Jew World Order

S.1813, also known as the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21), has been approved by the U.S. Senate and is now enroute to the House for a vote. The 1,676-page measure has been considered controversial for a variety of its provisions, including some that impact Second Amendment rights.

The first of two specific attacks on gun ownership, on page 1323, states:

The Secretary [of Transportation] may
modify, suspend, or terminate a special permit or approval if the
Secretary determines that —

(1) the person who was granted the special
permit or approval has violated the special permit or approval or the
regulations issued under this chapter in a manner that demonstrates that
the person is not fit to conduct the activity authorized by the special
permit or approval; or

(2) the special permit or approval is unsafe.

The broad language found within this provision has raised concerns
among those who believe the Secretary could use the interpretive powers
defined here to revoke permits to transport guns and ammunition in all
realms of transportation.

MAP-21’s second attack on gun rights is subtle and involves several
steps. It begins with a provision permitting the IRS to confiscate the
passports of any persons believed to owe more than $50,000 in taxes.

In
order for the government to enforce that mandate, those citizens would
be placed in a national database as “prohibited persons,” who would then
be automatically flagged if they applied for a passport.

As noted by The Examiner:

This is the thing that has citizens’
rights groups up in arms. The government already has “no fly” lists that
prohibit certain persons from air travel. Critics say that the
government could easily use such lists to deny Second Amendment rights
to those who find themselves on the lists.

For example, those who are placed on the “no-fly list” are also added
to another list, as potential domestic terrorists. Once on that list,
those individuals are no longer allowed to have any guns.

President
Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, admitted as much when he
stated,

“If you are known as may be a possible terrorist, you cannot buy
a handgun in America.”

Defenders of the Constitution and the rights it protects are wary of
the unnatural progression that can cause a tax delinquent individual to
be added to databases created to monitor terrorists and then having this
categorization be used as a pretext for infringing upon these persons’
right the keep and bear arms — and all without due process.

It’s worth noting that this has become a routine occurrence.

Sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.),
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and David Vitter (R-La), MAP-21 includes a
variety of other provisions that inspire fear in liberty-minded
individuals.

Section 31406 of S. 1813 calls for “Mandatory Event Data Recorders”
(or so-called black boxes) to be installed in new vehicles and mandates
penalties for individuals who fail to comply.

“Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new
passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an
event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part,” states
the bill.

But some contend that the presence of the presence of the black boxes
can be a slippery slope, permitting the government to have total access
to one’s transportation habits and whereabouts.

The National Motorists
Association asserts that “there is no rational or scientific need nor
justification to equip tens of millions of vehicles on a perpetual 
basis with black boxes.”

The company states:

While denials abound there is good reason
to believe that the promotion of universal black box installation in new
vehicles has more to do with regulatory, enforcement, judicial, and
corporate economic interests; all at the expense of vehicle owners who
are forced to pay for and retain this form of self-surveillance.

The NMA does not object to safety research
that involves the use of black boxes, as long as the participants are
informed and willing and they are allowed to opt out of research project
without negative consequences. As noted, such research can be reliably
conducted with thousands of willing participants, versus millions of
uninformed conscripts.

In an April 19 interview on Fox News, Judge Andrew Napolitano addressed the unconstitutionality of the black box provision.

“Well it’s interesting that congress would try to do this because the
police in the District of Columbia and Maryland did this not too long
ago, where they put GPS devices in peoples cars without search warrants
and the Supreme Court invalidated it,” explained Napolitano.

He continued, “ Saying it was an unlawful search, that quite frankly,
it’s none of the governments business where the car is going and if the
police want to know where the car is going, there has to be some
evidence of criminality and they have to get a search warrant. And the
Supreme Court didn’t make this up out of thin air, it’s in the
constitution.”

Furthermore,

“The police just can’t investigate whoever they want to
on a whim, or follow whoever they want to because they like following
the person, there has to be some evidence of wrong doing on the part of
the person they’re following.”

The bill also includes a provision to develop technology to “detect
drug-impaired” drivers and the development of testing for similar
devices that measure alcohol concentration in the body while in the
vehicle.

Critics point to the passport provision of the bill as entirely
un-American. In an Investors.com editorial, the writer notes, “It is
hard to imagine any law more reminiscent of the Soviet Union that
America toppled, or its Eastern Bloc slave satellites.”

 But according to Timothy Meyer, a constitutional law professor at
the University of Georgia, such a provision would likely be upheld in
court.

“Courts have upheld statutes calling for the revocation and denial of
passports to those in arrears of child support payments,” he explains.
“In part, because the child support payments can be contested.”

Because there are already laws in place that limit a person’s right
to travel, Meyer contends that the bill is legal. The State Department
screens passport applications for those who owe child support of more
than $2500.

The IRS will be holding some Americans tax refund checks
if they have defaulted on their student loans, owe state or local
taxes, or have unpaid child support.

Constitutional attorney Angel Reyes disagrees and believes the passport provision is an unconstitutional one.

“It takes away your right to enter or exit the country based upon a
non-judicial IRS determination that you owe taxes,” Reyes told FOX Business.
“It’s a scary thought that our congressional representatives want to
give the IRS the power to detain US citizens over taxes, which could
very well be in dispute.”

Raven Clabough – April 25, 2012 – TheNewAmerican

diggmutidel.icio.usgoogleredditfacebook