America Should Be Asking “What Happens to a Nation After Gun Confiscation?”

In the midst of the frenetic Jade Helm activities, it was easy to lose track about the importance of several events. This is precisely what happpened in Michigan between July 27 and September 15. During that time, troops from several nations, including 3000 Polish troops practiced seizing the guns from American citizens.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, there are details emerging from the event that are very troubling.

When I viewed the above video near the end of July of 2015, I did not think much of this because the nation was embroiled in the massive military exercises associated with Jade Helm 15.  At least that was what I thought until I received the following email:

Dear Dave

My husband was involved in a training exercise, here in Michigan in combination with several thousand foreign troops. For weeks, the drills were always the same. They would pull make believe American families out of their homes after they forcibly entered the home look for guns. In the final week of the drill, the exercise to a turn toward the unbelievable. 

In the final week, after they pulled would-be Americans, played by actors, out of the home, they would search for guns. They forced the family members to kneel on the ground. If they found guns in the home, they pretended to execute the entire family. My husbands platoon was the only American troops at the scene. The Americans did not participate in the raids on the homes. The National Guard troops provided intelligence and communications support for the units. The abuse of the pretend American families was all done by the foreign troops. This has shaken my husband up. He feels he knows what is coiming. The operation was conducted under the UN flag. He wants the word out but does not want to be discovered as an informant. Because of this I cannot sign my name. God help us Dave what are we coming to?

It Is Time to Start Asking What Happens to a Nation Following Gun Confiscation?

You ever wondered what happens to a people after gun confiscation? Do they live happily ever after? Not quite. Genocide is the most important development that followes a government stripping its citizens of the rights.

Before we passively allow the Obama administration strip away our last line of defense from an increasingly totalitarian government, by acquiescing to the United Nations and American advocates for gun control, perhaps we should examine the end game resulting from past gun control efforts:

1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.

3. After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts’ fate.

4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.

5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.

7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.

8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately 70 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control.

Historically, American gun control legislation has been imitating Hitler’s Nazi Germany gun control legislation for quite some time. Consider the key provisions of the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and compare it with the United States Gun Control Act of 1968. The parallels of both the provisions and the legal language are eerily similar.

The Nazi Weapons Act of 1938		United States Gun Control Act of 1968
1	Classified guns for sporting purposes	1	Introduced term “sporting purpose”
2	All Germans desiring to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and submit to a background check	2	Exempted government agencies from the controls which applied to law-abiding citizens
3	The law assumed that non-Nazi German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazi’s from the gun control law	3	The Law assumes that mentally ill people will turn their guns on innocents and the government is given the power to limit the purchase by people DEEMED to be a threat by labeling them as mentally ill.
4	The Nazi’s assumed unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not, be owned by private persons	4	Authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to decide what firearms could or could not be owned by private persons
5	The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats	5	The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats
6	Citizens under 18 years of age could not buy firearms and ammunition	6	Age restriction of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition

Thomas Jefferson was very clear in his writings regarding the right to bear arms. Jefferson knew that the preservation of the Republic ultimately rested upon a well-armed citizenry. Jefferson felt it was absolutely necessary for American citizens to be able to protect themselves. The protection that Jefferson spoke of was not from our obvious enemies of the day (France and Britain), but from our own government. Jefferson made this point quite clear when he admonished future generations of Americans to fulfill their duty to overthrow a government if they failed to serve the needs of the majority of its citizens.

Private ownership of guns is the necessary component needed to fulfill the Jeffersonian mandate for national self-defense. Yet, increasingly and reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the United States government is incrementally chipping away at private citizens right to own a gun. This does doesn’t make sense because FBI statistics clearly show that 90% of the guns used in the commission of a crime are stolen! Does the government really believe that criminals, both American citizens and illegal aliens, as well as terrorists, are suddenly going to perform their civic duty and immediately register their guns? How is America better-served if the only ones who don’t have access to guns are the law-abiding citizens? So, one must ask who are the gun control laws designed to protect and why?

Still think Obama is harmless?

Finally, most would wonder what gun confiscation would look and feel like in America. Nobody knows because it has never happened. It is only a matter of time.

Credit to Common Sense

Sweden Erupts Burn Down 9 Muslim Refugee Centers

China To Build "Mega CERN"

GERMAN TOWN OF 100 GETS "ENRICHED" BY 750 MIGRANTS

German government officials have compelled a small town with just 102 people to take in approximately 750 migrants from Syria and other countries



German government officials have compelled a small town with just 102 people to take in approximately 750 migrants from Syria and other countries, The New York Times wrote Saturday.

Sumte, a small town at the western fringe of the former East Germany, was informed earlier this month by its municipal government that it had been assigned to accept over a thousand of the asylum seekers that have poured into Germany over the course of 2015. The number was so high that mayor Christian Fabel first thought it was a joke, but after a storm of local protest, the figure was lowered to 750, not out of sympathy but because it was believed a thousand would overwhelm the town’s sewage system.

The municipal government plans to house migrants inside an abandoned office building, but other than that, services for them will be scarce. Sumte has no school, no shops, and extremely limited public transportation options. Residents have expressed fears that the migrants, who are disproportionately young men, will bring a crime wave that will make it unsafe to go outside. Officials have responded by saying it will still be perfectly safe to go out at night, because the town’s streetlights will stay lit.

The Times’ write-up, by reporter Andrew Higgins, suggests the biggest problem for Sumte isn’t crime or other issues that could potentially arrive with the refugees, but rather the possibility that their arrival could make locals question the wisdom of nearly limitless immigration. The migrants, he says, have proved to be political boon for Holger Niemann, a member of the local council described as a neo-Nazi who seeks to preserve Germany’s “genetic heritage.”

Niemann’s anti-immigrant opinions are upsetting town members who say they are simply incompatible with democracy:

Reinhold Schlemmer, a former Communist who served as the mayor here before and immediately after the collapse of East Germany, said people like Mr. Niemann would “have been put in prison right away” during the Communist era.

“Now they can stand up and preach,” he said. “People say this is democracy, but I don’t think it is democracy to let Nazis say what they want.”

Thus far, though, the Times says that “tolerant values” in Sumte have won out: “When Mr. Niemann took the floor at a meeting in October between villagers and regional officials responsible for migrants,” the paper says, “Mr. Hammer snatched away the microphone.”

Credit to Infowars

Banks to start charging for cash deposits

(NaturalNews) Few could have envisioned it even just a few years ago, but it's happening now, and on an ever-widening scale. More big U.S. banks are shunning cash, because the banking system has become so dependent on other "assets" that large cash deposits actually pose a threat to their financial health, according to The Wall Street Journal.

State Street Corporation, a Boston-based institution that manages assets for institutional investors, has, for the first time, begun charging some customers for making large cash deposits, according to people familiar with the development.

And the largest U.S. bank in terms of assets — JP Morgan Chase & Co. — has dramatically cut "unwanted" deposits to the tune of $150 billion this year alone, in part by charging customers fees.

What gives? What kind of world do we live in when banks no longer want cash?

As the WSJ reported:

"The developments underscore a deepening conflict over cash. Many businesses have large sums on hand and opportunities to profitably invest it appear scarce. But banks don't want certain kinds of cash either, judging it costly to keep, and some are imposing fees after jawboning customers to move it."

As usual, the problem originated largely in Washington, D.C.

Criminalizing cash?

The paper said the banks' actions are being driven by low interest rates (set by the Fed) that eat into profits, as well as "regulations adopted since the financial crisis to gird banks against funding disruptions," adding in a separate report that a number of large financial institutions have become more dependent on buying and selling stocks, bonds and commodities like oil.

The latest round of fees for large deposits stems from regulators' deeming them risky. They are sometimes dubbed hot-money deposits that analysts believe is likely to flee quickly in a crisis (think runs on Greek banks recently, which the government eventually curbed).

Agreed upon a year ago in September and managed by the Federal Reserve and other regulators, the rule covering liquidity coverage ratios forces banks and financial institutions to retain high-quality liquid assets — like central bank reserves and government debt — to cover anticipated deposit losses over a 30-day period (creative way for the federal government to continue financing its overspending — by forcing private banks now to hold government debt). Under the rules, banks are required to retain up to 40 percent against certain corporate deposits and as high as 100 percent against some hedge fund deposits, WSJ reported.

"At some point you wonder whether there will be a shortage of financial institutions willing to take on these balances," Kelli Moll, head of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP's hedge-fund practice in New York, told the paper.

Moll added that the subject of where to actually put cash has become something of an interesting conversation as hedge funds are turned away by the traditional banking sector.

Dodd-Frank is to the financial industry what Obamacare is to health care

WSJ further explained the phenomenon and fallout:

"Jerome Schneider, head of Pacific Investment Management Co.'s short-term and funding desk, which advises corporate and institutional clients, said that as a result of the bank actions, he and his customers have discussed as cash alternatives boosting investments in U.S. Treasury bonds, ultrashort-duration bond funds and money-market funds."

"Clients have been put on warning," Schneider said, when it comes to cash.

The rules essentially criminalizing large depositors of cash stem from the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial "reform" law — a "reform" that did to the banking industry what Obamacare has done to the health care industry.

The law's two primary authors — Democrats Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, both of whom are now out of Congress — were also backers of Clinton-era housing rules said by experts to have caused the 2008 financial crisis. So, in essence, Dodd-Frank is punishing banks for rules that the two of them (along with most other Democrats and too many Republicans — and Bill Clinton's signature on the legislation) actually caused.

In the meantime, there appears to be no end to the federal government's meddling in both the financial industry and just about every other facet of American life.

Causing more problems than it solves — that's a classic congressional move.

Credit to Natural News
Learn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/051762_cash_deposits_criminalization_banking_regulations.html#ixzz3qG9BihFh

Robots Can Now Teach Each Other New Tricks

A robot at Brown University learned how to perform a task from a very different robot at Cornell University. 

WHY IT MATTERS

If robots can learn from one another, they could gain new capabilities more quickly and adapt to unfamiliar situations.

The ability to acquire and then share knowledge is a central component of human culture and civilization. A small milestone in the exchange of robot knowledge has now been demonstrated by two bots working in different academic research labs.

Researchers at Cornell University previously devised an online game, called TellMeDave, through which volunteers can help train a robot to perform a task and associate different actions with commands given in everyday language. By guiding the robot through a task, a volunteer trains a machine-learning algorithm so the robot can perform the task again. And this learned behavior is stored in a central repository called RoboBrain that’s accessible by other robots (see “The World’s First Knowledge Engine for Robots”).

Some time ago, through this platform, a type of research robot called PR2 had been taught to perform a number of a simple demonstration tasks, including picking up several mugs from a table and placing them on top of upturned bowls. Several hundred miles away, in a lab at Brown University, a different type of robot, called Baxter, has taken what PR2 had learned and used it to figure out how to perform the same task in a different setting.

The work is part of an effort to figure out how robots might share information in useful ways. That could reduce the need for meticulous reprogramming, and it could allow robots to adapt to quickly when faced with a new task or an unfamiliar setting.

“It’s pointing in an interesting direction,” says Stefanie Tellex, an assistant professor at Brown University, whose group enabled the Baxter robot to learn. “When you put a robot in a new situation—and in the real world it happens in every room the robot goes into—you somehow want that same robot to engage in autonomous behaviors.”

Speaking last week at the Bay Area Robotics Symposium, held at the University of California, Berkeley, Ashutosh Saxena, who led the development of TellMeDave and RoboBrain, said that robots will increasingly share information in the future. “We are trying to make robots to learn and share knowledge,” he said. “Different robots can push and pull knowledge from the [RoboBrain] database.”

The key challenge in transferring learning between the robots at Cornell and Brown was that they are physically completely different, which means that low-level commands, such as those specifying the position each joint needs to assume in order to reach for a mug, will not match. Tellex’s group had to figure out a scheme that would allow commands to be transferred between the two platforms.

Ultimately, she says, it would be ideal for a robot to figure out how to translate information for itself, based on how its physical body compares with that of another robot. “This is what we’d all like to do, and this is really a baby step toward that vision,” Tellex says. “There are a lot of remaining technical challenges.”

Nick Roy, a professor at MIT’s CSAIL says many researchers, including several at MIT, are interested in enabling robots to share knowledge. One thing making it possible, he says, is increased bandwidth and cloud computing capacity: “As we’ve gotten the ability to handle more and more data across the Internet, it’s become more feasible to have this kind of shared [knowledge] representation. It’s something that the robots community has long aspired to.”

Credit to  Will Knight 

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542821/robots-can-now-teach-each-other-new-tricks/

Dead comet with skull face to hurtle by Earth on Halloween

Miami (AFP) - A massive space rock that will shave by Earth on Halloween looks like a dead comet with a skull face, NASA said after gaining a closer look at the spooky space object.

Astronomers initially thought the object was an asteroid when they spotted it in early October, and named it Asteroid 2015 TB145.

But using the US space agency's Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, experts "have determined that the celestial object is more than likely a dead comet that has shed its volatiles after numerous passes around the sun," NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory said in a statement late Friday.

Scientists have also spotted an eerie skull-like resemblance on the face of the rock, based on radar data from the National Science Foundation's 305-meter (1,000-foot) Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico.

"In the Arecibo images it appears to have donned a skull costume for its Halloween flyby," said Kelly Fast, IRTF program scientist at NASA and acting program manager for the US space agency's Near-Earth Object Observations Program.

The space rock has already grabbed attention with its unusually high speed and big size, about as large as a football stadium at 2,000 feet (600 meters) in diameter.

Credit to Yahoo news