By Douglas J. Hagmann
The 1979 movie And Justice For All is arguably the best cinematographic display of insanity and corruption in our legal system that remains relevant today. It remains a near-perfect illustration of judicial absurdity combined with personal and professional hubris that is repeated over and over in the U.S. The faces and names might change, but it was, and still is, a clear indictment of our legal system and specific individuals who believe themselves to be above the law.
In the battle against citizens’ rights to bear arms, such individuals occupy not only seats of power in the federal government but in various state governments as well. The issue of gun control has largely been most visible at the federal level over the last century. Due to the Constitutional issues beyond the scope of this article, it is arguable, however, that an individual’s right to own firearms under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, independent of federal control, might well fall within the jurisdiction of each state. This is exactly what we are now witnessing. At present, there are approximately 1,300 bills pending at the state level to change firearm laws, according to the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The majority of such legislation is decidedly against the law-abiding, gun-owning citizen. Virulently so.
One famous scene from And Justice For All played out almost verbatim during an April 30, 2013, meeting of the New Jersey State Law and Public Safety Committee when committee chairman New Jersey State Senator Donald Norcross shouted to one constituent, identified as New Jersey resident James Kaleda “You’re out of order!” Almost as if he was following the script written for Al Pacino, James Kaleda retorted, “this meeting is out of order!” It was, perhaps, the most fitting assertion during an otherwise uneventful four-hour long session where it appeared that the passage of seven-(7) new restrictive state gun control measures were decided long before the hearings began.
What egregious offense did Mr. Kaleda commit that compelled Senator Norcross to shut off his microphone and have him physically escorted from the public meeting? Some might contend that it’s a bit difficult to tell, but a simple utterance of “gun control” might have played a part. It appears that Senator Norcross, acting with the imprimatur of the federal government to disarm his law-abiding constituents, has also been emboldened to disallow discordant discussion despite its intellectual value. And there it is, ladies and gentlemen, a textbook example of the inextricable connection between our right to bear arms and our right to free speech.
While this might seem like a non sequitur at first blush, let me remind you that it was this gun control “lawmaking process” of the New Jersey Law and Public Safety Committee that was the stage setter for the “hot mic” comments captured at the conclusion of the New Jersey Senate Budget & Appropriations Committee just nine days later. It was during the latter meeting that the candid comments of three New Jersey State senators revealed their true intent of gun legislation: confiscation.
While that meeting received the most public attention, as everybody loves the unscripted “hot mic” moment, the unbridled tyranny displayed during this meeting slipped under the radar of many. It shows that we, the American people and residents of certain states, are not being treated as citizens but as subjects to a royalty that dare not be questioned. It illustrates why we must never accept constraints on the rights delineated by our Constitution, the very document that so many have died for, and the reason behind today’s holiday. It also shows the depths to which certain elected miscreants will sink to avoid having the truth spoken in a public forum.
James Kaleda was effectively silenced by the arbitrary, tyrannical actions of a power-imbibed state senator with his fingers poised and trembling over a microphone kill switch. He was escorted from the building with the wave of his hand by armed state police sworn to uphold the Constitution, but instead serving as the official state muzzle of unbridled tyranny and the hubris of one man. The story, however, does not end there.
As I watched the two-minute, forty-second video, I was alarmed at the audience clapping, with some giving a standing ovation, as Mr. Kaleda was being escorted from the halls of injustice. Why, I asked, were these people clapping at their own rights being ripped from them? Have we all finally succumbed to some ultimate brainwashing? Not at all, according to attorney Billy Baer, who, with Daniel Haggerty, was present at the meeting and secured the video footage of this entire incident.
The spectators at the meeting were incensed. They were outraged not only at Senator Norcross, but at the behavior of the entire committee of elected officials turned royalty. When told to sit down and shut up (my words) by the king’s court, many within the gallery rose and began to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in defiance of the trampling of the rights of not just Mr. Kaleda but all residents of New Jersey and all citizens of America.
Befitting to his majesty’s smug position of royalty, Senator Norcross remained seated during this pledge to the patriotism of our country and for which it stands. Not one of these royal elites had the decency to stand.
If Senator Norcross and those like him have any doubt whatsoever, Americans are getting angry. From the crowd, you can hear one man yelling… “you woke a sleeping giant!” We are getting angry at the cesspool of arrogance among the elected elite, and we’re reaching a point where it will no longer be tolerated.
Contrary to your belief that America is your kingdom, we will not be ruled like subjects. You have shown that you can turn off the microphone and escort one person from your presence who disagrees with subjugation, but you will not be able to extinguish the voices of us all. Today of all days, as we look upon the acres of tombstones of those who have died before us, know that there are more willing to make the ultimate sacrifice so our children can live in freedom and not under tyranny.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
Every American gun owner, regardless of the state in which you live, is presently or will be the target of gun confiscation. A state-by-state framework of confiscation is being erected in front of us all to strip us of our rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A “hot” microphone serendipitously caught proof of this nefarious intent of disarming citizens at the conclusion of the May 9, 2013, meeting of the New Jersey State Legislature.
At the conclusion of the New Jersey Senate Budget & Appropriations Committee meeting last Thursday, an open microphone caught three state senators, identified by voice as Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, Assistant Majority Leader Sandra Cunningham, Senate Majority Whip Sandra Cunningham, and at least one staff member talking candidly about their intent to confiscate all guns from the people they serve. It should be noted that Senator Loretta Weinberg is the chief proponent of the anti-gun legislation being moved through the New Jersey State Senate.
Although some of the candid conversations are difficult to discern due to the ambient noise, their message is clear. “We need[ed] a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate,” stated one high-ranking senate member. “They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their ‘little guns’ and do whatever they want with them,” added another in a demeaning manner. Another conceded that gun owners do want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals but added that “they don’t have any regulations to do it.” Oh really?
For anyone doubting the bitter contempt these legislators hold for gun owners and pro-Constitutionalists, a YouTube video that captured the “open microphone moment” is available for review.
During the second hour of The Hagmann Report that aired last night, we interviewed the highly credentialed Scott Bach, Esq., Executive Director of the Association of the New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, who explained the draconian laws being written and passed in the State of New Jersey. “Clearly, this is about nothing less than disarming the American public, and the current battleground is in New Jersey,” stated Mr. Bach. “You might not be experiencing it in your state… yet, but you will. It’s just a matter of time.”
We must do everything we can to preserve, protect and defend our Second Amendment rights, or we will lose much more. Regardless of where you live, the fight is coming to you if it has not yet arrived. We must be proactive, and yes, we can make our voices heard to counter the utter contempt of these lawmakers regardless of your state of residence – while we still have the chance. Let’s hold these opponents of our constitutional rights accountable for their words and actions.
The time is now, and the fight has been left to us. Make your views known and your voice heard by contacting the NJ Senate Majority Office by phone (609-847-3700) and/or fax (609-633-7254). Do it before it disappears as an option.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
Presently flying under the radar of the American people is the much misunderstood, deliberately mischaracterized, and under-reported United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty. Considering the persistent multi-level attacks against U.S. gun owners and American’s rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the “Final U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty” that convened yesterday and is scheduled to last through March 28, 2013, should be front page news all across America. But it’s not, and for good reason.
Most people, including conservative Americans, thought the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was a dead issue, or at least not a threat to U.S. gun owners based on a number of assumptions relating to international treaties and U.S. Constitutional law. Like everything else with the Obama regime, however, things are never what they appear, nor are they as simple as we are led to believe.
But first, let it be made clear that Barack Hussein Obama is on record as being against the private ownership of firearms by American citizens. This might surprise anyone who listens to the hysterically-pitched assertions by such Obama lapdogs as Chris Mathews and Lawrence O’Donnell, for example, who contend that Obama has posed no threat to private gun ownership as President. Such assertions are only convincing to those who have not done any research into this matter.
Barack Hussein Obama has a long and well-documented history of gun control, going back as far as his law school days. There, he was mentored by Laurence Tribe, a staunch opponent of gun rights of American citizens. In 1994, Obama was a member of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based charitable organization that, in part, is a proponent of various anti-gun groups and related agendas.
In 2003, Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in Illinois. While running for political office in 2004, Obama called for national legislation to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms. As reported in the February 20, 2004 edition of The Chicago Tribune, Obama was quoted as “back[ing] federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.”
In the April 2, 2008 edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Obama was quoted stating, “I am not in favor of concealed weapons… I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” As an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted twice against SB 2165, more commonly known as the “Castle Doctrine,” which would permit household occupants to defend themselves through the use of firearms.
Perhaps most nefarious and telling of all is what Obama whispered to Sarah Brady during a meeting on 30 March 2011 concerning gun control: “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
By far, and despite the intent of Obama-supported organizations such as Fact Check and Media Matters, it is clear that he is the most anti-Second Amendment (putative) President ever to hold office.
Perhaps most disconcerting about the present actions of the United Nations is the cavalier attitude held by most, including many conservatives, that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty would be completely impotent against the U.S. Constitution and Americans’ rights under the Second Amendment. After all, it is argued that to be effective, such a treaty would require Senate ratification, and at present, such ratification would have a “zero possibility” of passage. Such thinking is consistent with a normal political atmosphere and an administration that has a genuine respect for the U.S. Constitution. Considering what we’ve seen over the last decade, does the recent track record of our elected leaders alleviate your concerns?
Consider that within 24 hours of his re-election, Obama pushed for a new round of international negotiations to revive the very U.N. treaty he visibly backed off of in the months leading to the 2012 elections. Isn’t this act alone enough to trip some alarm bells, even among the most skeptical?
It should also be noted that on February 26, 2013, the American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights issued a white paper on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, concluding that “the proposed ATT is consistent with the Second Amendment.” A review of this four-page document reveals certain questionable assumptions on which that conclusion is based.
This is a warning to all Americans that the Obama support of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty can lead to some “UN-intended” consequences to Americans’ right to own and bear arms. Americans looking at this issue are failing to look at the larger picture, which is the ultimate subjugation of the United States to global governance. This can most effectively be accomplished through the disarmament of its citizens, especially in the face of violent outbreaks as the U.S. and the world’s economic systems begin to unravel.
The machinations of the Obama regime within the inner workings of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty must not be underestimated. We must look at the bigger picture and the end-game objectives of the globalists pulling the puppet strings. All is not what it appears.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Those are the words directly from the mouth of Rahm Emmanuel, uttered in 2009 while he was Barack Hussein Obama’s Chief of Staff. Although Emmanuel is gone from the White House, that sentiment, or perhaps more accurately described as a tactic, remains.
It is likely that the shooting at the Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee yesterday, two weeks after the shooting in Aurora, Colorado, will trigger an onslaught of calls by elected officials for “reasonable” gun controls. It is also likely that it will facilitate the implementation of other prohibitions, including but not limited to criminalizing any form of critical speech of certain religions perceived to be victimized by discrimination. Indeed, both issues have been on the agenda of Barack Hussein Obama and his globalist cohorts since the 1990s.
Preliminary media reports suggest the perpetrator of yesterday’s shooting be both a U.S. military veteran and a “white supremacist,” designations clearly identified by previous bulletins issued by the Department of Homeland Security as national security threats. Even before the identity of the perpetrator had been released, the establishment media was leading with these characterizations.
Additionally, the FBI has taken the lead in the investigation and has already classified the incident as “domestic terrorism” and a “hate crime.” The elements absent in the Colorado shooting are conveniently present in this shooting and will likely act as catalysts to redefine and limit our present rights under the facade of reason and tolerance. Despite calls by the very people to avoid exploiting this tragedy for political gain, that process is already in full swing.
Anyone who cannot see how things are lining up to implement broad, sweeping changes to the freedom and liberty of every American citizen is either blissfully ignorant or a party to the agenda. One has to look no further than the numerous freedom-limiting executive orders issued by Obama, the new lexicons of the Department of Homeland Security, and the militarization of municipal police agencies to understand that the enemy of the state is being redefined according to a political agenda dedicated to the destruction of our nation and her people.
It is important to connect the proverbial dots and not be impaired by the myopic rants of those who are either oblivious to the larger agenda or succumb to the emotional pleadings of the “well-intentioned.” Things are often not as they appear, especially when one looks at the methods such incidents serve to institute the fundamental changes desired by Obama and his globalist associates. The agenda to disarm Americans is an important step in the fundamental transformation of America. It is but one step, albeit a major one, that has always existed, needing just the right time and the correct set of circumstances to accomplish.
Despite denials, you can be assured that yesterday’s shooting will be used to advance the agenda of “gun control.” It will begin with demands for “reasonable” controls over all new sales of semi-automatic weapons, bulk gun purchases, or magazines with a capacity greater than an arbitrary number determined by gun control advocates inside of the beltway. It will likely enjoy bipartisan support, and be advanced by an accommodating and complicit media. In the wake of the temporarily stalled United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, the fact that the killings took place at a Sikh Temple will not be lost as well.
From there, the tenuous grasp Americans have on our Second Amendment rights will be within reach by those intent to disarm us. Unless we open our eyes to what is taking place right under our collective noses, we will always remain one Supreme Court justice vote, one executive order, or one piece of “reasonable” legislation away from being unable to protect ourselves from further tyranny at the hands of our own government. Once there, our ability to maintain all of our other freedoms, including the freedom of speech, will be lost.