Tag Archives: big government

FBI Visits Gun Shop to Check Up on ‘People Talking About Big Government’

 

Do you trust the government? As citizen’s civil liberties continue to be squashed, you could be question by the FBI if you don’t like “Big Government.”

A case in point is one reported by the Activist Post‘s Brandon Turbeville.

“While government surveillance of gun purchases and gun owners is nothing new, a recent visit by an FBI Counterterrorism agent to a Columbia, S.C. gun shop has only reinforced the knowledge that the U.S. government is growing more and more concerned by the prospect of a well-armed populace – particularly one that prefers to live without constant government interference in their personal lives.”

 

Behind the guise of “counter terrorism” prevention, the government has given itself carte blanche to go after law-abiding, gun-carrying citizens and not just the Islamic fundamentalists we thought they were going after…

 

The Activist Post reported that the Columbia, S.C. gun shop was approached by an FBI counter terrorism agent on Monday, April 14. “The individuals who spoke with him were somewhat alarmed to realize that the agent’s concern was not fundamentalist Muslims but American who promote small government.”

The report continues that the agent wore plain clothes.

 

“Never in a million years would I have thought this guy was a fed,” said the witness to the Activist Post. “He was in a completely normal vehicle. Regular clothes. Everything. I would have thought this guy was just some down home country boy.”

The agent then presented identification and asked about routine transactions that fall within the “counter terrorism” jurisdiction.

 

After this brief chat, the agent left a flyer with the shop that listed purchases that raise red flags to the FBI.

 

Some of these trigger behaviors include:

 

  • Paying in cash or someone else’s credit card,
  • Being reluctant or unwilling to produce valid I.D.,
  • Making large purchases or unusual inquiries into buying in bulk,
  • Lacking knowledge involved in firearms or product usage,
  • Making hints at illegal or misuse of explosives,
  • Being a new or unknown customers,
  • And appearing nervous or evasive.

 

Big Brother is watching you. So the implication here is if you buy lots of ammo and store it in a dry box and don’t like the government infringing on your rights, you might be on the FBI’s list of potential domestic terrorists.

 

 

Town uses Agenda 21’s Zoning Tactic to Ban Family’s Dairy Goats

A Massachusetts couple engaged in a battle to keep their dairy goats since 2006 will be taking their case to a federal judge this month.  Alan and Susan Griffin allege that the town has been violating their civil rights and discriminating against them, and they are seeking to block the town from removing their goats, plus $2 million in damages including compensation for mental anguish and emotional problems.

Both Griffin and his wife are disabled, and Susan’s irritable bowel syndrome is actually the reason the couple keeps goats.  She cannot drink cow’s milk, but the raw goat milk lessens her symptoms.  At the time the town first tried to force them to get rid of their goats, the couple had 3 adult goats and 2 kids on their acre property, the back half of which is zoned for agriculture.

Neighbors, however, complained that the goats smelled and attracted flies, and that that robbed them of their right to enjoy their own properties.  This prompted city officials to argue that the Griffins should be banned from keeping goats on their property because only the back half is zoned for agriculture.  This means that animals must cross residential land when entering or leaving the property.

goat - pic

The extension of this argument, of course, is that no “livestock” animals – or possibly even agricultural products, if it’s taken even further – can even pass through residential areas, however infrequently.  This ruling takes place at a time where zoning restrictions are making it harder to even keep pets nationwide.  Some areas only allow one or two pets per household, and there have been numerous stories of people getting into serious trouble for helping sick and injured wildlife.

For instance, earlier this year 12 federal agents stormed into an animal shelter which had rescued a fawn and was in the process of moving it to a wildlife rehabilitation facility.  They killed the deer, named Bambi.  The agents had been notified of the deer’s presence by a visitor to the shelter.  In another case, a family who had rescued a deer was turned in by neighbors, and the family faced the prospect of the deer’s killing until it was released by an unknown person in the middle of the night.  In another case, a mother faced a $500 fine for taking an injured bird to a wildlife sanctuary in a birdcage, and in yet another, a man faced charges for feeding birds on his own property.

In the Griffin’s case, the town then proposed a settlement offer.  According to this offer, the town would limit the Griffins to keeping four adult goats and three kids on the property – more than the couple had at the time of the lawsuit, raising the question of why this was preferable to the town – as well as having manure kept at least 20 feet from any neighbor’s property line, and a fence placed along the couple’s property.  In addition, the town called for the sale or removal of kids during a certain time, and inspections of the property at least every six months.  The Griffins declined this offer.

In response, Griffin reiterated his rights, and also said of the goats, “They are just like human beings.  They don’t stink.  They don’t smell.”  The Griffins are close to their animals as most pet owners are to theirs.  Goats are highly intelligent animals, and the government is forcing a disabled couple to eliminate that source of companionship.  In addition, the sale of raw milk is illegal in Massachusetts, so it will be very difficult for Susan to obtain the milk, which improves her quality of life, without the goats.

Zoning regulations – and the high level of control they give the government over individuals – are a progressive ideal and indeed advocated in Agenda 21.  Paragraph 10.3 of the document states, “Land resources are used for a variety of purposes which interact and may compete with one another; therefore, it is desirable to plan and manage all uses in an integrated manner.”   In paragraph 10.4, the document acknowledges that much of this is already in place, “but [elements] need to be more widely applied, further developed and strengthened.”

The Griffins believe that private property rights must be protected.  Griffin’s goats lived on land zoned for agriculture, but the couple has faced problems simply because of neighbor complaints and because the goats must occasionally cross residential land.

The Griffins have experienced what many Americans are experiencing throughout the nation. Government continues to usurp the rights of property owners in America and those who want to be self sufficient are being targeted and sometimes raided by law enforcement.

 

Obama Creates “Nudge Squad” To Influence Behavior

Barack Obama has has expanded the size and scope of the federal government far more than any of his predecessors.

Now, he’s spending our tax dollars to “nudge” us into accepting his big-government ideas.

On Tuesday, Fox News revealed that Obama is planning to use mind tricks and “behavioral insights” to cajole us into accepting his beliefs and ultimately control our behavior. He is doing this through a “nudge squad.”

As reported by Fox, “The federal government is hiring what it calls a ‘Behavioral Insights Team’ that will look for ways to subtly influence people’s behavior.”

There are already teams of “insights” agents that are dispersed across a number of government bureaus. Their job? To carefully construct each agency’s message to convince Americans that Obama’s government knows what the nation needs. You know, to fix all those problems that Obama certainly had nothing to do with starting…

Obama

A government document has surfaced, detailing the program and urging people to apply for positions on the team. It reads, “Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals.”

Maya Shankar initially released the document. She is a White House adviser and made the document public in an effort to try and generate interest in applying for the team.

“The idea is that the team would ‘experiment’ with various techniques, with the goal of tweaking behavior so people do everything from saving more for retirement to saving more in energy costs,” reports Fox News.

While many Obama supporters have been tight-lipped about the program, some have spoken out against it. Michael Thomas is an economist at Utah State University. He said, “I am very skeptical of a team promoting nudge policies. Ultimately, nudging … assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them.”

Thomas is right.

The nudge squad doesn’t aim to make government better — rather, it tries to trick us into thinking government knows what’s best for us. Not only that, but we’re paying to brainwash ourselves; of course, the nudge squad is 100% funded by our tax dollars.

Your thoughts? Let us know in the comments section.