Truth Frequency Radio

Apr 05, 2013

During a recent gun control speech in Colorado, Obama hid behind the mask of collectivism to blur the lines between the ruling class and the general population, saying that the government is “us”.

Obama Colorado

By JG Vibes
April 5, 2013

The thing that makes Obama so frightening to people who care about freedom isn’t necessarily the things he writes down on paper.  Lets face it, every politician to ever hold office, regardless of their intentions or their party affiliation, has done nothing but kick the can of tyranny down the road for the next guy to further exploit.

However, the thing that is extra creepy about Obama is that he is an extremely skilled propagandist.  He is constantly putting forward collectivist rhetoric, which is obviously crafted to deceive and diminish the rights and importance of the individual in society.  In nearly every speech you can hear the sophistry, and sometimes he even comes out and lays down his propaganda in plain English, as he did recently in Colorado.

Breitbart reported that:

“In his big pitch in Colorado on Wednesday for further gun control, President Obama made an astonishing statement about gun rights advocates’ fears of governmental gun seizures. He said that such worries would just feed “into fears about government. You hear some of these folks: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government. We can’t do background checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.’ The government’s us. These officials are elected by you … I am constrained as they are constrained by the system that our founders put in place.”

By saying that himself and the rest of the government are constrained, he is saying that the government has no ability to force their will on the general population.  It should be obvious to anyone by now that this is not the case and that what we were told in history class is not right, government tyranny has been with us since the founding of the country, and is with us moreso today.

What Obama is saying here is that government tyranny is impossible because the government is “us”.  Well, the last time that I checked, I wasn’t allowed to tax my neighbors, or interrupt their ride to work, search their car and kidnap them because I found something that I didn’t like.  The last time i checked there are various ruling classes on this planet that are separated from their subjects by organizations known as governments, like the one that Obama is currently representing.

Full Article

Obama Urges Quick Adoption of Arms Trade Treaty by UN General Assembly

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
New American
April 1, 2013

Despite failing to be adopted by consensus vote on last Thursday, the Arms Trade Treaty’s (ATT) civilian disarmament agenda marches on.

In an interview with The New American in advance of Thursday’s ill-fated final plenary session of the conference at UN headquarters deliberating the Arms Trade Treaty, a member of the U.S. delegation said the they were prepared to vote in favor of adoption of the gun grab.

They never got the chance, however, as Iran, Syria, and North Korea objected to the treaty, declaring it to be too favorable to the interests of the United States.

That point is debatable.

As I reported from the conference, the text of the treaty mandates several infringements on the right of people to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

For example, the Preamble of the Arms Trade Treaty points to the United Nations Charter as the source of guiding principles upon which the agreement is based. Citizens of the United States, however, recognize God as the source of all rights they enjoy. Not even the Constitution claims to be the giver of rights; it is merely the protector of them.

The ultimate American statement on the issue of the provenance of rights was written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The UN would see the Declaration of Independence replaced by the Declaration of Human Rights and would have the Creator replaced with government as the source of rights.

Take, for example, the principle of the ATT declaring the “inherent right of all States to individual or collective self-defence [sic] as recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.”

States have no “right of self-defense.” In fact, states have no rights at all. Men have rights and they may cede a portion of the protection of those rights to government. This is a provisional grant, revocable at the will of the people.

Ironically, moreover, it is in defense of tyranny of the government that individuals typically need to collectively exercise their natural right of self-defense.

Should those who govern ever exceed the boundaries drawn by the people around their power, the people retain the right — the natural right — of self-defense.

Furthermore, no document — not even the Constitution — grants rights. Rights are given by God and societies may draft constitutions in order to protect those rights from assault by government.

Again, the words of Thomas Jefferson pronounced in the Declaration of Independence establish the American position:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [Emphasis in original]

Regardless of the promises of its advocates, the Arms Trade Treaty violates not only the Second Amendment, but also the American concept of the source of rights and the right of the people to defend themselves against the “long train of abuses” of any government.

President Obama will not be deterred, however. Not by the Declaration of Independence, not by the Second Amendment, and not by the failure of the ATT conference to adopt the treaty by consensus.

Peter Woolcott, president of the conference and ambassador from Australia, ordered the treaty sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations for presentation to the General Assembly for its approval.

The Obama administration is determined to make that happen.

During a phone conference held after the vote, the U.S. lead negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State Tom Countryman, reaffirmed the president’s support for implementation of the treaty.

“We look forward to this text being adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in the very near future,” Countryman said. “It’s important to the United States and the defense of our interests to insist on consensus. But every state in this process has always been conscious of the fact that, if consensus is not reached in this process, that there are other ways to adopt this treaty, including via a vote of the General Assembly.”

Later, Countryman predicted that barring any further alterations to the text, the General Assembly vote on the gun control treaty within days.

Predicting that the president would take such a tack in order to accelerate his drive toward the absolute disarmament of civilians and the establishment of a government monopoly over all means of armed resistance, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) declared his intent to stand in defense of the right to keep and bear arms.

The most recent collapse of ATT negotiations should serve as a wake-up call to the world’s democracies of the inherent flaws in the U.N. treaty process that puts us on level ground with dictatorships who abuse human rights and arms terrorists.

In the coming weeks, I anticipate ATT supporters will seek new avenues for treaty adoption, such as the U.N. General Assembly. Given the apparent support of the Obama Administration for the ATT, members of the U.S. Senate must continue to make clear that any treaty that violates our Second Amendment freedoms will be an absolute nonstarter for ratification.

As The New American reported recently, Moran is the chief sponsor of a resolution, S. Con. Res. 7, that enjoys bipartisan support from 32 co-sponsors. Moran’s measure declares that it is the sense of Congress that “the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and that, if he transmits the treaty with his signature to the Senate, the Senate should not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty.”

Representative Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) has offered a companion measure in the House.

Both the Moran and Kelly resolutions declare that the Arms Trade Treaty “poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty.”

The measures also points out that UN gun grab “fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related materials, and thus risks infringing on freedoms protected by the Second Amendment.”

Others of Moran’s colleagues are riding to the defense of the right to keep and bear arms, as well.

On March 23, the Senate approved a measure sponsored by Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” By a vote of 53-46, the Senate passed Inhofe’s amendment to the budget bill.

While all these events auger positively for the future of the Second Amendment, Americans must remain vigilant. The treaty may still be approved by a majority of the UN General Assembly, and regardless of the outcome of that vote, President Obama is intent on executing its unconstitutional mandates, seizing control of all privately owned firearms and ammunition.

MLK 50 Years Ago: A Just Law Is a Man-Made Law That Squares With the Law of God

March 29, 2013
Martin Luther King( – Fifty years ago, on Good Friday 1963, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was arrested in Birmingham, Ala., for participating in a march against local segregation laws in violation of a state court order prohibiting civil rights activists from staging peaceful protests in that city.While incarcerated, King wrote an open letter to a group of clergymen who had objected to his march.

On what basis could King, a Christian minister, justify directly flouting an order issued by an Alabama court?

King gave an answer simultaneously rooted in the Christian moral thinking articulated by the Roman Catholic saints Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas and in the philosophy of the Founding Fathers of the United States.

The only justification for this nation’s laws, King said, was God’s law.

“One may well ask: How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” wrote King. “The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’

“Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust?” wrote King. “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”

“Thus, it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong,” wrote King.

“I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out,” he said. “In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”

King wrote from his Alabama jail cell that Christians who were then living in countries suffering under Communism had the same right to disobey unjust laws.

“If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws,” he said.

King predicted that history would see among the true champions of the era in which he lived those who had staged sit-ins to demonstrate that segregation laws not only defied God’s law, but because they defied God’s law also defied the founding ideals of the American nation.

“One day the South will recognize its real heroes,” wrote King.

“There will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the Gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience’ sake,” he said. “One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

Fifty-years ago, after submitting to imprisonment in segregationist Birmingham to focus the nation’s attention on that city’s unjust laws, King drew this direct line from the thinking of two Roman Catholic saints through the thinking of our Founding Fathers to the cause of freedom in 1960s Alabama.

Full Article


Expect these eight steps from the government’s playbook
March 28, 2013

To anyone paying attention, reality is now painfully obvious. These bankrupt, insolvent governments have just about run out of fingers to plug the dikes. And history shows that, once this happens, governments fall back on a very limited playbook:

1. Direct confiscation

As Cyprus showed us, bankrupt governments are quite happy to plunder people’s bank accounts, especially if it’s a wealthy minority.

Aside from bank levies, though, this also includes things like seizing retirement accounts (Argentina), increases in civil asset forfeiture (United States), and gold criminalization.

2. Taxes

Just another form of confiscation, taxation plunders the hard work and talent of the citizenry. But thanks to decades of brainwashing, it’s more socially acceptable. We’ve come to regard taxes as a ‘necessary evil,’ not realizing that the country existed for decades, even centuries, without an income tax.

Yet when bankrupt governments get desperate enough, they begin imposing new taxes… primarily WEALTH taxes (Argentina) or windfall profits taxes (United States in the 1970s).

Read more