama is making sure he has "˜reasons' to bring in troops or police to silence opposition to his rule. Yes, this is presently just my view, but it is based on taking information available to its obvious conclusion… just as I did with the Interpol issue. There are just too many clues, too many "˜dots to join'!

So, fellow terrorists, expect to be watched carefully, photographed and listed. You are bad. You dare to want America to stay free. You dare to speak your mind. For that you will be listed. Think not?

In the UK, a Christian writer called Muslim drug barons in his town "˜thugs'. For that he was arrested by the police on "˜hate speech' charges. After that, the gangs targeted him with death threats, but the police did nothing.

He has now left the country in fear for his life. The drug gangs stay where they are, because it is hateful to identify criminal Muslims as criminal Muslims. The USA is going the same way.

Barry Napier - January 5, 2010 - source CanadaFreePress

Tag this page!
Submitted by SadInAmerica on Tue, 01/12/2010 - 2:59am.