Congressman Blasts Obama For Using Fake Twitter Messages (People) To promote Gun Control

Freedom Outpost

Rep Steve Stockman (R-TX) made accusations against Barack Obama on Monday over his gun control campaign claiming that is it fraud based with fake messages over Twitter. Stockman claims that Obama is seeking to give the appearance of support greater than what he has for gun control legislation by flooding Twitter with messages from people that don’t exist.

“Obama’s anti-gun campaign is a fraud,” Stockman said. “Obama’s supporters are panicking and willing to do anything to create the appearance of popular support, even if it means trying to defraud Congress,” he added. “I call upon the president to denounce this phony spam campaign.”

When Obama called for people to tweet their congressmen in support of more gun control legislation, Stockman said he received a mere 16 tweets. However, he notes that upon closer examination, only six of the tweets were from six actual people and that the messages were all identical.

“The other 10 are fake, computer-generated spambots,” his office said.

Then, in a press release issued by Stockman, he writes, “The other 10 are fake, computer-generated spambots.”

• They all use the default “egg” avatar.
• They have account names resembling names automatically suggested by Twitter.
• They have engaged in no human interaction.
• They have tweeted almost nothing promotional, sponsored messages pushing real estates websites and other liberal “grassroots” campaigns.
• They follow mostly MSNBC anchors or media outlets, not actual people.

His press release went on to point out, “Reporter Robert Stacy McCain’s investigation of the fraudulent Obama campaign, available at www.theothermccain.com, finds the majority of the Obama-supporting accounts were created in less than 48 hours before contacting members of Congress.”

“Even more interesting, Stockman staff find two accounts happened to tweet Stockman back-to-back,” the press release continued. “Both have only one follower, former Obama digital strategist Brad Schenck. Schenck somehow found and followed them before they ever tweeted anything, followed anyone or followed any real people. Of the six real people who contacted Stockman only one can be verified as a constituent. One lives outside the district and the remaining four do not list where they live.”

“If you are a real person who contacted us about your support for the President’s anti-gun campaign, we are listening. We do not agree with you, but we appreciate your sincere opinions and encourage you to continue to contact us,” said Stockman. “But the vast majority of the President’s supporters have no feelings because they fake profiles from spammers.”

“The White House has some explaining to do. My own staff, and others looking into Obama’s Twitter campaign, find the vast majority of messages are coming from fraudulent accounts. Some of these accounts are linked directly to a former Obama staffer. To what extent is the White House involved in this attempt to defraud Congress,” said Stockman.

Stockman ultimately said that the Obama anti-gun campaign was “using the same scam techniques that sell male enhancement pills.”

US Special Forces Take on Gun Control In Letter

 

 

More than 1,100 retired and current Army Special Forces troops, Green Berets, have put their names to a letter that condemns the efforts by Washington politicians to restrict in any manner gun ownership, following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Their 2,900 word letter has been distributed to media outlets and was originally posted at Professionalsoldiers.com.

According to the post at Professionalsoldiers, “1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter. We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret”.”

The letter begins by those citing their oath to ““…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…”

“We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world,” the letter continues. “We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.”

The letter conveyed the emotions and expression of sympathy from these brave men. “Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers,” the letter reads. “Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem.”

They continue in the letter to make the case that the term “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” is a political term, which began to be used around 1989. Its use has been clear and that is to be used by anti-gun lobbyists against the Second Amendment.

The letter then makes the case for the differences between the AR-15 and the M4A1. The AR-15 is a rifle that “cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute.” The letter doesn’t comment on the use of “bump stocks” which significantly increase the number of rounds one can put through an AR-15. In fact, these bump stocks would allow similar operation to the M4A1 with incredible control over the firearm.

The letter also takes issue with the debate over high capacity magazines. While we have heard the Left’s comments that “just a few seconds of changing magazines could have saved the lives of people. According to the letter, “As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not.” The letter even expressed that to outlaw these would outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use” and would be a contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The letter went on to point out the complete and utter failure of the first “assault weapons ban” that was introduced by the same Dianne Feinstein that we are dealing with now and their conclusion is devastating to her position.

When the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Supreme Court Justice Story writes concerning the Second Amendment:

„The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.‟

A Washington Post editorial is cited from September 15, 1994, two days after the first assault weapons ban was put into place. purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban],” the editorial read. “Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

They finally ask the question, “So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?”

Their answer was The Battle of Atehns, TN. They also cited disarming of citizens throughout history such as with men like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. In fact, they even cited the very tyranny of the British government over our Founding Fathers and it was that tyranny that led them to make sure the Second Amendment was at the top of the list to guard against tyranny in our own country.

So what do these men think would be effective? They cited no single course of action that would solve the problem. However, they did put forth eight diverse steps that they said should be “undertaken” and “will require patience.”

First they supported that the Second Amendment in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Second, they support that State and Local School Boards provide security as they deem necessary and adequate.

In addition, they also support the passing of Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community.

The liberals will love this one. The Special Forces troops support “the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.”

The letter also brought up the issue of gratuitously violent movies/video games. “War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.”

They support the repeal of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. So far they are with your current author on all these points and remember, these guys are the ones putting their lives on the line for liberty.

Number Seven in their steps takes a shot at the Obama administration and points out something that many of us in America, who are awake clearly see. “We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.”

Finally, the letter states that the issue of personal responsibility for choices and actions should come to the forefront. Then there is a challenge that all Americans should be able to affirm: “We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.”

The question in my mind is, is this a warning to those who are attacking the Second Amendment? After all the first thing posed was these fine men’s oath of office to defend the Constitution against “all enemies foreign and domestic.”

I salute these brave men who not only have fought against foreign enemies, but in this letter are taking on the domestic enemies of America. May God grant victory in this fight!

Should Obama & Congress Be Arrested Under The NDAA?

Do as we say, not as we do? BECAUSE we can….

 

Freedom Outpost

 

Let’s ask the question here: Should Barack Obama and the Congress be arrested and sent to Gitmo for violating the NDAA. After all the Congress passed it and Barack Obama signed it. I’m sure much of you believe that more than that should happen and it wouldn’t just be dependent upon the NDAA, but does what happened last week indicate that such persons as Barack Obama, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain should be wearing and orange jump suit an some leg irons soon?

Understand something, Congress passes some 55,000 pages a year in new laws! Yet, for the most part they never read one page of them. They passed the NDAA into law. What’s worse is that GOP presumptive nominee Mitt Romney said that he supported NDAA as written, thus withholding the rights of citizens to due process, under the Constitution, because he says so.

The NDAA text affirms the President’s authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person,

“who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,” and anyone who commits a “belligerent act” against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, “without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF].”

The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or

“transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin,” or transfer to “any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”

An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate.

According to a Reuters story from Wednesday, August 1, 2012, Barack Obama and the Congress authorized support, specifically $25 million of taxpayer money, to help Syrian rebels,

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, sources familiar with the matter said.

Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.

This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.

The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.

What most people aren’t asking is, just who are these rebels? Well the answer lies buried at the bottom of the article:

Recent news reports from the region have suggested that the influence and numbers of Islamist militants, some of them connected to al Qaeda or its affiliates, have been growing among Assad’s opponents.

U.S. and European officials say that, so far, intelligence agencies do not believe the militants’ role in the anti-Assad opposition is dominant.

While U.S. and allied government experts believe that the Syrian rebels have been making some progress against Assad’s forces lately, most believe the conflict is nowhere near resolution, and could go on for years.

Does anyone else sense an Eurasia, Eastasia flavor to any of this? For those no familiar, those are the alleged allies, then enemies of Oceania in George Orwell’s 1984. The people never know if they are at war with one or if they are its allies.

Well America has courted Al-Qaeda in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi and now they are doing it in Syria to remove Assad!

John Aziz rightly asks,

If providing material assistance to al-Qaeda is illegal under the National Defence Authorization Act (2012), and Obama and Congress are sending $25 million of aid to al-Qaeda-affiliated Syrian opposition, aren’t Congress and President Obama violating their own law? Should Obama (or at least the Justice Department) not be using “all necessary and appropriate force” including “the power to indefinitely detain” to prevent Obama and Congress from assisting al-Qaeda? Did anyone in Congress or the Obama administration even bother to read the law that they were signing? Do Federal laws no longer apply to lawmakers?

John is not the only one asking such a question. Fox News’ Ben Swann is also asking simliar questions as to whether Al-Qaeda is an enemy or not?
Read the Rest