I found this very short video of JP Sears mocking gun control (cough– transgender terrorism against Christians the unspoken backstory) on Telegram. I wish I could remember from where to give proper credit but I can’t recall. I notice the original video format is Tik Tok. I for one avoid Tik Tok due to its essential ownership by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP is enemy of all Freedom loving people world-wide but especially the enemy of the American Principles of Liberty that the Dem-Marxists are doing their damnedest to terminate.
AT ANY RATE, this JP Sear 3-minute short is full of truth, the humor amplifies the right of self-protection and the hints of past genocides resulting from gun-confiscation.
YOU CAN ALSO SUPPORT via buying women’s menstrual health, healthy collagen, vitamin supplements/products, coffee from my Online stores: My Store (please use referral discount code 2388058): https://modere.co/3SrOHzI
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!
Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
Alinsky’s Rules are a Socialist agenda to transform America AWAY from its Founding Principles and Christian heritage. Take from the Ocensor article cross posted here about how much the present Dem Agenda smacks of old uncle Saul.
Many of us have heard of Saul Alinsky, his rules for radicals, the left scoffs at our looking to this, but is there any truth that this is being applied to the US political landscape today, and if it is, who is applying it?
To understand what these rules are we have to look at what he asked for and what was his goal. Alinsky was a socialist who lived in the 1900s in the US, graduated from the University of Chicago with a Ph.D. in Psychology. He went on and worked for the State of Illinois for a short time, then went on to be a community organizer, writer, political activist.
He is looked to as a author of socialist ideology, something that many on the left aspire to follow, and much of his “Rules for Radicals,” published a year before his death is seen as a guideline of how to bring about a social change in America to set it up for socialist rule.
So what is this “Rules for Radicals” and what did it advocate? The whole document was set up to show how to bring a nation to its knees so a socialist change could come to the land and would bring about socialism to the state. Here are the items and what they were set up for:
1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.
2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Water, Electrical power, Housing and neighborhood demographics, and Income).
6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school. (Common Core?)
7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.
8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take Tax from the wealthy with the support of the poor.
So how does this list apply today? I would say if you look at the actions of the last president, then of the left today, with people like AOC, Sanders, along with her squad and many from the left you see this in full effect today. So let’s look at each item and see if it is in workings today.
Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.
i. We saw two activists within the Democratic party, one that was very much of an activist in her school days, one that went from activist and community organizer to the White House, Clinton and Obama pushed from their times in the White House to put in place socialized medical care, Clinton failed when she was the first lady, Obama partially succeeded, but has much of what he pushed now being stripped by Trump.
ii. Even though Trump has pushed back on this, today you see the whole Democrat party pushing for universal healthcare, the more left-leaning or outright socialist the candidates are, who is running for president, we see idea’s being presented from strengthening of Obamacare to outright shutting down private healthcare insurance and putting in a Canadian style social healthcare, where the state controls all.
iii. We now hear that healthcare is a fundamental human right, this is used as a means of pushing that there should be no choice in this, the government, as a guarantor of our rights should be the one to take charge of our health care, it should never be in the hands of private business or individuals. The far-left socialist, Sanders and Warran are pushing this; when asked if our healthcare insurance will be taken, both are equal in their moves to deflect from the question and never answer.
iv. By demanding that universal healthcare is given to all, including illegals, the left is demanding that our nation be changed to what they demand, if you are not willing to change the structure of our government the left labels and then attacks, as they do with everything.
Poverty – with the way the economy is going under Trump this is getting harder and harder to exploit, so instead of trying to exploit poverty, instead the left pushes to scare people to think it is coming, or to openly wish for a great recession, such as Bill Mahr did.
1. We have seen that some within the left want to see a recession, turn to any paper, turn on the news, you are now bombarded with stories of a recession coming our way. The fact that our economy is the strongest it has been in years, that is a considerable inconvenience for the left, they know then the only way to push this today is not to say people are worse off, instead, bad times are coming, when they do, it is all Trump’s and the Right’s fault, so you need to come to us today so we can protect you against this when it happens.
2. The second thing you see is the left turning to very radical ideas that will radically transform our economy and is guaranteed to bring about complete and total poverty, thus you have the Green New Deal. When the left is unable to feed off the fear of people of things turning sour, they then look for ways to bring about an economic downturn. The dream of the left is to see our economy fail, the benefit for them is two-fold: First, they get rid of the arch-enemy who they see as standing in their way for the idea of a socialist paradise. That would be the conservative right and Trump.
i. One of the ways to bring people and nation to poverty is to rack up their debt. We had two trillion dollar stimulus given to Obama, but instead of our economy thriving, unemployment going down with this, instead, our economy got worse, our unemployment figures continued to rise.
ii. Under Obama, we saw our deficit double, and one has to ask, what was accomplished? Our growth never exceeded 2%, he told us jobs were not coming back, he fell back on his socialist ideals when he demanded that more and more of our lives and our dependence be given to the state.
iii. While the debt is growing under Trump, and I would love to see a reverse of this, we also have to understand, with all these trillions that Obama was given, our national defense was left in shatters, Trump had little choice but to pick up the budget just to build back up a tattered force, many of our jets were unable to fly, it got so bad the Navy was raiding museums to get spare parts. Trump’s moves were never to set this nation in debt; he is moving to pick up the economy to cover spending, an increase in the economy means there are more funds available to be taxed.
Take Away Our 2nd Amendment – no party has done more to try to restrict our right to bear arms, something that is part of the American fabric in life, it is a right granted to all Americans, although I now see this right slowly being stripped frequently on almost a daily basis. The left knows a well-armed population is not so quickly forced to go with government programs and forced ideology, take away the guns you take away the ability to resist.
i. While I can’t say for certain that these school shootings are far too convenient, but I must ask if you are so concerned about school shootings, why aren’t you willing to secure the schools that house our children so this does not happen? As terrible as this sounds, I am at the point that I believe the left thinks these children being lost are worth the sacrifice if they can take our guns in the end. That is why the left refuses to act to protect our schools if we do that, then they will see no more shootings to use as a backdrop to press their taking of our guns.
Welfare – no place is the dependence the left wants on display than in our inner cities. The grand experiment by Johnson has laid our cities to waste; families are not in multiple generations where not a soul has worked, their dependence of the state is total. When you create a whole class that is dependent on the state, you have an almost entire class of people who are easily controlled.
i. The inner cities in America, parts that are where the primary population of our African American demographic lives, you have a whole group that is told they need to vote as they are told, it is best for them, even though little can be shown to back this up.
ii. Today the growth of African American’s leaving the Democratic party is quickly bringing the far left to the point of panic, so what did they do? They moved on from these people, still demand that they support them, all while turning on them and moving their support for illegals that have no say in government affairs. This is why there is such a strong move now to give illegals the right to vote.
Education – the plan here was to use our school’s as a means not to teach, instead, indoctrinate. I must say, no place is it evident that this is being applied in America today than in our whole mess of an education system. We send our children to school to get an education so they can better their lives, yet starting now in grade schools are children are under a constant barrage of liberal ideology.
i. No place are these ideas in its entirety shown more than in schools. You have young people that are poor, they are going through school, so the concept of social handouts is very appealing to them, they care not about taxes, they aren’t paying any, instead they are living off the graces of the taxpayer, thus they feel in many cases they are entitled to these handouts.
ii. We also see the lack of freedom of speech, of different ideas, this is something these young people think is unacceptable. Thus you have riots and using the heckler’s veto when they wish to shut up opposing views. As was with Russia in their revolution, China too, the leaders or activist go for the youth, they are less able to see what this will lead to in the future, only care about the present.
Religion – Religion or faith, it gives hope to a people, that is why socialism, in every nation it has been implemented in, religion was either controlled by the state or was stomped out, or at least the effort was to do this. If you have a people without hope, they need to look to someone or something for hope; if you put the government in place to give this hope, they will turn to it.
i. The colleges, the stronghold of this movement are also moving to push this. If you look at the teachings of evolution, global warming, you don’t see a science, where all can be questioned, it is OK to challenge theories to see if they stand up to the questions presented. Instead, you are attacked by zealots, with every bit as much zeal as you see from other faiths when you question their core doctrines. The left has moved to replace religion with science, they seem to fail to understand, they are two separate things, but when you do this, you still accomplish what you were seeking to do, taking away hope outside of what socialist is trying to present.
Class Warfare – To control the masses, as was seen in Germany, Russia, China, and other nations, you need to create an enemy, for the socialist, it is the elites, the ones driving the economy. They push that somehow these people are gifted, they have earned nothing, gotten what they have due to their taking it from the less fortunate, but is this the case? Let’s look at that:
i. We have heard it said that people with too much money should be forced to hand it over to people that have little or none, this is the groundwork of socialism, but is really good practice. You have Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, and others, tech giants that have amassed unheard-of wealth, but did they steal? No, they created a product, one that had a need, they used this need to create wealth, no one was stolen from, people paid for this, this was passed on to these people that created these items.
ii. Socialist countries start off by stripping the wealthy of their wealth, this may seem like a good thing, but when this is the class creating jobs, handing down wealth to people under them due to this creation, what happens to jobs when they are taken out of the equation? Suggest you look to Venezuela and see what happens. A large oil producer, a wealthy nation, but the standards of the nations around it, now is in utter poverty, the people are in the streets looking for some means of survival. All they have done is stopped upwards mobility and made all people poor.
I find it understandable Americans are upset that mass shootings can seemingly occur one incident after another and another. But What most of those upset Americans do not understand is gun control laws whether they be gun confiscation, Red Flag Laws, Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) or whatever else restrains the Founding Fathers’ intent for ratifying the Second Amendment; will eventually lead to the tyranny of the Elite.
Justin Smith addresses the alarming utilization of government power that restrains law abiding citizens more than law-breaking criminals.
Eroding Liberty – Unconstitutional: Red Flags & Gun Bans
By Justin O. Smith
Sent 8/11/2019 7:00 PM
Americans are rushing towards tyranny more frequently these days, in the wake of three recent mass shootings, and they are calling for unconstitutional and illegitimate new laws that penalize honest and decent Americans in an unconscionable manner, while doing little in the way of creating real solutions. If anyone believes red flag laws, expanded background checks and bans on semi-automatic weapons will make them safer, they are so sadly mistaken, and, if enacted, not only will they not be any safer, they will be less free, with their God given rights further eroded and suppressed.
Every law-abiding U.S. citizen should be up-in-arms and in an uproar over President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others, such as key Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), Sen. Pat Toomey (PA), Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) and Sen. John Cornyn (TX) pursuing new gun control legislation and “compromises” with Democrats, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA), Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA), especially when any real compromise doesn’t exist, and never will. Even as Republicans showed their willingness to enact stronger background checks and red flag laws, Democrats were screaming for stores, like Walmart, to stop selling ammo and guns and for laws that invoke higher taxes on both, as well as a law banning semi-automatic rifles; Republicans are becoming willing accomplices in the Democrat goal of eradicating the Second Amendment.
Despite his bluster and tough talk as a strong defender of the Second Amendment, President Trump is not to be trusted on this issue, since he has a long standing known propensity for gun control, favoring gun bans as late as 2009, and as President, Donald Trump has already violated the Second Amendment through his Executive Order that authorized the Department of Justice to regulate bumpstocks, which also flies in the face of D.C. vs Heller, in which the Court acknowledged that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms of the same sophistication and technological advancement of the U.S. military, since the Second Amendment was written as a measure to ensure U.S. citizens’ rights to arm themselves against any tyrannical government, not to hunt deer.
With McDonald vs Chicago, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment was “incorporated”. This legal term placed states and local governments on notice that they must follow the limitations of the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment and could not make laws more restrictive than allowed by the 2nd Amendment, which states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
And now, most recently, all America heard President Trump state, “I have called for Red Flag Laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders.” Regarding background checks, he stated on August 9th, that he thinks “Republicans are going to be great and lead the charge along with Democrats.”
One should also note that although President Trump once suggested foregoing “due process” after the Parkland High School mass shooting in February 2018, he did state on August 5th 2019, that “those judged to pose a great risk to public safety (should) not have access to firearms and if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.”
On August 8th, Senator McConnell told NPR that the Senate would be addressing bans on “assault weapons” and expanded background checks, when the Senate reconvenes in September. McConnell’s use of the term “assault weapons” is part of the Democratic Party narrative that seeks to negate the true and legal use of these weapons for self-defense, and it only serves to further erode the Bill of Rights and our liberty if we allow it to go unanswered.
Nobody in America wants to see anyone who is mentally unstable enough to commit violence having a powerful firearm in their hands, but there already exist numerous laws, that if properly enforced would alleviate that problem. Peddling his staunch “defender” title in 2015, even President Trump noted: “Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system (making the system ineffective). … fix the system we have and make it work as intended … don’t … expand a broken system.”
However, unconstitutional Red Flag Laws are not the answer, especially once one considers the many government abuses that have already occurred in the seventeen states (and the District of Columbia) that have legislated Red Flag Laws. They allow police to convene a Chekist-style secret meeting, that strips an American of his Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and violates “due process of the law”, since the firearm owners are barred from participating in the hearing and presenting their counter argument, and often, they are unaware of the “Extreme Risk Protection Order” [USACarry.com and RomanoLawpc.com] until the police knock on the door and ransack their house or arrest or shoot them, just as they shot Gary Willis, in Baltimore, MD, at 5:17 a.m. on November 5th 2018 for resisting their ERPO. [The Epoch Times and New American]
Willis was executed for resisting a government overreach, intrusion and violation of his basic God given rights. I guess America could have just skipped the bloodshed of the War for Independence, since so many now seem to prefer authoritarian controls, serfdom and a King over freedom and liberty.
On August 22nd 2014, Patrick McLaw, a 23 year old middle school teacher — once nominated for Teacher of the Year [Last Paragraph], was taken into police custody for a psychological evaluation, after he wrote two novels about high school massacres, under the pen name “Dr. K.S. Voltaer”. McLaw had no criminal record, no guns or bombs were found in his home, but the State Attorney claimed McLaw drew police attention through a four page letter he sent to officials in Dorchester County. And in the end, no warrant was issued, no charges were filed and no arrest was made, however, he remained detained in police custody, while they investigated crimes he may or may not have committed, as the State utilized psychopathological mechanisms, the touchstone of totalitarian governments, and fully displayed the great distance our society has drifted from liberty.
Dave Workman, senior editor at the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Washington recently wrote: “It’s (Extreme Risk Protection Order) a great idea on paper. In practice, however, you’re guilty until you prove yourself innocent.”
A Red Flag Law in Tennessee might even scoop me up, since in my youth, I used to have a hair-trigger temper, cracked many a ridge-runnin’ redneck’s jaw and quite possibly should have been charged with assault myself, at one time or another in my life. No excuses made from me; I am a strictly no nonsense man who never took being called out of my name or having hands placed on me in anger lightly, and in every case where the law ever questioned me, the attending officer agreed with me, for whatever the reason. However, some past recipients of my wrath would certainly be quick to turn such a law against me, even though I am a much cooler head today, years later.
But, having a pistol or rifle in my hands always leveled my thinking, whenever I encountered danger and imminent harm, having traveled the most dangerous areas of America, at one time or another. It tamped down any anger, since I have always been all too cognizant of the power of firearms and the damage they can do, my entire life; and, due to my respect for all life, I never wanted to take another person’s life, if there was anyway to avoid doing so.
I’ve had a firearm of one type or another in my hands, since I was eight years old, when my father first started teaching me firearm safety, and I received more instruction in the 6th grade at a summer camp at Columbia Military Academy (Columbia, TN), where all the children were handed .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles, in 1969, for a well supervised target practice; and of course, I received further instruction upon joining the U.S. Army years later. Good people raising good children will make for a safer society. Teach your children well, starting with the Ten Commandments, or a similar moral code.
If more gun laws worked, Mexico wouldn’t have had 100,000 people killed by firearms in the past decade. It has the most restrictive gun laws one might imagine, and it has only one gun store, that sits in the middle of a military base and has soldiers for clerks. Restrictions on the good and decent citizens, whether in Mexico or America, only favors the criminals.
There is also a much more serious issue at hand: If the Constitution can be suspended in a secret hearing, this can only lead to a despotic government and great tyranny. The Democrats have already proposed the forced confiscation of the American people’s firearms and weapons by armed squads of police.
What if this publication could be shut down without due process, based on a secret complaint? Or individuals could now be arrested or imprisoned for 21 days, or more? How far off can torture be? Eroding the Second Amendment in this manner erodes the entire Bill of Rights.
Any American who values our rule of law and the Bill of Rights and the inalienable rights that preexist politics and government should be opposing all the new gun control measures coming our way, as we work to keep the legal and justified means of self-defense in the hands of all law-abiding citizens, since not one state law in this respect is constitutional, and a federal law would not be either. Taking away rights from law-abiding citizens due to terrible acts by criminals, a small percentage of the population, is precisely what our Constitutional Republic was designed to protect against and expressly forbids. The legal philosophy behind these laws is dangerously illegitimate, and far from bipartisan or consensus proposals, they represent a constitutional Rubicon and the point of no return.
Y’all can give up your semi-automatic weapons if you’re of a mind to do so. As for me, they’ll have to pry them from my cold, dead hands.
By Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
Text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.
While browsing the Facebook Group TheAmericanPatriotsParty I found an awesome essay criticizing the Leftist Gun Control media taking advantage of the Parkland Massacre. It is an awesome read! I couldn’t help myself, I added some source links the author would have difficulty in posting at Facebook.
In the WACKY WORLD OF THE LUNATIC LEFT they once again politicize a shooting tragedy. They never let an opportunity pass to push their GUN CONTROL AGENDA. Nothing has changed. It’s the lunatics with the same strategy. This is the hot topic of the day. There are calls for something to be done. The arming of teachers is being proposed by our President. That is what we hear him say but many find that utterly abhorrent.
What we are seeing by the Democrats is their perfection of the art of using sympathetic figures to argue for positions that millions of us reject. When we disagree, we are accused of mean-spiritedness. This is hardly surprising what else would you expect?? Studies show that assault rifles are rarely used in these horrific crimes, but calls are being made for them to be banned. Weapon confiscation is the desire of the Left. It is this that we must fully understand.
In a city like Chicago we have the toughest gun laws on the books but gun violence increases [Blog Editor: Chicago Gun violence was highest in nation in 2016. Gun violence actually decreased in 2017, BUT not because of strict gun laws as Leftists claim. Rather the decrease is credited to police use of better technology. STILL, Chicago gun violence higher than LA and NYC combined in 2017.]. It is not on the wane. The Left refuses to realize this. Need I have to explain that their endless machinations just never, ever ceases? It is frankly quite insane. And speaking of insanity let me direct you to a town hall forum that was organized by CNN[Blog Editor: HS Junior Colton Haag says CNN scripted, CNN says no. Colton had the altered question on Tucker Carlson Tonight. We ALL know CNN lies.], the number one purveyor of FAKERY. This is the station dedicated to show you that there is nothing they won’t do to prove how miserable they can be.
Of course, we saw how they tried to plant scripted questions. Ask a shooting survivor who refused to take part. The bias that consumes CNN is off the chart. This is a most serious matter. But nothing is out of bounds when you have fake journalists like Wolf Blitzer and that lowlife dirt bag, Jake Tapper. Throw Anderson Cooper in the mix and you have quite a wretched threesome. Their adoration for the disgusting ideology of the Left and it’s pushing for gun control can leave you numb.
What we saw on CNN is being said was an abusive, anti-gun show trial. It was criticized severely and was in fact very vile. The agenda, always the agenda, is pushed. It is repugnant to see. There is no one on the Left that has a smidgen of decency. The survivors of the shooting are in an extreme emotional state. See them being used by the gun control advocates so shamelessly. It is enough to make you totally sick. From Someone pass me a barf bag I must regurgitate.
That was an abomination we saw last night[Ben Shapiro Show devoted to CNN Town Hall abomination]. The criticism of Tapper was truly justified. How silent this scumbag was when personal attacks were hurled at an NRA spokesman and Senator Rubio. What the hell was wrong with him?? His silence remained even after the audience booed a rape victim! Tapper no doubt approved what was going on that was apparent to see. He never ever misses an opportunity to disgust me.
A CPAC panelgot it so right in describing the event. They called it for what it truly was. A TROTSKYITE SHOW TRIAL AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT. CNN never disappoints us. It is a truly a disgusting entity that basks in it repugnancy.
Edited by John R. Houk
All source links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.
Understanding Justin Smith’s essay, you have to understand the nature of Unalienable Rights:
Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence:
“[A]ll men are created equal…[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these rights are “God-given.” If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God’s will. Rights that is subject to government restriction or license is called a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting, for the first time in history, a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God. … (Unalienable rights; Conservapedia; page was last modified on 5/27/2016, at 14:52.)
The Founding Fathers considered self-defense an Unalienable Right and NOT a government given privilege. In the Founding Fathers’ wisdom, the Second Amendment is recognition of a God-given Right.
President Obama and U.S. Senators such as Chris Murphy (D-CT) are intellectually challenged in ascertaining the limits of their authority, when in the face of the worst act of domestic terrorism in decades, on June 12th in Orlando, FL, they divert time and resources from the real threat of Islam inspired terrorism to advocate, filibuster and place legislation for a vote designed to infringe upon, limit and impede the “unalienable” right to “keep and bear arms” under the Second Amendment. And in the process, they have placed the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments on the chopping block too.
Barely a day had passed, and with 49 Americans lying dead in the morgue and many more in Orlando regional Medical Center’s critical care unit fighting to stay alive, President Obama stated: “We have to make it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on weapons of war that let them kill dozens of innocents.”
“Weapons of War”? Damn Straight. Any firearm is a weapon of war and it is good for only one thing — killing; killing the robber, crazed drug addict, rapist or murderer breaking into one’s house, as innocent Americans fight a war on crime; and killing anyone, including a Muslim terrorist, on the street in defense of one’s self or a group of innocent bystanders. Even a single-shot revolver or a single-shot bolt action 30.06 can be “a weapon of war”, but more than that, whether a semi-automatic Sig Sauer CMX or a single-shot muzzle-loader, these are weapons for self-defense.
Obama and company have taken this crisis — this tragic, horrific act of Islamic terrorism — and twisted it towards their oppressive goals to place every principle of the Bill of Rights and every invaluable and most sacred privilege of man at the mercy of government. Self-defense is our “unalienable” right as witnessed in Nature’s Law, which is God’s Creation, and thus, our unalienable rights are God-given.
Rather than focus on the Muslim Students Association, an arm of the terroristic Muslim Brotherhood, which is busy on all of America’s college campuses advocating “grand jihad” against America, and unindicted terrorists like Siraj Wahhaj — a black Muslim convert, and indicted terrorists such as Ramadan Shalah — still fleeing the FBI, the Democrats are assaulting the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Rather than focus on mosques that spread anti-American, violent propaganda, like the Darul Uloom Institute [DTN info on founder Maulana Shafayat Mohamed] and the Husseini Islamic Center [Gay-hating Sheikh Dr. Farrokh Sekaleshfar spoke there], Democrats and Hillary Clinton would destroy our right to self-defense, as they echo Obama’s words.
A few weeks prior to Omar Mateen committing mass murder at Pulse Night Club, the Husseini Islamic Center of Orlando hosted an imam who preached that “gays must die”, according to Michelle Malkin on June 15th, and that Muslims should not “be embarrased about this … let’s get rid of them now.”
With full knowledge that the Islamic State terrorists are using Muslim immigration to infiltrate America and European nations, Obama still insists on bringing more Muslim “refugees” into the country, and simultaneously, he and his “progressive” fascists seek to disarm us all in the face of the greatest threat America has faced in decades. Whether they are Muslim American citizens or foreign born islamofascists, Americans are not fooled, and the pattern is clear from 9/11 to Ft Hood, Boston to Chattanooga and San Bernadino to Orlando.
It is also worth noting that in 1995, Timothy McVeigh committed the worse most heinous act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building, murdering 168 Americans and wounding over 650 more. His weapon of choice? — 350 pounds of “Tovex Blastrite Gel” and approximately 2000 pounds of fertilizer and diesel fuel.
Incredibly (by the time this piece is released) the Senate is poised to vote on June 20th on a bill that effectively abrogates much of the Bill of Rights. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) caved to pressure from Chris Murphy’s recent filibuster and other harangues and harassment from Democrats Diane Feinstein (CA), Harry Reid (NV) and Chuck Schumer (NY). Feinstein’s bill blocks gun purchases by anyone on the vague and subjective “no-fly-list” and if “a reasonable belief” exists that he “may” use the gun “in connection with terrorism.” And if passed, it becomes too easy to strip anyone of their 2nd Amendment rights — political opponents, Christian conservatives, Veterans — anyone; through their own reasoning, half the Democratic Party would be disqualified from owning a firearm.
Under Feinstein’s bill “probable cause” and the entire premise underlying the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, from one’s right to forcefully defend against any actual charge to facing one’s accuser and “due process” under the law is thrown out the window. This bill presumes one guilty without any crime having been committed, and it presents the same government officials who cannot protect America now as mind-readers seeking to prosecute “thought-crimes.” Feinstein’s bill rips the Bill of Rights asunder.
Howard Stern exclaimed on June 16th: “The sheepdogs are protecting you, but some of them can’t be with you all day. There’s not a sheepdog for every citizen, and a wolf is eating one of you every night. ‘Baaaaaaa, oh I know, let’s remove all the guns from the sheep.’ What?”
Less liberty is not the answer, but abolishing “gun-free zones” is certainly part of the solution. Stop giving cowards intent on murdering scores of Americans an easy access, free and open range of innocent Americans, who simply want to live their lives in freedom. Stop trying to illegally disarm U.S. citizens; otherwise, we will continue to witness one mass killing of defenseless innocents after another.
Even some in the LGBTQ community see the truth of the matter. Pink Pistols has 45 chapters across America. Their spokeswoman, Gwendolyn Patton recently stated: “… let us not reach for the low-hanging fruit of blaming the killer’s [Mateen’s] guns. Let us stay focused on the fact that someone hated gay people [and Americans] so much they were ready to kill. A human being did this [though this is debatable]. The human being’s tools are unimportant compared to the bleakness of that person’s soul. I say again, GUNS did not do this … [Don’t] demonize the man’s tools … condemn his acts and work to prevent such acts in the future.”
We saw Obama and the Democrats run roughshod over America concerning Obamacare, immigration and other laws, when they held the majority. Can you imagine what the Democrat “progressives” would do to the country if they could disarm all Americans?
The Framers of the Constitution would not ratify the Constitution until the Second Amendment was included. They knew that this one thing would always stand as a safeguard for all of our rights against any future government that might seek to once more impose tyranny on the people.
Our Second Amendment Rights, the rights of all Americans, are self-evident, inherent and inalienable, whether or not the disingenuous, uneducated and ill-informed idiots of the Far Left Democratic “Progressive” Party wish to acknowledge the fact, and whether or not those rights are written down in black and white on paper in a document anywhere, it does not make this fact any less true. And in this sense, any license, tax or regulation on the Second Amendment is unConstitutional, since Americans do not possess our natural rights by contract or grant from the federal government. Americans regained and secured their natural rights once upon a time by revolution, and we can do so again.
By Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
All links as well text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.
Michael DePinto wrote a Conspiracy Theory piece in which he flags a middle alternative on the occurrence of the Orlando Massacre perpetrated by Omar Mateen. That alternative is accusing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of being behind Mateen’s Muslim murderous rampage. DePinto notes the Right blames (Radical) Muslims and the Left blames easy access to guns by every Tom, Dick and Harry. DePinto lays out some facts (some undisputed and some disputed) which are quite plausible, to build his case blaming the FBI.
Frankly, knowing what I know about Islam still places me in the camp that Islam is to blame. Take what you can discover and look at DePinto’s case and you decide or decipher who is to blame.
5 More Reasons to Question the Official Story of the Orlando Shooting (Video)
If the attack is attributed to a lone jihadist nut, the FBI has some serious explaining to do since it appears that the agency itself is the greatest initiator of terrorist activity inside American borders and is either the most incompetent anti-terror fighter in the U.S. or it is complicit in the attacks that take place.
As more and more evidence emerges regarding the mass shooting in an Orlando gay club that resulted in the death of at least 52 people and many more injured, signs are increasingly pointing toward the possibility of a false flag operation. First let’s make sure we have the same understanding of the terminology being used, and then the video below will begin to pick apart the narrative we are being fed.
Just so that there is no confusion as to what the term False Flag means, Wikipedia defines a False Flag as:
“The contemporary term false flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them.”
Just so that there is no confusion as to what the term “Conspiracy Theorist” means when referred to in this post, it is defined by ME as:
“Anyone who has the stones to stand up in the face of public ridicule, and ask for details from KNOWN LIARS and to keep asking questions…”
Hey, would it be weird if the father of the Orlando Shooter was actually a CIA asset that has met with multiple members of Congress and Omar was employed by the same company (G4S) that has been linked to several mass shootings? According to the Intercept:
THE MAN WHO shot over 100 people and killed 49 in an Orlando nightclub Saturday worked at a retirement home as a security guard for G4S – a giant, often controversial global contracting corporation that provides mercenary forces, prison guards and security services. G4S is one of the world’s largest private security companies, with more than 620,000 employees and a presence in over 100 countries….
But one of Mateen’s former coworkers told the New York Times that he “saw it coming,” that Mateen “talked about killing people all the time,” and that he was “always angry, sweating, just angry at the world.”
The coworker, who said he quit his job due to harassment from Mateen, explained that he “complained multiple times” to G4S, because Mateen didn’t like “blacks, women, lesbians, and Jews.”
Yet G4S continued to employ Mateen, who was able to obtain a “security officer” license to buy firearms in addition to his state license and conceal carry permit. G4S has previously been accused of improperly vetting its employees.
In 2009, Danny Fitzsimons, a former British paratrooper and employee of a G4S subsidiary, killed two colleagues in Iraq, claiming to be “the antichrist” and saying he “must satisfy” his “bloodlust.” An official investigation concluded that his employer did not properly vet his psychological health.
In 2007, G4S signed contracts with five Israeli prisons and “interrogation centers,” leading to accusations that it was complicit in torture and the imprisonment of children.
In 2010, three G4S security guards killed an Angolan national during a deportation flight from the U.K., by restraining him in an asphyxiating position.
Already, a number of points lend credence to those who might suggest that intelligence agencies more so than desert-dwelling terrorist organizations are responsible for organizing and directing the attacks.
A NUMBER OF QUESTIONABLE ASPECTS ABOUT THIS SHOOTING INCLUDE:
The FBI knew about the shooter and investigated him prior to the attack.
The shooter had a connection to a known ISIS recruiter.
The shooter’s father was a former “Afghan presidential candidate” who supported the Taliban.
The FBI’s history in creating terrorism.
Omar Mir Seddique Mateen has now been revealed as the gunman in the Orlando club attack. According to mainstream reports, Mateen carried an AR-15 rifle and a handgun into the Pulse club around 2 a.m. and started shooting, killing 50 people and wounding 53.
THAT NARRATIVE IS NOT CORRECT:
Within minutes of the attack, it was reported that the weapon of the attacker was an AR-15. Why? Because it’s liberals favorite “scary gun” to try to ban. Most liberals don’t know the first thing about the very guns they’re so sure they don’t want YOU to have, hence why we are always hearing about “assault rifles.” What is an “assault rifle anyway?” Liberals? Do tell?!?!? To a liberal: It’s an “assault rifle” is a scary looking gun… regardless of actual capabilities.
No doubt escorted by his armed staff, Dick Durbin didn’t even wait until blood was dry, much less until the bodies were cold before beginning the rally cry for more gun control. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Sunday called on Congress to pass new gun control laws following the shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., that left 50 people dead and 53 more injured. Even though the AR-15 was all over the news… it was actually a Sig Sauer MCX. While the Sig Sauer is esthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, there are no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form to an AR-15… but it’s a great story… so who cares about the facts right?
A stand-off ensued which lasted for about 3 hours before a SWAT team crashed into the building with an armored vehicle and killed Mateen. Mateen had allegedly pledged allegiance to ISIS before the shootingby calling 911 and stating allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi as well as mentioning the Tsarnaev brothers. Mateen was an American citizen born to Afghan parents from Port St. Lucie, Florida, about a 125 miles away from Orlando, a distance which he allegedly drove to commit the attack.
FBI FOREKNOWLEDGE, ISIS SYMPATHIES, TALIBAN TIES:
What may at first sound like an instance of senseless violence, brings with it a number of other questions. For instance, the FBI was already well aware of Mateen and his connections to radical jihad and terrorism.
According to CNN’s article, “Allegiance,” two that the FBI had investigated Mateen at some point for possibly having ties to or sympathizing with Islamic extremism. Among things Mateen was investigated for were allegedly:
Guess what I said in the article on FEMA drills for earthquakes and tsunamis linked above? I’ll give you three guesses, but you’ll only need one I bet. I said:
“Even though the person who made the video below goes out of his way to say that he’s NOT suggesting the giant exercise is part of a large false flag operation, I’d like to call to your attention to how each of “tragedies” listed below was preceded by a massive training exercise of some kind too. What are the odds a massive earthquake or tsunami hits during the exercise?”
WHY WASN’T THE FOLLOWING PROTOCOL FOLLOWED WITH MATEEN?
A law enforcement official said there were two cases opened involving Mateen but the probes didn’t result in enough evidence to charge him with anything.
The investigations were reported by a number of mainstream media organizations and later confirmed by the FBI itself during a press conference.
The FBI admitted that Mateen had been interviewed by agents twice in 2013 due to comments made about radical jihad which were overheard by coworkers.
He was interviewed for a third time one year later due to his connection to Moner Mohammad Abu Salha, an American who had traveled from Florida to train in Syria and later to return to the United States in order to recruit other Americans to fight in the Western-backed terrorist brigades attempting to overthrow secular and legitimate government, Bashar Al Assad.
Salha allegedly returned to Syria and blew himself up in a suicide bombing. It is also interesting to note that Mateen’s father Seddique Mateen is a political personality in his own right having hosted a TV show and apparently declared himself a presidential candidate for Afghanistan.
Seddique has denounced the Pakistani government and expressed support and encouragement for the Taliban movement.
Still, the question regarding the fact that Mateen was on the FBI’s radar is extremely important. One key aspect suggesting a false flag that should be looked for soon after the attack is any possible connection the suspect or group of suspects may have had with intelligence agencies.
A connection to any one of these organizations and institutions may go some length in explaining how the attack was coordinated, the motivation of the perpetrators, the actual involvement (or not) of the suspects, and who actually directed the operation.
For instance, on 9/11, many of the alleged hijackers had previously had close contact with the FBI, CIA, and other high-level intelligence agencies (both home and abroad).
In many instances, connections to certain military agencies and communities should serve as the same red flag as connections to intelligence agencies since these institutions have largely been blended together.
THE FBI’S SORDID HISTORY OF ORGANIZING TERRORIST ATTACKS:
Indeed, the FBI has had a long history in creating, organizing and facilitating terrorist attacks in order to bust them at the last minute and claim credit for stopping terror attacks.
The FBI also has a long history of investigating, monitoring and interviewing suspects of high-profile terrorist attacks before those attacks were committed but doing nothing about them.
“A terror suspect armed to the teeth storming a public place and killing scores is actually a very familiar script. The FBI wrote several such scripts in 2015 alone, including entrapping and arresting a mentally-ill suspect after providing him with an arsenal of deadly weapons almost identical to the arsenal recently employed in Florida.
“U.S. law enforcement officials announced another terror arrest on Monday, after arming a mentally ill man and then charging him with having guns.
ABC News quoted a “senior federal official briefed on the arrest” as saying: “This is a very bad person arrested before he could do very bad things.”
“But in a sting reminiscent of so many others conducted by the FBI since 9/11, Alexander Ciccolo, 23, “aka Ali Al Amriki,” was apparently a mentally ill man who was doing nothing more than ranting about violent jihad and talking (admittedly in frightening ways) about launching attacks — until he met an FBI informant. At that point, he started making shopping lists for weapons.
“According to the affidavit, Ciccolo first talked to the FBI informant about attacking two bars and a police station.
“Later, he spoke of attacking a college campus with a homemade pressure-cooker bomb like the one used in the Boston Marathon terror attack; he also talked about using guns and a lot of ammo. Ciccolo, according to the affidavit, then “ordered the firearms from a confidential human source (“CHS”) working with the FBI.”
“The list of weapons provided to the mentally-ill suspect by the FBI informant is shocking. Revealed in the official FBI affidavit (.pdf), the weapons included a 9mm Glock 17, a 10mm Glock 20, a .223 Colt AR-15 rifle, (referred to by the media as an “assault rifle”), and a 556 Sig Arms SG550 rifle (also often referred to as an assault rifle).
“Also included in the affidavit is the same hysterical rhetoric encouraged by FBI informants now evident in the recent actions of terror suspect Omar Mateen in Florida.
“The FBI literally provided a mentally-ill man they helped plan a terrorist attack together with, an arsenal of deadly weapons – arresting him just before he committed his crime.
“The only factor that prevented the 2015 entrapment of Ciccolo from becoming a live Florida shooting-style attack was the fact that the FBI arrested Ciccolo before he carried out his planned attack – while those following Mateen did not arrest him.
“The role of the FBI in Mateen obtaining his weapons will never be known since Mateen is now – conveniently – dead. Even if he purchased them “legally” at a gun store, it should be noted that in other FBI entrapment cases, suspects were encouraged to purchase weapons themselves, with the FBI arresting them only after they left gun stores with their newly acquired arsenal.
Interestingly enough, in the Ciccolo incident that Cartalucci refers to above, the plan which was fed to Ciccolo involved attacking bars, a target that was actually realized in Orlando.
Of course, there will be many who will argue that the FBI, while entrapping unintelligent suspects, would never actually let the drill go live it is important to remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombing where that is precisely what the FBI did.
WHO CONTROLS ISIS:
Lastly, one immensely important question must be asked: If ISIS is responsible for the attacks, who controls ISIS? For many, claims that the attacker belongs to ISIS is a deal breaker. For these individuals, ISIS is a shadowy terrorist organization that supports itself and has created a caliphate in eastern Syria and western Iraq that can scarcely be defeated (except when the Russians bomb it). However, the facts do not support such a shallow understanding of the ISIS terrorist organization. ISIS was entirely created, funded and directed by the United States, Britain, France and other NATO countries.
Why don’t we ask Vlad who created ISIS? In the video below, he tells the UN floor it was Obama:
“Well, who on earth armed them?”
“Who armed the Syrians that were fighting Asad?”
“Who created the political climate that facilitated the situation?”
“Who delivered arms to the area?”
“Do we really not understand who is fighting in Syria?”
Infowars crew member and Russian translator Daria translates a speech by Vladimir Putin where he states that the U.S. has armed ISIS and the Syrians fighting against Assad, further proving what Alex Jones has been saying for years.
Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we’re … READ THE REST
Its actions have been coordinated by the Anglo-American Intelligence apparatus for geopolitical purposes all across the world both at home and abroad.
For this reason, the declaration that ISIS committed a terrorist attack in Paris is by no means a get-out-of-jail-free card for the Western Intelligence apparatus. Instead, it is the trademark of their handiwork.
By Christopher Black Global Research, August 13, 2015
If one was only to read mainstream news in the West, you would probably be inculcated with the myth that Islamic State (ISIS) appeared almost out of thin air and many governments in the Western world have been completely shocked by the rise of this terror group. Perhaps you would correctly blame the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq as a major reason why such extreme groups gained power in the region, in addition to blaming certain governments for supposedly marginalizing Sunni’s.
But what most mainstream readers will be miserably ignorant of is … READ THE REST
In addition to all the information already provided about who has been in control of ISIS from the beginning, is a small excerpt from the Top 10 Reasons that PROVE ISIS is a U.S. Creation. This lunacy is my favorite fiction that Team Obama tried to pull off. What could have been more obvious that the parade of ISIS Toyota trucks that went on for miles, only to have the bill for the Toyotas end up on a desk in Langley… Did we ever even get a B.S. reason from Team Obama on how that happened or not? I can’t even remember? The pictures were all over the papers, and even though you can’t see them in the picture below, I remember in one picture I saw all their feet… and 99% were wearing white basketball sneakers, or something similar.
So, Team Obama, let me get this straight… It was reported EVERYWHERE that ISIS was so big, bad, and Christian eating, that the parade of Toyotas (that Langley paid for) was miles long, and it kept winding around like a snake across the desert, and we couldn’t do a thing? Ok, let’s say you don’t believe that YOUR tax dollars bought those Toyotas. How many people do you know (or have you ever seen) that wear matching all black outfits in the middle of the desert, with white kicks on? Where were the outfits from? The GAP?
Where did ISIS get an entire fleet of matching Toyota pick-up trucks? Why do so many of its photo shots feature a fleet of matching Toyotas – matching in both model and color? As this Information Clearing House article humorously states:
“The official story is ISIS stole them from the “Good Terrorists” (Al Nusra), who were originally given their cool wheels by the US government. Which would seem to beg a couple of enquiries. Not least of which is – why are the US giving any terrorists matching fleets of luxury SUVs? And for that matter, how many fleets are we talking about?
So, exactly how many trucks did the US supply? Where are ISIS currently garaging this impressive collection? And why do they all have to be Toyotas? Is it a terrorist thing, or simply a US Govt preference? Do Toyota mind the brand-association? Or the fact that so many of the ISIS drive-by photo-ops look like perverted car ads?”
Some of these trucks were actually used vehicles that got sent from the US and Canada over to Syria. This Texan plumberdiscovered to his horror that his old truck was being used in the war, replete with his business name still on the door!
While the right-wing media blames Muslims and the left-wing media blame guns, perhaps it would be more effective if thinking individuals would examine the possibilities that this attack was a false flag incident designed to push an agenda that would benefit those in power in some way or other.
Out of this attack we will no doubt see another push for the evisceration of the Second Amendment and other civil liberties as well as increased hype regarding ISIS as a threat to the American way of life and a greater attempt at justification for foreign adventures.
While the information presented above may not be enough evidence to prove in the court of law that the Orlando attack was a false flag attack, it is reason enough to question the official story thus far.
If this attack is indeed placed in the lap of ISIS, however, all fingers should immediately point to NATO and the Atlanticist Intelligence apparatus. It is they who control ISIS and they who bear the responsibility for its actions.
If the attack is attributed to a lone jihadist nut, the FBI has some serious explaining to do since it appears that the agency itself is the greatest initiator of terrorist activity inside American borders and is either the most incompetent anti-terror fighter in the U.S. or it is complicit in the attacks that take place.
Michael is a member of the fast growing un-silent majority that is sick of the insanity going on in this country right now. He has been accused of being vitriolic, bombastic, sarcastic to the extreme, and probably worse behind my back. He is sick of being branded a right wing extremist, racist, homophobe, warmonger, or whatever asinine adjectives Liberal Progressives have for the words COMMON SENSE these days. Michael is also a blogger atThe Last Great Standand an Attorney.
I was raised through High School and College in eastern Washington State (to distinguish from the predominantly Left Wing west side). However, I have lived in Oklahoma for about 25 years (give or take). I am probably more akin to Okie Conservative voters than I am to Washington State voters.
In saying all that I am quite pleased with a State Senate bill that will officially be introduced at the beginning of the Oklahoma State legislative session beginning on February 1, 2016.
Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) will introduce the Second Amendment Preservation Act to be filed as SB1123. The bill is sure to cause controversy with America’s current Leftist-in=Chief President Barack Hussein Obama. Currently Obama is making another end-run around the U.S. Constitution and Congress by forcing Americans to live with unconstitutional restrictions against the Second Amendment restraining American citizens from guns that the Second Amendment guarantees to possess.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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.” Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right. (Bold emphasis is Blog Editor’s –Second Amendment; Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell University Law School)
Let’s be clear on Obama’s early January 2016-gun control push. Some of the Dem President’s actions have the appearance of targeting gun purchases that probably should not have occurred. For example, people with mental health issues and expanded background checks.
BUT every time a Leftist politician puts forth well intentioned laws or bureaucratic rules with the enforcement of rule of law behind it, the toe is in the door for slow yet widening restrictions on individuals with more and more authority placed into the top-to-bottom grasp of government intrusion on individual rights.
The administrative steps will include a crackdown on gun dealers who bill themselves as “collectors” or “personal sellers” but are actually engaged in the business of firearms sales, including transactions online, said Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will require more of these dealers to obtain federal licenses, at the agency’s discretion, necessitating background checks on their sales.
The administration also will propose $500 million for expanded access to mental health services and, in a move that could raise privacy concerns, will seek to include’ mental health information on background checks for gun purchases.
The FBI will hire 230 examiners — an increase of 50 percent — to conduct the background checks on gun purchases. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System last year received 22.2 million requests for background checks, including about 3 million in December alone.
“We intend to make this system more efficient. The goal is keeping bad actors away from firearms,” Ms. Lynch said.
Mr. Obama’s budget for fiscal 2017 also will call for 200 more ATF agents to enforce existing laws. Beefing up the department’s budget has often met with a lack of enthusiasm in Congress.
The president also will require background checks for gun purchases conducted through a trust or corporation. Officials said the number of applications for such gun purchases has risen from about 900 in 2000 to more than 90,000 in 2014.
He also directed the departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security to conduct research into “smart gun” technology, “to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.”
On the mental health aspects of the president’s actions, the White House said the Social Security Administration will begin the rule-making process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons.
Background checks are good; however, background checks can be abused to the point of making it impossible to purchase a gun. Mental Health restrictions are good, but what if the Mental Health rule restrictions include something simplistic as agoraphobia, a fear of heights, a fear of being raped, a fear of home invasion and so on. Leftist abuse is ripe for the toe to kick down the entire door of constitutional individual rights.
Ergo thank GOD for Oklahoma and a bastion of voters that stick up and elect people with strong American values. State Senator Dahm’s Second Amendment Preservation Act is a constitutional State’s Rights implication of nullifying Federal intrusion of extending the arm of Big Brother over an issue best left to each individual American State to decide as per the Tenth Amendment.
OKLAHOMA CITY (Jan. 22, 2016) – An Oklahoma bill prefiled for the 2016 legislative session would prohibit state cooperation with the enforcement all future federal gun control measures, effectively nullifying them in practice within the state.
Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) prefiled Senate Bill 1123 (SB1123) this week. Titled the Second Amendment Preservation Act, the legislation would prohibit any state or local agency, along with their employees, from knowingly and willingly participating in any way in the enforcement of any future federal act, law, order, rule or regulation issued regarding a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition. The bill would also ban the use of state assets or money in the enforcement of future federal gun laws.
Any local government found to have assisted in the enforcement of such federal gun laws in violation of the act would lose all of its grant funds the following year. State or local employers would face criminal penalties for knowingly violating the law in their official capacity.
SB1123 would effectively withdraw all state cooperation from the implementation or enforcement of future federal gun laws.
The legislation does not require any determination of constitutionality. It doesn’t attempt to physically interfere with federal enforcement of its own laws, but instead simply directs all state agencies to simply stand down. By removing resources and assistance that the federal government relies upon to carry out enforcement, these federal gun laws would be blocked in effect.
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effectively method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun laws. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control schemes, the states can effectively bring them down.”
SB1123 rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Language in the bill refers to this universally accepted principle.
“Pursuant to and in furtherance of the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, the federal government may not commandeer this State’s officers, agents or employees to participate in the enforcement or facilitation of any federal program not expressly required by the Constitution of the United States.”
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
SB1123 will be officially introduced on when the 2016 legislative session begins on Feb. 1. At that time it will receive a committee assignment. It will have to pass out of committee by a majority vote before moving on to the full Senate for consideration.
TAKE ACTION IN SUPPORT
In Oklahoma: follow all the steps to support this bill at THIS LINK
All other states: contact your state legislator and encourage them to introduce similar legislation to stop federal gun control at this link.
Starting in 1767, in response to the Townshend Acts, John Dickinson, often referred to as “the Penman of the Revolution” wrote a series of 12 essays known as “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.”
In his first, he spent time discussing the last of the acts, the New York Restraining Act, which was punishment for the Assembly of New York, suspending its legislative powers for failing to fully comply with orders from the crown. He wrote:
If the parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any, or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those, who are powerful by their union.
He continued to say that, in essence, the rightful response at that moment would have been for other assemblies to have passed a non-binding resolution informing parliament that the act was a violation of rights and that it should be repealed.
Why? His answer came through clearly in his signature, where he wrote the Latin phrase, Concordia res parvae crescunt.
Small things grow great by concord.
Clearly, the Penman of the Revolution was right – and small things did grow great in the coming years.
In many ways, today’s federal government has suspended the legislative power of state assemblies by assuming control over powers not delegated to it by the Constitution. In recent years, this country has seen small things grow great once again – the simple introduction of non-binding resolutions affirming the 10th amendment has grown into a movement…
The Tenth Amendment Center is a national think tank that works to preserve and protect the principles of strictly limited government through information, education, and activism. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power as required by the Constitution.
The Brady Center is a prolific gun control organization. They have been operating what is known as the Brady Campaign which is a civil litigation campaign that attacks the 2nd Amendment which gives every American the right to protect themselves with a gun.
The Brady Center is named for Ronald Reagan’s Press Secretary James Brady that was shot in the head in an assassination attempt against the President. That head wound left him partially paralyzed for life.
The Brady Campaign lost a judicial battle when Federal Judge Julie A. Robinson dismissed a suit against the State of Kansan that passed a pro-Second Amendment law to nullify any Federal Regulations that counters or illegitimizes the Second Amendment:
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
In conjunction with Section 6a (quoted above), the bill defines what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States,” and that it isn’t based off a decision of the supreme court.
The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861. (Nullification 1, Brady Campaign 0: Federal Judge Dismisses Suit Against Kansas 2nd Amendment Protection Act; By TJ Martinell; Tenth Amendment Center; June 9, 2015)
Below is the full article about this Second Amendment and States Rights victory in the U.S. Federal Court.
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
In conjunction with Section 6a (quoted above), the bill defines what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States,” and that it isn’t based off a decision of the supreme court.
The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.
State and local agents would be prevented from enforcing any acts or actions that are “null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.” Based off this text, the state of Kansas would not be allowed to participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood in 1861.
A second part of the bill seeks to encourage more gun manufacturing in the state by declaring null and void any federal restrictions, under the commerce clause, on firearms made and sold within the state.
A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas is not subject to any federal law, treaty, federal regulation, or federal executive action, including any federal firearm or ammunition registration program, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.
This section of the bill is backed up by criminal charges.
It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony
Any criminal prosecution for a violation of this section shall be commenced by service of complaint and summons upon such official, agent or employee. Such official, agent or employee shall not be arrested or otherwise detained prior to, or during the pendency of, any trial for a violation of this section.
Once a federal agent violates this law, they would be served with a complaint and summons, whereby criminal proceedings can begin.
At the heart of the Brady Campaign’s legal argument is that the state law is ”an unconstitutional attempt to nullify federal gun control regulations.” Their concern is that state enforcement of the act “will have the effect of deterring application of federal gun laws in Kansas.”
That’s exactly what the bill is supposed to do.
Additionally, Brady complained, one of its members could have been prosecuted by the state for trying to help federal agents enforce federal gun laws.
U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson dismissed the claim on the basis of “subject matter jurisdiction,” noting that no actual prosecution had taken place.
…Brady Campaign lacks Article III standing to challenge the Second Amendment Protection Act in this lawsuit because it has not shown that enforcement of the statute inflicts an actual or imminently-threatened injury on any Brady Campaign member.
While it may seem like this was a technical victory, it is important to remember not who challenged the law, but who didn’t: the federal government. Guns.com aptly summed up their all bark and no bite stance:
While the U.S. Department of Justice panned the law, calling it unenforceable, it was only the Brady group that sought to challenge it.
This failed lawsuit by the Brady Campaign demonstrates the effectiveness of SAPA in two ways. One, it was upheld in federal court, which proves that such legislation is not merely political grandstanding that will be overturned in the courtroom. Two, the federal government’s unwillingness to contest its constitutionality – for now – speaks greater volume than any words they may speak against it. The boxer who takes his gloves off should not speak like one who puts them on.
What’s important to note is that the federal court didn’t say that the federal government doesn’t have the power to regulate firearms under the commerce clause, as the Kansas law states. The Brady suit was dismissed for lack of standing. Should local gun manufacturers start acting outside of federal law, and should Kansas law enforcement serve a complaint on summons on a federal agent, it’s likely to be challenged by the federal government, with the federal courts likely to side with Washington D.C.
However, one part of the bill isn’t being challenged at all, the section setting the foundation for all state and local agents to refuse to help implement federal gun measures. This is based on the long-standing anti-commandeering doctrine, where the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal government cannot require states to use personnel or resources to help enforce federal acts or regulatory programs.
Moving forward, every city, county, and town in the state should take action to pass legislation giving full practical effect to the state law. The 2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance bans the use of local resources to effectuate federal gun control measures.
A federal judge last week tossed out a lawsuit from a gun control group challenging Kansas over what is called the strictest Second Amendment protection law in the nation.
The suit, filed last year in U.S. District Court by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, aimed to take Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) and the state to task over the Sunflower State’s Second Amendment Protection Act.
Leftists/Liberals have blamed gun ownership for the last decade or so for the tragic massacres that have occurred at schools, movie theaters and public locations in general. Left Wing Elitists used this hysteria over guns as a means to attempt maximum gun control legislation contrary to the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
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. (2nd Amendment; U.S. Constitution; via Legal Information Institute [LII] of Cornell University Law School)
Leftists argue that a “well regulated militia” implies government control of an organized military perhaps something like the National Guard today. The well-meaning utopian Leftists (as opposed to the Liberty-stealing power hungry Leftists) point to the wording of “being necessary to the security of a free state.”
If the 2nd Amendment ended with that which I just quoted they would have a decent argument. BUT the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT END THERE. The rest of amendment clause adds clarification by letting WE The People know are the well regulated militia by saying “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The Revolutionary War that liberated the 13 American Colonies from British rule occurred because citizens from everyday life of the day banded together and organized as a paramilitary group and then received a bit of on the job training as a soldier. Even during the Civil War the Union Army consisted of volunteer militias that would then be organized under the auspices of the U.S. Army but often retaining the name of the State from whence the Army Unit came.
The Declaration of Independence gives us excellent reasons as to why Americans should have the right to own and bear arms independent of government control.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
… READ ENTIRETY (Transcript of Declaration of Independence (1776); OurDocuments.gov)
The Founding Fathers did their best to craft a Constitutional government in which the people were not exploited by government despotism. The same Founding Fathers prior to the Constitution laid the potential that good government is not infallible and go down the road of despotism for some or all its citizens. Sometimes the ONLY recourse to throw off the bands of a despotic government is by the citizens rising up by reason of arms to change the power structure of government.
AND SO BEWARE, when our government tells you must give up your guns for the safety of the greater good, something nefarious toward Liberty is undoubtedly soon to follow. A Michael Dorstewitz article I found on Right Wing News wrote down reminisces of Katie Worthman a survivor of NAZI occupied Austria pertaining to guns. She warns, “Don’t give up your guns”. Here is the article.
A survivor of Nazi-occupied Austria who sees parallels between that dark period and the United States of today has a word of warning and advice to Americans: “Keep your guns and buy more guns.”
Katie Worthman spoke earlier this year of what she witnessed as a child in Austria during Adolph Hitler’s rise to power, which was followed by Soviet occupation of the country. She said the Nazi takeover happened gradually, as opposed to media accounts to the contrary, according to NRA News, which reported that Worthman said:
In 1938, the media reported that Hitler rode into Austria with tanks and guns and took us over. Not true at all. The Austrian people elected Hitler by 98 percent of the vote by means of the ballot box. Now you might ask how could a Christian nation… elect a monster like Hitler. The truth is at the beginning Hitler didn’t look like or talk like a monster at all. He talked like an American politician.
Worthman said gun control also began gradually, before the Nazis eventually confiscated every firearm. According to NRA News, she said:
We also had gun registration. All the Austrian people… had guns. But the government said, “the guns are very dangerous. Children are playing with guns. Hunting accidents happen and we really have to have total controlled safety. And we had criminals again. And the only way that we can trace the criminal was by the serial number of the gun.”
So we dutifully went to the police station and we registered our guns. Not long after they said, “No, it didn’t help. The only way that we won’t have accidents and crimes [is] you bring the guns to the police station and then we don’t have any crimes anymore and any accidents. And if you don’t do that: capital punishment.”
So that’s what we did. So dictatorship didn’t happen overnight. It took five years. Gradually, little by little to escalate up to a dictatorship.
Worthman quoted Thomas Jefferson make her biggest point.
“When the people fear the government, that’s tyranny. But when the government fears the people… that’s liberty,” she said. “Keep your guns. Keep your guns and buy more guns.”
Government tells us, ‘Gun Control is for the Greater Good’
John Hawkins runs Right Wing News, Linkiest and is the co-owner of The Looking Spoon. He also does weekly appearances on the #1 in it’s market Jaz McKay show, writes a weekly column for Townhall and his work has also been published at the Washington Examiner, The Hill, Hot Air, Pajamas Media, and at Human Events.
Additionally, he’s also the blogosphere’s premier interviewer and has interviewed conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Mark Levin, Victor Davis Hanson, Mark Steyn, G. Gordon Liddy, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Michael Steele, Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, Jim DeMint, Jonah Goldberg, Jim DeMint, Walter Williams, Robert Novak, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, & Michelle Malkin among others.
Additionally, John Hawkins’ work has been linked and discussed in numerous publications and on TV and radio shows including … READ THE REST
Vice President Joe Biden brags about how President Barack Hussein Obama by-passed Congress with Executive Orders to implement the Leftist perception of limiting violence by controlling the use of guns by Americans contrary to the Second Amendment. Check it out.
(CNSNews.com) – On Monday, invoking the Dec. 14 “tragedy in Newtown,” Vice President Joe Biden told Americans, “You have my word that the President and I are doing everything we can to make sure no parent loses their child to gun violence.”
And he admitted that they’re doing it “on our own,” without Congress.
“And so even after a minority of senators blocked commonsense legislation to reduce gun violence this spring, we’re pushing forward,” he said.
“Now, it’s not enough to take these steps on our own — we still need Congress to pass comprehensive legislation to reduce gun violence. We need expanded background checks, and we need to create serious penalties for gun trafficking. There is no question that these kinds of measures would protect our kids and keep our communities safer.”
Biden hailed the 23 “executive actions” President Obama laid out in January to reduce “gun violence.” Biden said the administration has either completed or made significant progress on all of them.
“No parent should ever face the horror of the scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Or a movie theater in Aurora. Or a temple in Oak Creek. Or the campus at Virginia Tech. We’ve seen too much gun violence as a country. And if there’s even one thing we can do to save a life, it is our most sacred duty to try. That’s where I stand,” said Biden, who may be contemplating a run for president in 2016.
The anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting is a week from Saturday, and Connecticut officials are expected to release recordings of the 911 calls on Wednesday.
Biden was in Asia when the White House released his tough-on-guns message, which was signed “Joe.”
The message links to a list of the “progress we’ve made” on the 23 executive actions. Here are a few of them:
— “Begun to address unnecessary legal barriers that prevent states from reporting information about those prohibited from having guns.”
— “Issued a presidential memorandum requiring federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.”
— “Took steps to maximize enforcement efforts.”
— “Helped law enforcement avoid returning guns to the wrong hands.”
— “Published data on lost and stolen guns.”
— “Reviewed categories of dangerous people prohibited from having guns.”
On Tuesday, coincidentally, the House Judiciary Committee was holding a hearing on the president’s “constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.”
Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) told Fox News on Tuesday that she and other members of Congress are “appalled at the president’s actions — they are clearly unconstitutional.” Bachmann said the Constitution limits the president’s power — “even though the president doesn’t act that way.”
Bachmann said Obama can’t “unilaterally make these decisions, Congress is a part of the government as well, you’re not a king, you’re not a dictator” — even though he sometimes acts that way.
The list of Republican complaints includes Obama’s unilateral changes to the Affordable Care Act, which Bachmann called “political management”; and his use of “prosecutorial discretion” in determining which illegal aliens to deport.
All original CNSNews.commaterial, copyright 1998-2013. Cybercast News Service.