Showing posts with label Gun Control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Control. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

The Backfire Continues: NRA Breaks Fundraising Records In Wake Of Gun Control Demands


The NRA continues to rake in money in the wake of gun control activists vocally demanding the government strip away the rights of gun owners.  The gun rights lobbying group broke fundraising records in March largely thanks to the gun control crowd.


The numbers don’t lie either. The National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund raised $2.4 million from March 1 to March 31 of this year, according to The Tampa Bay Times.  As the March for Our Lives movement captured the mainstream media’s attention because it fit their carefully crafted pro-government narrative, in the weeks after the Parkland shooting, the other side of the gun control debate enjoyed a big month of its own.


The $2.4 million haul is the most money raised by the NRA’s political arm in one month since June 2003, the last month when electronic federal records were readily available. It surpasses the $1.1 million and $1.5 million raised in January and February 2013, the two months after the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.


Note that many of the NRA’s highest fundraising months are those after shootings when gun control Nazis seek to disarm the innocent over the actions of a lunatic. Another important tidbit to recognize about this particular fundraising month is that most of the donations, $1.9 million of the $2.4 million total, came from small donors who gave less than $200.  That means regular, everyday Americans are paying what little they have to avoid having even more of their basic fundamental human rights stripped away.


And much to the rights violators dismay, gun control groups haven’t been able to match the NRA’s fundraising. Everytown for Gun Safety’s Political Action Fund raised $13,580 in March while former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ Political Action Committee raised $129,589 in March, according to the Tampa Bay Times.  In fact, much of the demands for innocent people to give up rights is met with resistance and more guns flooding into the hands of Americans. 


The March for Our Lives group founded after the Parkland shooting has raised $3.5 million since February 18 via the online service GoFundMe, though that money was put toward organizing marches around the country. BUt big name companies, such as the fashion company Gucci has also publicly announced their own half-million-dollar donation. Those publicly disclosed donations total $2.5 million, meaning a large amount of the donations came from wealth celebrities or corporations.


 

Toronto Mass Homicide: Van Attack Leaves 10 Dead And 15 Injured


A mass homicide in Toronto is not being plastered all over mainstream media, because the homicidal maniac who committed this atrocity used a van, not a gun as his weapon. The attack has left ten people dead and another 15 injured.


You may have heard this mentioned, but there won’t be calls to ban or regulate gas tank sizes on vans in the wake of this mass homicide.  (Who needs a 20-gallon fuel tank anyway?)


Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders said that the suspected driver, Alek Minassian, 25, of Richmond Hill, Ontario, was in custody. Minassian was arrested in a white rental van less than 30 minutes after police received a 911 call about him striking pedestrians with a van, Saunders said.


Proving that guns aren’t the problem, the problem is psychopaths who kill other people, authorities said Minassian left a “trail of destruction” over one mile long in Toronto without using a gun.  The suspect was also previously known to Toronto authorities.


Deputy Police Chief Peter Yuen said police received calls around 1:30 p.m. that a vehicle was driving on Yonge Street, striking pedestrians. Police said the collisions happened in the North York area at the busy intersection of Yonge Street and Finch Avenue.


“Based on witness accounts, we have a vehicle that started north on Yonge Street from Finch and drove southbound at some point in times on sidewalks, at some point in times driving southbound in northbound lanes,” Saunders said.  “So, it’s very clear just from a general perspective to say that the actions definitely look deliberate.” At this point, “There would appear to be no national security connection” to the incident, said Ralph Goodale, Canada’s minister of public safety and emergency preparedness.


 




Now, if the gun control activists reacted to this tragedy the way they do to crazy people shooting ten people, they’de say: “but thoughts and prayers don’t stop tragedies.  What about laws making it illegal to rent vans instead?’  But we know now for certain that they don’t want to stop atrocities from happening, they only want the government to have all the guns – which historically, has not worked out very well for the general public. 


This van attack is a horrific mass homicide and ten people are permanently gone because of the actions of one maniac.  That should never be downgraded just because his weapon of choice didn’t fit the mainstream media’s communist agenda.  Thoughts and prayers for all of those affected by this disgusting act of malice.

Monday, April 23, 2018

An Illinois County Just Voted To Become A Sanctuary For Gun Owners


An Illinois County board just voted to become a sanctuary county for gun owners.  That would entail not enforcing laws that prohibit the basic fundamental human right of self-defense.


The Effingham County Board approved the resolution 8-1 on Monday which declares that they will not enforce gun laws that “unconstitutionally restrict the Second Amendment.” (Of course, that’s all gun laws based on the Constitution.)  Board members said they felt it was necessary to “take a stand” against the immoral and human rights violations in the form of gun control efforts in the Illinois legislature.


Humorously, Effingham County State’s Attorney Bryan Kibler told Fox News that they decided to “flip the script” and “make this a sanctuary county like they [Democrats] would for undocumented immigrants.”  Kibler admitted the action is largely symbolic and Sheriff Dave Mahon told the Effingham Daily News that the board’s decision would not dictate how his office enforces the law.


Mahon did say, however, that if the state passed a gun control law with dubious constitutionality, he would decide how to handle it after consulting with the state’s attorney and the legal counsel of the Illinois Sheriff’s Association.


As gun control activists ramp up efforts to disarm peaceful citizens, some are taking a stand against such tyranny. “The Second Amendment is not about hunting,” Shannon Alford, the National Rifle Association’s Maryland liaison told USA TODAY at a gun rights rally over the weekend. “It is not about competitive shooting. The Second Amendment is about self-defense. It’s about being able to stop people who would do you harm, whether that’s a criminal or the government.”


And self-defense is a basic human right, making those who march in favor of gun control tyrannical fascists. Gun control “across the pond” hasn’t worked out very well.  Those who defend themselves from thieves are being punished while the criminals are allowed to slash and stab their way through London. But what’s the solution to increased shootings and stabbings in the wake of making an entire nation a gun-free zone? If you ask London’s mayor, it’s more knife control, and no, that’s not a joke. 

5 Fast Facts You Need To Know About The Tennessee Waffle House Shooting

shooting

The suspected gunman in the Waffle House shooting is still on the loose and his record shows that he was interviewed by the FBI and his guns were seized after an incident last year.


The post 5 Fast Facts You Need To Know About The Tennessee Waffle House Shooting appeared first on The Free Thought Project.

Sunday, April 22, 2018

WHAT CAUSES MASS SHOOTINGS? Psych Drugs or Law-abiding Gun Owners?

The 2nd Amendment is a hot topic right now, mostly due to the misguided efforts of the high school students from Parkland, Florida. The mass shooting of students and teachers there was a horrible tragedy. However, students, large anti-gun organizations, and the mainstream media are demanding a faulty solution. These protests are not student-led, but instead are organized and paid for by well-funded national groups with a gun-control agenda.


Instead of pursuing a viable solution, the tired old ban “AR-15’s”, ban “large capacity” magazines, or ban”weapons of war” talking points are spouted by those who somehow think that disarming law-abiding citizens will solve the problem. Anyone who would consider perpetrating a mass shooting can get whatever weapons they want thru illicit channels. New laws won’t stop them. New anti-gun laws will only hamper the defensive response by good guys.


We have a natural right to self-defense. The 2nd Amendment enumerates that right. Disarming good guys does not make bad guys less dangerous! Gun-free-zones just compound the problem, assuring that no good guys (or gals) can stop the mayhem.


A gun is a tool. It does not act on it’s own. Great Britain has banned guns and crime is worse. Now, they’re banning knives. So criminals are using acid. The problem is not the gun or the knife. It is the person using those tools. Any solution must address the real problem – the person committing the crime.


What causes mass shootings? The person using the weapon.


The film, Good Guys With Guns, will explore real solutions to the real problem, instead of the current knee-jerk demands for unconstitutional gun-control and incremental gun bans.


Documentary films like Good Guys With Guns are financed by donations from you and me. (The usual Hollywood financiers will not touch the Constitutional agenda of this film.) Some of us can just give a little, and some of us can give more. Please donate whatever you can so we can get this film finished and out to the people who need to see it.


If you would like to find out more about Good Guys With Guns, please read the new progress report below. There is a new link to the script that includes questions for the experts who will be interviewed in the film.


Nancy


 


Progress Report


20 April 2018


 


Dear GOOD-GUY Associate,


I am happy to announce that we have incorporated your comments and suggestions into a new script for GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS – How the Second Amendment Can Stop Mass Shootings.  The script is at www.good-guys.us/gg_script.pdf and it’s only 32 pages so it can be read in 20 or 30 minutes. For those who like to see how the “sausage is made,” the script with questions is at www.good-guys.us/gg_script2.pdf



Your donations from the last Progress Report were generous and I sincerely thank you.  You made it clear that we have to do something about the “gun-control lobby” that’s now trying to enlist our kids to expand “gun-free zones” nationwide.


The gun-control lobby and the destroy-Trump media have joined with the Globalists to disarm the country by using mass shootings as their rationale.  We must reverse this trend, and a way we can reverse it is by demonstrating the principle of a self-protecting nation through the Second Amendment and the Militia Clauses.  In other words, good guys with guns.


The new script for GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS hits on all of this.


SECOND, your donations not only made it possible to get the new script done, we have an interview lined up with G. Edward Griffin on the 26th of this month.  Read the script and imagine how G. Edward Griffin is going to address some of the issues when we ask him questions like: “Ed, what IS the nature of government?”  “Ed, was Lord Acton right?”  “Ed, do citizens really need to protect themselves from 21st Century governments?”  What would you like me to ask G. Edward Griffin?


So the appearance of G. Edward Griffin in GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS will be the usual awesome event he has demonstrated in our 8 earlier films, all available as a free public service at www.HomeVideo.net or available on higher quality DVD at www.MoviePubs.net


THIRD, not only is G. EDWARD GRIFFIN lined up to interview, so are the following additional experts:


DAVE KOPACZ


EDWIN VIEIRA, JR.


ELIAS ALIAS


JEANNETTE FINICUM


LARRY PRATT


PASTOR CHUCK BALDWIN


REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY


ROSIE HAAS


SHEILA MATTHEWS


STEVEN KATES


STEPHEN WILLEFORD


STEWART RHODES


WALTER REDDY


We are also inviting into the movie: CHRIS COX, DANNIEL McGONIGLE, DAVID GILLIE, JOHNNIE LANGENDORFF, PAT BUCHANAN, ROBERT K. BROWN, REP. RON PAUL, SHERIFF DAVID CLARKE, SHERIFF RICHARD MACK, TED NUGENT, TIM SCHMIDT, VINCE VAUGHN.  If you see your name on this list, please contact me to do a short interview.


FOURTH, now that we have been able to better focus the subject matter for this documentary, we have commissioned a top artist to start designing new artwork for the website, the 1-sheet, the trailer, the movie and the DVD.  Your donations will keep this progress alive and speed it up to the degree our modest production Budget is funded.


FIFTH if you like the new script and your donations from this Progress Report are sufficient, we will begin the production of a new trailer.  The current trailer is below.


 




The new trailer we are working on — based on the new script — is going to upset a lot of people.  Namely Big Pharma (and their mass shooter-inspiring psychotropic drugs); the New York TV networks (and their discriminating control group); and the gun-control lobby (with their infestation of gun-free zones).


So help us give a dose of Liberty to the anti-Second Amendment collectivists that are using mass shootings to accelerate their New World Order.  Donate what you can to complete this production by going to
www.Good-Guys.us/donate


*     *     *


GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS explores mass-shooting at schools, churches and public places and proposes solutions both at the physical level AND the moralistic level.  Isn’t it time BIBLE READING is brought back into the war zone known as the public school system?  Shouldn’t we at least let our kids know that there are VALUES other than Hollywood “values?


GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS addresses all this.


Criminologists tell us that 70% of the time it takes the police about 11 minutes to get to shootings, but they are over in about 5 minutes.  Isn’t it time we arm teachers and administrative personnel so our children have a fighting chance when a psych drug-crazed madman comes at them?


Read the script.  We will discuss all this in GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS.


Inspired by the works of Edwin Vieira, Jr., foremost Constitutional attorney with 4 degrees from Harvard, GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS — a Matrix Production in association with OATH KEEPERS -– will propose workable solutions to mass shootings.  Unless Americans better understand how and why mass shootings occur, we will never be able to eliminate these atrocities and provide the eternal vigilance necessary for a self-governing nation.


Watch this clip from our previous film, MOLON LABE, to better understand why eternal vigilance is necessary.




There is a very good chance GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS — How the Second Amendment Can Stop Mass Shootings will have a positive effect on Society.  The films ARE making a difference.  Verify my claim by watching the past production and see if they don’t match up to many of the improvements we see happening right now.


The Mainstream Media — as we discussed in our previous production of MAINSTREAM — has become corrupted and now works to indoctrinate WE THE PEOPLE into an acceptance of an anti-Second Amendment culture and the Globalist Agenda.  Help stop this.  Go to www.Good-Guys.us/donate and donate whatever you can even if it’s $100, $50 or $25.  Producer and Production Associate screen credits will be granted as acknowledgement for your donations.


Also, we are looking for a few donors of means to step up and take a Producer or Executive Producer screencredit in the MAIN titles.  Where else could you get a screen credit like this because what other group of people is going to make a movie like this?  Not Hollywood. Not the New York media.


Thank you for reading the new script and contributing what you can to get this production “in the can.”  A “free state” and “a more perfect union” are made possible by men and women who care.  If even a small percentage of you donate we will not only get GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS done, it may be our most important documentary yet.  Further, this film may help stop or attenuate the horrific mass shootings we have been seeing across the nation.  Isn’t it worth a try?


Sincerely,


 


JAMES JAEGER,


Producer/Director



P.S.  The more people who know about this production, the faster it will get done. So please forward this Progress Report to your family, friends and associates. Thank you.


 


 


The post WHAT CAUSES MASS SHOOTINGS? Psych Drugs or Law-abiding Gun Owners? appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Friday, April 20, 2018

Training Our Police To Shoot First

As law and order break down, police officers face tough choices.


The real cause of unarmed citizens being shot by law enforcement might be both frightening and yet straightforward– local police officers are now actually trained to be paranoid. That’s right, trained to be paranoid. That means in some sense trained to be both suspicious as well as generally afraid of the public.


The disturbing fact is, most American police officers are now trained to be edgy, always responding with deadly force according to former police officer Randy Shrewsberry. Shrewsberry spent tenyears as a cop andwas named Police Officer of the Year by the South Carolina Rotary Club in 1995. He also worked as a police dispatcher, crime-scene investigator, and as a consultant to the U.S. Marshal’s Office.


“I attended four basic training academies in three states,”Shrewsberry wrote in a Change.org petition. “Trainings left me feeling as if I was a soldier of war, instead of a peace officer sworn to protect and serve my community.”


“Modern police training is unrealistic and often focuses on rare threats instead of the real problems officers face on the beat every day,” Shrewsberry charged. “Cops learn only to shoot and not how to deal with people.”


Sadly, many officers are poorly trained. Worse yet, many of the law enforcement officers patrolling America’s streets receive little or no training, Shrewsberry   alleged.


Hair Stylists Have To Have More Training Than Police


“A police officer; who has enormous power over people’s lives, is required to have only a fraction of the training required of someone working as a professional hair stylist,” Shrewsberry wrote. Shrewsberrymade that shocking discovery while researching police training in four states.


Some other disturbing data that he uncovered included:



  • There are no agreed upon requirements or standards for police officers.

  • For the most part, it’s an unregulated field.

  • Many states require barbers, electricians, and plumbers to complete more hours of training than police officers.


A police officer in Colorado is not required to receive any on-the-job training. A cosmetologist (hair stylist) must complete 1,800 hours of on-the-job training to get a license in Colorado.



  • A police officer in Illinois is required to complete 400 hours of basic training and no on-the-job training. A hairdresserin Illinois must complete 1,500 hours of basic training and 4,000 hours of on-the-job training.

  • 23 states allowpersons to work as police officers with absolutely no training. All they need is a badge and a gun.

  • The average police officer in the United States receives 15 hours of field (on-the-job) training.

  • A police officer can be on the job for two years with no training whatsoever in Mississippi.

  • 15 states allowa police officer to serve on the force for a year with no training.

  • Some states allow people to work as police officers for up to three years without formal training thanks to “deferments.”


Shrewsberry was so disgusted by the lack of police training that he founded the Institute for Criminal Justice Training Reform to fix the problem. He is also asking Congress to pass the Police Training and Independent Review Act of 2017which would mandate training for all cops nationwide.


But just whose nationwide training? One retired police captain of a large city told me his beat cops used to walk the streets talking to merchants and locals every day with an emphasis on protecting and serving… until his city aldermen demanded training from federal swat teams.  Once the feds started training his men… his officers considered the public their sworn enemies. (His words not mine.) His city also created a budget for tanks and armored war vehicles.


Here’s a map will let you compare the training requirements for police officers and hair stylists in your state.


Question: Should beat cops be trained to fear the public? You can understand the dilemma. Once a fellow officer gets shot, other officers get paranoid. Can you blame them?


 


 


 

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Concealed vs. Open Carry: Is Discretion The Better Part Of Valor?

   Concealed or open carry… being armed could save your life.


 


The number of concealed carry permits has grown from 8 million in 2008 to just over 16 million in 2018.  Most states require a permitfor concealed carry and limit those permits to residents, or a select few statesthrough reciprocity. For example, a concealed carry permit in Texas is also valid in Arizona .There are currently 45 states that havepermissive open carry.  As the scales of the gun control debate teeter one way or the other, the visibility of opencarriers has been embraced by many pro-gunactivists to normalize gun ownership. While often acceptable to people who have been raisedaround firearms, it is often a culture shock to those who have not.


As the political spectrum becomes even more polarized, there is less concern on both sides to consider or even care about the sensibilities of people across the political divide. While one’s political party is in power, this may not be a cause for thought.  When the political scales tilt – and they always do- it then becomes a majorconcern, and then too late.  How the political left tends to react to the sight of openly carried firearms is with anything but antipathy.


By “spooking the straights” it fuels their desires to take the rights to carry anything away.  Some are so full of fear at the sight of a gun that they assume the carrier is a mass shooter, calling the police. Others point to a difficulty that police officers have in determining who is and is not a threat, and there have been plenty of instances when police have reacted with zealousness when presented with an open carrier.  The situation becomes even more complicated when raceenters the equation.  Now it is true that the examples presentedhere may have been antagonistic to the officers – there is a certainlack of empathy on behalf of some carriers not to understandthe situation officers are placed in when they must respond to calls of a person with a gun.  And sometimes, the officer may not be as comfortable with you having the gun: this opens opportunities for misunderstandings and accidents.  Such instances do not help the cause.


Perhaps this is a goodplace to point out that if you carry, open or concealed, that it is of vital importance to follow an officer’s instructions to the letter when the interactionoccurs.  Do not argue about your rights until the officer feels that they have control of the situation: that is what they are trained to do.  It is what you would want them to do if you were the one that called them.  And while you may win a legal debate with them, you are as likely to end up in cuffsor bruised.  You may even end up dead.


Concealed carriers certainly need to follow the same rules of conduct, but they have the benefit of discretion.  Many gun control activists will point to the laws of the wild west where guns were not permitted in town while ignoring other facts.  The local rules expressly prohibited the carrying of firearms but donot offer instances where people – residents or visitors -were invasively searched.  It is not coincidental that pocket pistols such as the Deringer started becoming an actual product in the 1800’s when the rule of these laws began appearing.  In such circumstances,the age-old adage “out of sight, out of mind” protected the carriers whether they were law abiding or not.


Even without the politics or the threat of nervous anti-gunnersand potentially under trained police officers, open carry does something else: it paints a bullseye on the back of your head for any potential criminal. Policeare paid to enforce laws; citizensare not.  While society benefits from as many enforcers and followers of the law as possible, those of us who are not involvedwith law enforcement authority can complicate matters in a situation, and not necessarily to our benefit.  If the badguy does not get the drop on us,we still are faced with the fact that even officers not in uniform may seem likea threat by uniformed responding officers.


Consider the following scenario: you are standing in line at the bankwhen someone decides to rob the bank.  You have a concealed carry firearm, but, the robber is not firing his weapon.  The money stolenis insured.  If you act like the other customers, the whole scary scenario may end in a few minutes with you only having to be a witness to the responding officers.  Another result of the situation is that the robber has already shot someone.  Perhaps now they will decide to leave no witnesses. At that point, if your firearm is concealed, you have a chance to defend yourself.  If your firearmwas not concealed, you mightvery well have been the first one killed.


The political landscape has many gun owners tempted to declare their position proudly, even defiantly. And the open carry movement has gone from a positionof crime deterrence to a political positionof antagonism.  Thisis not the scenario in which any of us should introduce an open and visible firearm.  Discretion is the better part of valor because discretionis one more tool at our disposal when we carry: leaving the decision to engage in our hands, not the hands of the “bad guy.” So, when you carry, be aware, be considerate, but most importantly, be sensible and choose your battles.  Don’t have them chosenfor you.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Dick’s Sporting Goods Will DESTROY All Guns Removed From Shelves


Dick’s Sporting Goods pulled all of their guns they determined to be “assault weapons style” from the shelves in the wake of the Parkland Florida school shooting.  Now, they’ve announced that they will destroy all guns that weren’t sold because they took them off the shelves.


“We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change,” a spokesperson from Dick’s Sporting Goods told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. “We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations.” Instead of  returning them to the manufacturer, the sports retailer decided to destroy the “assault-style rifles.”


Following the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the retailer had pulled modern sporting rifles from its namesake stores nationwide. When it later opened its specialty Field & Stream stores, it introduced the modern sporting rifles to its product line there. The company did not comment on what it did with the firearms it pulled from its Dick’s stores in 2012.


According to Fox News, on February 28, 2018, the Pittsburgh-based company announced it would immediately stop selling assault-style rifles and ban the sale of all guns to anyone under 21 at their Field & Stream stores. It was not immediately clear how many firearms will be destroyed but all of the rifles will be demolished at distribution centers and then delivered to a salvage company to be recycled.


“Thoughts and prayers are not enough,” the company said in a statement. “We support and respect the Second Amendment, and we recognize and appreciate that the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible, law-abiding citizens. But we have to help solve the problem that’s in front of us.”  So they intend to destroy guns that good people would never use to harm anyone unless a self-defense situation warranted it.  That’s like castrating yourself because your neighbor has too many kids. But no one has ever accused a gun control activist of using logic.


Dick’s Sporting Goods is also facing a battle with the gun rights crowd over their controversial decision to deny 18-20 year-olds their Constitutional and basic fundamental human right of self-defense by refusing to sell them guns. The sporting goods store is currently facing two lawsuits due to the self-imposed age limit on purchasing firearms because legally, those who are 18 may purchase guns.


 

Saturday, April 14, 2018

Just Burn a Witch to Stop Armed Murder

By Rob Morse. April 9th, 2018


There was a time when children cried so we burned witches. Today, we have some 23 thousand ‘Gun control’ regulations. We pass new regulations each time a celebrity gets shot or some white kids get attacked. We’ve burned that witch before.


Each gun regulation is sold to us in glowing terms as it’s being debated. Each new regulation is breathlessly described as-


urgently needed..life saving..essential reform..violence prevention..common sense..crime control..limit armed terrorists.. controlling dangerous weapons..firearms safety..controlling unprecedented weapons of war..public safety legislation..


..and it sounds so wonderful.


You have to ask yourself some questions if you don’t believe the overhyped press briefing. If each of the 23 thousand ‘Gun control’ regulations were all that we were told, then why do these regulations fail every few minutes and we have another violent crime? I thought all those earlier laws fixed that.


‘Gun control’ laws don’t stop criminals because criminals don’t obey our laws. (We can document that obvious point if you need.) ‘Gun control’ fails because we don’t prosecute criminals with the laws we already have. ‘Gun control’ fails because background checks look backwards at a person’s history. That gives criminals and crazies one free mass murder before they become prohibited persons.


At best, ‘Gun control’ isn’t much of a solution.


We’ve looked very hard at the data. ‘Gun control’ does nothing to reduce violent crimes like mass murder, armed murder, armed robbery and aggravated assault. (And here, here too.) Some data says that ‘Gun control’ disarms the honest people so crime actually goes up after ‘Gun control’ is passed. And before you ask, the police collect crime information, mostly for insurance purposes. The police rarely stop violent crimes in progress.


If the stacks and stacks of ‘Gun control’ legislation failed before, then why do we expect the next bit of legislative-ink-on-paper to stop the next violent criminal? The truth is, we don’t. Neither do the politicians who pass these laws.


[snip]


Those are very powerful forces at work. No wonder we try the same failed idea time after time. Until we are willing to dig past the headlines, we simply burn another witch and pass another ‘Gun control’ law. After all, it made us feel better last time.


I don’t have all the answers. I’m not even sure which will come first. Will we stop distracting ourselves with ‘Gun control’, and then look at the real causes and solutions to public violence? Will we implement a few effective measures and then stop wasting time with ‘Gun control’ legislation? Either would be fine, and not a minute too soon.



Read more at: JPFO


Photo credit: ajr


 


 


The post Just Burn a Witch to Stop Armed Murder appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

The American Dunning-Kruger Epidemic (Or Why Ignorant People Are So Sure They’re Right)

This article was originally published by Daisy Luther at The Organic Prepper



It’s time to address an epidemic in the United States. It’s one that could be deadly, particularly to liberty.


It’s an epidemic of Dunning-Kruger. It’s why ignorant people are so certain that they’re right.


What’s that, you ask?


The Dunning Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which individuals, who are unskilled at a particular task, believe themselves to possess above-average ability in performing the task. On the other hand, as individuals become more skilled in a particular task, they may mistakenly believe that they possess below-average ability in performing those tasks because they may assume that all others possess equal or greater ability. In other words, “the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.” (source)


And haven’t we all seen that lately? Let’s look at a recent example right here in the good ole USA.


Those who haven’t lived like the rest of us are the ones shouting the loudest.


Let’s start with the current gun control debate.


We have high school kids who think they are experts on policy, firearms, and the Constitution, smugly telling us how clueless they believe we are.


We have movie stars who make millions from movies where they shoot people and who are protected by armed security guards, telling us that we law-abiding citizens who have guns are vicariously responsible for every school shooting that has ever happened.


We have wealthy city dwellers who live in buildings with doormen telling the rest of us that we’re nuts for wanting to protect ourselves.


And all of these people who want to loudly tell the rest of us how to live our lives have one thing in common: they are completely out of touch with the real world.


When you live in your guarded castles, you don’t have to worry about defending yourself from a rapist who might break in through your bedroom window. When you’re a kid, you can’t fathom the vast responsibility one feels as a parent to protect one’s children from home invaders or kidnappers. When you haven’t yet gone out there and lived your life with jobs and crime and financial instability, you have no idea what it’s really like for the average American.


And yet, these out-of-touch people are the ones screaming the loudest that only they know what is right for America.


And that’s where the Dunning-Kruger effect comes into play.


Back in 1999, social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University performed tests on some subjects and discovered that in many cases, the lower the performance of a subject, the higher their confidence was that they had done well. They published their findings in a paper entitled, “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.”


In an article by David Dunning called “We Are All Confident Idiots,” he wrote of his studies:


In 1999, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, my then graduate student Justin Kruger and I published a paper that documented how, in many areas of life, incompetent people do not recognize—scratch that, cannot recognize—just how incompetent they are, a phenomenon that has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Logic itself almost demands this lack of self-insight: For poor performers to recognize their ineptitude would require them to possess the very expertise they lack. To know how skilled or unskilled you are at using the rules of grammar, for instance, you must have a good working knowledge of those rules, an impossibility among the incompetent. Poor performers—and we are all poor performers at some things—fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack.


What’s curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.


This isn’t just an armchair theory. A whole battery of studies conducted by myself and others have confirmed that people who don’t know much about a given set of cognitive, technical, or social skills tend to grossly overestimate their prowess and performance, whether it’s grammar, emotional intelligence, logical reasoning, firearm care and safety, debating, or financial knowledge. College students who hand in exams that will earn them Ds and Fs tend to think their efforts will be worthy of far higher grades; low-performing chess players, bridge players, and medical students, and elderly people applying for a renewed driver’s license, similarly overestimate their competence by a long shot. (source)


Hmmm….that sounds familiar.


And the way Dunning applies this to politics vividly demonstrates why we have the polarization we’re currently experiencing in the US.


Some of our most stubborn misbeliefs arise not from primitive childlike intuitions or careless category errors, but from the very values and philosophies that define who we are as individuals. Each of us possesses certain foundational beliefs—narratives about the self, ideas about the social order—that essentially cannot be violated: To contradict them would call into question our very self-worth. As such, these views demand fealty from other opinions. And any information that we glean from the world is amended, distorted, diminished, or forgotten in order to make sure that these sacrosanct beliefs remain whole and unharmed…


…Political and ideological beliefs, too, often cross over into the realm of the sacrosanct. The anthropological theory of cultural cognition suggests that people everywhere tend to sort ideologically into cultural worldviews diverging along a couple of axes: They are either individualist (favoring autonomy, freedom, and self-reliance) or communitarian (giving more weight to benefits and costs borne by the entire community); and they are either hierarchist (favoring the distribution of social duties and resources along a fixed ranking of status) or egalitarian (dismissing the very idea of ranking people according to status). According to the theory of cultural cognition, humans process information in a way that not only reflects these organizing principles, but also reinforces them. These ideological anchor points can have a profound and wide-ranging impact on what people believe, and even on what they “know” to be true.


It is perhaps not so surprising to hear that facts, logic, and knowledge can be bent to accord with a person’s subjective worldview; after all, we accuse our political opponents of this kind of “motivated reasoning” all the time. But the extent of this bending can be remarkable. In ongoing work with the political scientist Peter Enns, my lab has found that a person’s politics can warp other sets of logical or factual beliefs so much that they come into direct contradiction with one another. (source)


And most importantly:


Sacrosanct ideological commitments can also drive us to develop quick, intense opinions on topics we know virtually nothing about. (source)


This isn’t just about gun control, though.


This article isn’t just about the hot-button topic of gun control. It’s about how we’re living our everyday lives.


Here’s an example: People either love President Trump so much they are unwilling to see any wrongdoing or they despise him to the point that they are unwilling to recognize any right-doing. Most people’s analyses of the actions of the President are completely warped by their sacrosanct ideologies of whether he is “good” or “bad.” They don’t weigh the merits of the actions – instead, they judge them from a place of deeply committed cognitive bias.


The same thing is true for many topics:



  • Illegal immigration

  • Freedom of speech

  • Political ideologies

  • Economic theories

  • Gay rights

  • Abortion

  • The right to bear arms

  • Taxes

  • The bathroom drama at Target


All of us – myself included – can look at the list above and immediately say whether we are for or against these things, and what our specific belief is – but do we honestly know the details of these topics? Are our opinions sourced from cognitive bias or fact?


I have biases. You have them. We all do. However, the ability to recognize your own cognitive bias is the gold standard of intelligence.


This isn’t something that is going to change.


It’s completely normal for us to base our opinions on our own moral beliefs. As Dunning wrote, we are, at heart, either individualist or communitarian, hierchist or egalitarian. These are core attributes that would be difficult, if not impossible, to change.


But what we CAN do is make a conscious effort to catch ourselves when we make rapid judgment calls without the facts. We can educate ourselves on both sides of an issue and make an effort to use facts instead of feelings in our arguments.


What we CANNOT do is expect everyone to play by these rules. But that’s okay because by understanding how an opposing view was developed, we can use that to fuel our own arguments. We can call out the cognitive biases. What we can’t expect is for facts to change their deeply held beliefs, no matter how ignorant those beliefs might be.


We can correct the lack of information, but we can’t really expect someone with a confident, sacrosanct opinion to change their minds. They’ll hold on to a belief even after it is proven factually incorrect because, as Dunning said, “We are all confident idiots.” Remember, facts have nothing to do with why they have their points of view.


The good news is that there are folks in the middle, who may not have a deeply held opinion on hot-button topics. These are the folks who can be reached by logic and facts. It’s nearly impossible to battle confident ignorance, but with facts, you can influence people who are undecided.


If you ask me what is going to be the end of our civilization, the rampant epidemic of Dunning-Kruger seems to be the most likely cause. Let’s not be guilty of this confident ignorance ourselves. Let’s vow to inoculate ourselves with facts instead of enabling ourselves with emotional biases.


Hat tip to Suzanne



The Pantry Primer


Please feel free to share any information from this article in part or in full, giving credit to the author and including a link to The Organic Prepper and the following bio.


Daisy Luther is the author of The Pantry Primer: A Prepper’s Guide To Whole Food on a Half Price Budget.  Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca</e


The Cause of London’s Surge in Violence Is Obvious — but Nobody’s Talking About It

london knife attacks(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) London, UK — As the United States continues to experience sensational mass shootings and many Americans call for gun control, the London is dealing with its own rash of violent crime, mostly in the form of knife attacks. Countless memes circulating on the internet have pointed out that despite the British government’s harsh gun laws, criminals […]

Sanders Feels the Burn After Surrounding Himself with Armed Police at National Walkout Rally

Sanders Feels the Burn After Surrounding Himself with Armed Police at National Walkout Rally | Bernie-Sanders-guns | Gun Control Multimedia Politics


By Aaron Kesel, Activist Post | 


Senator Bernie Sanders joined students participating in a national walkout to protest gun violence outside the Capitol in Washington, D.C surrounded by armed police as he delivered a hypocritical speech calling for the “courage to take out the NRA” and common sense gun control in response to the Parkland high school attack, Newsweek reported.







What’s wrong with this picture? Yup Bernie Sanders at an anti gun rally with students being protected w/armed police officers for security








Sanders live streamed his speech on his Facebook page, which towards the middle featured him moving through the crowd of cheering students and shaking their hands. As Sanders traveled through the protesters chanting for gun control, he was accompanied by three heavily armed Capitol police officers there to escort him through the students.




Multiple times in the live feed, the police can be heard asking the students to “step back and move away from Sanders,” as is the protocol with congressman and especially presidents to protect them from deranged psychopaths.


This isn’t the first time that Democrats have been ridiculed for the calls to ban firearms yet still have depended on them for safety.


In 2016, gun-rights groups called for Democrats to bar any armed security at the Democratic National Convention.


“Gun owners are demanding that the Democratic party practice what it preaches,” read a petition from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. “If a political party believes that guns do not make us safer, they should set an example by rejecting any and all forms of armed security at their convention.”


Sanders frequently makes two points about his gun record, as The Washington Post reported during the 2016 election where his opponent Hillary Clinton often used his stances on gun control against him.


He has a D-minus rating from the NRA, and the NRA’s endorsement of his opponents during his first congressional race in 1988 may have cost him the election. Sanders’s most recent grade from the NRA was a D-minus. Since 1992, the first year the NRA issued a grade for Sanders, he has received between a C-minus and F. Since 1988, Sanders has been consistent on restricting the use of semiautomatic firearms (often called “assault weapons”).


Further, as per that report, Sanders voted on a 2005 law giving broad federal immunity to gun manufacturers; now he wants to suddenly ban semi-automatic firearms.








However, for three decades, Sanders has “believed we should not be selling assault weapons” like the accused gunman’s AR-15.


“These weapons are not for hunting,” he said. “They’re for killing human beings,” Sanders stated on NBC’s The View last month.


In that same interview Sanders previously also stated that Congress should close the “gun show loophole” ― the lack of federal rules mandating background checks on the sale of guns between privates sellers.


In his time in Congress, Sanders has voted against a bill in the 1990s to require a five-day waiting period to allow for criminal background checks before a gun could be purchased, voted to allow firearms on Amtrak, and expressed opposition against a lawsuit to hold gun manufacturers accountable for the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. However, on the other side of the coin, he has also voted for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban more recently.


In a 2015 speech while campaigning, Sanders expressed a similar argument for common sense gun control which he explained:


vast majority of hunters don’t use semi-assault weapons when they hunt, and they don’t have magazines that shoot 30 rounds at a time. So I hope as a nation we would ban these type of assault weapons so they don’t get into the hands of gun dealers.


Sanders further added that there is a cultural divide between urban and rural America on gun regulation, arguing what seemed to be to create two different regulations for rural and urban America so that everyone is happy.


“People in urban America can not demonize or stereotype people in rural America because they own guns and they hunt. While people in rural America who hunt have got to understand that guns in Chicago and LA mean a very different thing then guns in Vermont and New Hampshire. And if we can come to that understanding and cross this cultural divide we can finally come up with common sense gun solutions that the vast part of American people will support,” Sanders said, on the campaign trail.



Both U.S. President Donald Trump and Democrats have actively argued for disarming the public of assault rifles and even allowing police the power to decide who can and can’t keep their firearms if they are classified “dangerous” by government standards.


Although, U.S. President Donald Trump has since backtracked on his remarks stating that he wanted to confiscate guns “from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous.”


Meanwhile, in the state of Florida, where the Parkland shooting took place, confiscating firearms has already taken place under Florida’s new gun-control laws, temporarily removing guns from a 56-year-old man’s possession.


Four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition were ordered removed from the man who was determined to be a potential risk to himself or others; or as Trump would state, a man “deemed to be dangerous.”


The guns and ammunition have been temporarily removed from the man under the state’s new “risk protection” law, which is also sometimes called “red flag” legislation, Lighthouse Point City Attorney Michael Cirullo confirmed to the Orlando Sentinel.


In the beginning of March, House Democrats in agreement with Trump have introduced a bill H.R.5087 that if passed would ban the sale of semi-automatic firearms. The legislation opts to prohibit the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.


Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., announced the legislation entitled: “Assault Weapons Ban of 2018.”


In the gun debate, there is only one video that ever needs to be seen and that’s the Congressional hearing testimony of Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a survivor of the Luby’s shooting, also known as the Luby’s massacre. The attack left 23 people dead and injured another 27 when a deeply disturbed man, George Hennard, drove his pickup truck through the front window of a Texas restaurant.


On October 16, 1991, George Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby’s Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, screaming “This is what Bell County has done to me!” then opened fire on the restaurant’s patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89.


During the shooting, Hennard approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby’s Cafeteria that day but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws enforced at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms.


According to her testimony in favor of Missouri’s HB-1720 bill (a law to allow concealed carry), after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse but “a hundred feet away in her car,” her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed.


Hupp expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person. She further stated that she didn’t blame the killer or the gun; she blamed her legislators because she couldn’t protect herself and her family.


It is worth noting in Hupp’s statement she expressed that she was not a representative of the NRA when she gave her testimony.



The Second Amendment is a right of the people; if you ban sales from lawful citizens, you will encourage black market sales of firearms where the weapons aren’t registered. In such a case, all the criminals will be armed while forcing innocent civilians to be easy targets for a lunatic/lunatics or worse  — tyranny will rise, as history has proven from dictatorship to dictatorship time and time again.


Again, we will ask the question why would anyone be excited about disarming themselves under any president who shows contempt for the U.S. Constitution and due process, while simultaneously increasing the availability of military weaponry to the nation’s police? Shouldn’t we have learned the lessons of history by now?




Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Steemit, and BitChute. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.


Image credit


The post Sanders Feels the Burn After Surrounding Himself with Armed Police at National Walkout Rally appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Criminals for Gun-Control – It makes their “job” easier.

The gun-grabbers never talk about how they are going to disarm criminals or gang members. Their gun-control laws will only affect law-abiding citizens, the ones who don’t commit crimes. So, law-abiding potential victims are targeted by the government for incremental disarming, and criminals will always have whatever guns and accessories they want. What could go wrong?


I realize that by posting these videos here, I am “preaching to the choir”, but maybe the videos can be used to help someone else “get it”.


This is about one small aspect of gun-control, which by it’s very existence is illegal and unconstitutional.


“…shall not be infringed.”



Gun-control from the criminal’s point of view:




Dr. Suzanna Hupp’s parents were murdered during the Luby’s Massacre in 1991:




Dan Bongino on criminals and gun-control:



 



If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can 
donate HERE.


 


The post Criminals for Gun-Control – It makes their “job” easier. appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Friday, April 6, 2018

How Gun Control Laws for “Mentally Ill” Could Disarm Those Who Question Authority

This article was originally published by John Vibes at TheFreeThoughtProject.com



In the growing debate surrounding the natural right to self-defense, one of the most popular proposed methods of gun control has been restrictions on gun-ownership for those who are deemed to be mentally ill. This is a measure that is often suggested by liberals and conservatives alike, but it is important to stop and consider what something like this might entail.


When any collective group is banned from owning a gun, they are effectively turned into second-class citizens. In the case of mental illness, that classification is so vague and open to interpretation that it could possibly be applied to over half of the population, depending on which criteria you use.


Mental illness can be very hard to identify since there is no kind of official test for most conditions, most people are diagnosed according to the subjective opinions of the doctors that observe them. Even the most severe conditions, like schizophrenia, can be very difficult to identify and is often misdiagnosed.


Psychiatric drugs are another possible factor that could get someone marked by the government as mentally unstable, but a classification like this would allow for large portions of the US population to be disarmed.


According to a 2016 study by JAMA Internal Medicine, more than 1 in 6 Americans are on some type of psychiatric drug. This is not to mention the large number of people who report symptoms of depression or anxiety and don’t take medication.


A policy like this could also allow the government to disarm dissidents and political enemies. As psychiatry became more influential towards the middle of the 20th century, rulers around the world began using “mental illness” as an excuse to lock away anyone who might disagree with them. The Soviet regime became notorious for this practice by labeling all political dissidents as “mentally ill” so they could be locked away in institutions where they were no threat to the establishment.


The United States government also has a long history of slapping unruly citizens with the mark of mental illness. President Franklin Roosevelt famously called his detractors “the lunatic fringe,” and this type of attitude towards activists has carried on in the halls of government to this day.


In the dictionary of mental illnesses, known as DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association, there is actually a condition listed for people who have a problem with authority. Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a name that psychiatrists made up to identify children who won’t do what they are told, and now even adults are being diagnosed with this condition as well.


Meanwhile, politicians and mainstream media are quick to label anyone who questions the official narrative as a “conspiracy theorist,” a term that has been falsely associated with mental illness in pop culture.


A study in 2017 set out to determine whether or not believing in conspiracy theories was a form of mental illness. As expected they found the exact answer that they were looking for, people who don’t trust the government and mainstream media are crazy, and suffering from something called illusory pattern perception.


There is another dilemma that arises in the discussion of disarming people who are accused of having a mental illness, and that is the fact mentally ill people are 10 times more likely to be victims of violence than the rest of society because they are often seen as easy targets.


Complicating matters further is the fact that these people can’t depend on the police to help them in these situations, as studies have shown that the mentally ill are 16 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than the average person.


According to the Virginia-based Treatment Advocacy Center, a minimum of 1 in 4 fatal police encounters ends the life of an individual with severe mental illness.


To prevent mentally ill people from owning firearms is a severe form of “ableist” discrimination, and also opens the door for nearly anyone to be classified as mentally ill.


There are sometimes extreme cases where a person’s mental instability is creating a dangerous situation for the community, like the recent Parkland shooting, for example. In this case, the shooter had a known history of violence, regularly made threats and was visited by police on numerous occasions because of his threatening behavior. In cases like this, it is reasonable to keep an eye on someone, restrict their access to firearms, or possibly quarantine them from society in the most extreme situations.


There are many laws on the books currently would have allowed the FBI or local police to intervene in their initial encounters with the shooter, but they decided that a student known for violent outbursts and talking about carrying out school shootings was not worth looking into.


As TFTP reported earlier this month, there is a law on the books known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order or ERPO, which went into effect in June of 2017. This law is used when a person is considered an “extreme” threat as reported by police and family members. An ERPO must be approved by a judge and only after this person is proven to be a danger to themselves or others can police move in to confiscate their weapons.


These types of targeted approaches specifically aimed at individuals who are a known source of violence in the community would do far more to prevent tragedies from happening, than a wide-reaching law that could threaten the rights and safety of millions of innocent gun owners.

They Fight the Law and the Law Wins

This article was originally published by Doug “Uncola” Lynn at TheTollOnline.com



I saw the tears of the oppressed—


 and they have no comforter;


 power was on the side of their oppressors….


 –  Ecclesiastes 4:1


In viewing the daily headlines and reading various online blogs, it appears many of these have converged into discussions on law and rights. Two examples of ongoing national conversations include mass shootings versus the Second Amendment and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s preference for prosecution of process crimes in a bogus election hacking conspiracy, over a real investigation into documented corruption at the highest levels of American government.


On April Fools Day it was revealed the Washington DC permits for the March 24, 2018 “March for Our Lives” event were acquired months before the Parkland Shooting even took place. The irony is palpable. One would think that would be the smoking gun (pun intended) evidence of a conspiracy, but no. Nothing shall prevent the children from wielding their emotional wounds, like a Samurai sword in a Tarantino flick, against the Second Amendment; and Laura Ingraham’s right to free speech.


The very next day, on April 2, 2018, Deerfield, Illinois nullified the U.S. Constitution and gave their residents 60 days to turn in their guns or face fines of $1,000 per day per gun.


The day after that, on April 3, 2018, a previously undisclosed memo was unveiled proving illegal collusion between Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and his co-conspirator, Robert Mueller, in the special counsel investigation of President Trump.


An August 2017 memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to Special Counsel Robert Mueller surfaced late Monday evening in a court filing. Mueller used the memo to defend his scope of the investigation against a recent motion Manafort filed to dismiss his case.


 In the heavily redacted memo, Robert Mueller admits Rosenstein’s order appointing him to Special Counsel was intentionally vague.


 ‘This violates the special counsel law that requires a specific statement of facts to be investigated’, says Attorney Gregg Jarrett.


So let’s get this straight: Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller to be special counsel, signed off on at least one of the misrepresented, and therefore illegal, FISA applications on Team Trump for a counterintelligence investigation. His aforementioned August 2, 2017 memo to Mueller is now being used to justify the July 26, 2017 home invasion on Paul Manafort after it happened. Now Mueller is, instead, investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice for firing former FBI Director, James Comey.


As Fox News Legal Analyst, Greg Jarret has additionally pointed out regarding Mueller and Comey:


The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners.  Agents have quipped that they were joined at the hip while at the Department of Justice and the FBI.  They have a mentor-protégé relationship.  The likelihood of prejudice and favoritism is glaring and severe.


This, even though the special counsel statute specifically prohibits those having “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.”


This whole special counsel fiasco is more incestuously disturbing than some hillbilly siblings getting hitched on the Jerry Springer show.


Furthermore, while reports of Trump’s fictitious collusion with the Russians continue to dominate the Lamestream Media’s talking points, the actual sale of twenty-percent of America’s uranium deposits to Russia, which resulted in the Uranium One payments to the Clinton Foundation, remains, shamefully, ignored. This, even though it was confirmed by the New York Times in 2015 and Obama’s FBI and DoJ were aware of the crime:


Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.


They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill. The FBI Uncovered Evidence that Russian Money Was Funneled to the Clinton Foundation


 Who was the Director of the FBI at that time?


Robert Mueller.


Who led the investigation into the Uranium One sale?


Rod Rosenstien.


Now these same co-conspirators are investigating Trump? Like Batman and Robin gone bad, the real-life dynamic duo must be giggling like the Joker at how their plans came together. Indeed, these Neros are fiddling while America burns.  Just yesterday, the Justice Department, missed the House Judiciary Committee’s deadline to hand over FBI documents on FISA and the Clinton Foundation.


What an extraordinary convergence of events.


At the same time the U.S. Government is being exposed as exceedingly corrupt at the highest levels, the Second Amendment is simultaneously under unprecedented attack.


Coincidence?


But what about the law? What about the rights of U.S. citizens? Well, obviously, those were only valid under the old, constitutional, plan.


The English philosopher, John Locke, once wrote:


The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.


– Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government, Ch. VI, sec. 57


Today we stand at the intersection of Liberty and Tyranny. We’ve seen this final fork in the roadcoming for some time. In truth, we’ve taken many decades to get here.


Corrupt government officials, greedy bankers, corporate pirates, and profiteering politicians have hijacked the nation and shredded the Constitution; but they are not the only reasons for America’s decline. They were, in fact, encouraged and facilitated by the decimation of American education; combined with manifest materialism and a pervading apathy in the hearts and minds of the people.


However, although the majority of the nation has abrogated their rights and responsibilities as free citizens, it doesn’t necessarily reflect negatively on the U.S. Constitution. On the contrary, it was great while it lasted.


From the times of the first songs, mankind has oscillated between civilization and savagery; from liberty to tyranny.


There are those who believe rights come from power because, after all, power passes laws. Moreover, in the example of the U.S. Government today, as well as third-world shitholes, power also breaks its own laws at will. It’s how James Comey decreed Hillary Clinton’s obstruction of justice as “extremely careless”. If only those who now stand convicted by Robert Mueller for process crimes could be so lucky.


Evidently, the government giveth at will; and the government taketh away.


The German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, believed the will to power was the main driving force in humans. He was influenced by his Deutschland predecessor, Arthur Schopenhauer, who embraced Wille zum Leben, or will to life; which is, essentially, self-preservation. Self-preservation occurs in both civilized and barbaric societies; yet by differing means and towards separate ends.


But where is power actually derived from? A divine source? A piece of paper? The people? The end of a gun?


If I said there were no real answers, per se, but only choices – would you agree? Either way, cognitive constructs, like human governments, require the acceptance of certain principles, or premises.


Therefore, let us consider this foundational question:


What is the essence of mankind that separates his existence from lesser forms of life?


Plants are alive but they have no emotions or cognitive function. Animals have emotions, limited cognitive abilities, and even emotional memory, which some define as a “soul”. But what divides Man from all other animals?


Is it not his awareness of the concept of Time? Isn’t that at the core of Man’s consciousness? Thinkabout that for a second (get it?). Without a perception of time, how could consciousness or free will exist? Without a comprehension of a beginning, middle, and end, or alpha and omega, there would be no means for logic, reason, and volition to occur. Whether the understanding of time was a divine spark from a deity’s fire, or it evolved like magic through the ages, it now allows mankind to cognitively travel beyond this instant. And, without that ability, the actuality of opposable thumbs would have provided zero benefit.


Now let’s mentally launch from this moment and consider mankind’s travails through history in relation to time and space. Assuming Einstein was correct in proving these as commutable; is not volition, then, indicative of direction?


From the times of Eden, consciousness and free will was manifested as an understanding of “who”, “what”, “where”, and “when”. In the case of Eden, we would recognize these, in order, as Adam and Eve, the apple, the garden, and a long time ago. The canvas of spacetime, or at least an understanding of it, is required for the latter three. Adam and Eve, then, accordingly, were symbolically, or literally, representative of volition and, therefore, direction.


Perhaps it is direction after all, by which the standards of quality, morality, and common senseare defined; and by degree, as good and bad, for better or worse.


If all that were true, then wouldn’t authority simply be a matter of selective, or mandated, preference? In other words, if time were a bus, we are either driving or riding, but we can choose this day what we will serve:


– Chaos / Anarchy – (Self / survival of the fittest / savagery)


– Constitutional Law – (U.S. Founding Fathers / Judeo & Greco-Roman canon)


– Theocracy / Islamic Law – (Unseen or deceased lawgivers / Allah / Muhammad)


– Martial Law / Dictatorship / Communism / Socialism – (Big Brother / the collective)


Of course there are other choices, including amalgamations by degree, but the point is this:  We are free to decide and if we don’t choose, then it will be chosen for us; in one direction, or another. For example, the first choice above, “chaos”, typically transmutes to “order” via the remaining choices (i.e. Ordo Ab Chao).


When considering authority, law, liberty, and free will, I am reminded of Victor Frankl’s book “Man’s Search for Meaning”. Therein, Frankl proposes three ways by which people find meaning in life (paraphrased here):


– Through one’s life work, creation and action; devotion to a cause


– Experiencing beauty and through loving others


– And, what Frankl calls the last resort of freedom (realized as he stood naked in an Austrian concentration camp):  Choosing one’s attitude towards any situation no matter how dire.


The first two involve making choices within the freedom to act. The third involves a choice even when one is physically helpless. Therefore, in EVERY circumstance, free will presupposes choice. Whether by commission, or omission, decisions are made. That is to say, some selections are conscious and others are made by default, or negation. Either way, we believe, we choose, we act. What we believe, therefore, serves as the foundation of our conduct.


Whether one supports Donald Trump, or not, there remains the possibility he could be the final gasp of a patriotic, liberty-loving minority in a dying Idiocracy of effete snowflakes who barely know how to unlock their car doors when the batteries die in their keyless remotes.


If Democracy fails, who will fight the Second American Revolution?  It’s a good question because, just as Dorothy was not in Kansas anymore, neither is it 1773 AD when the Sons of Liberty destroyed a shipment of tea in the Boston Harbor.  In our age of technological centralization, surveillance, drones, and advanced weaponry, our choices could be limited; if they aren’t already.


Even if things go allegorically south, and America descends into a Second Civil War, the post-industrial collapse will resemble neither the days of Lincoln and Lee, nor the ascendency of industrial civilization. In the new American collapse, EBT cards will revert from magic breadbaskets back into useless pieces of plastic faster than a fat kid chasing an ice cream truck. There will be rampant crime in both overpopulated and rural areas. Family will be pitted against family. Neighbor will rise against neighbor and battles will be waged over food and water.


Within the chaos, there will be voices screaming, in unison, for a return to order. This will, most likely, result in gang rule or little kings reigning over little fiefdoms. Or possibly, as many of the Christian persuasion are now predicting: A larger beast exiting stage left with a 666 tattoo on his forehead and a credit-card reader in his back pocket.


With the technological powers at the disposal of those in control, the key to centralizing power becomes easier than game of Whack-a-mole. Besides, when bellies become empty and smartphone batteries are depleted, who will fight? The Millennials who voted for Bernie Claus? Of course not. In a politically correct nation of participation trophy winners, most people will likely slip on any collar for a slice of bread and learn to love their new “necklace”.


What, then, will be the final destination? I suspect it will be global communism: a day’s labor for a day’s rations; also called slavery.


From the time Karl Marx first dipped his quill pen into the black, the attraction of Communism to its adherent’s has continually appeared like cancer from remission; across all ethnic and national boundaries. The common desire, it seems, is for Man to create heaven on Earth; a longing no doubt derived from empty vessels and clouds with no rain; from flawed and spiritually vacated people promising paradise from the vacuum in their own souls. In the end, however, the result is always the same: civilizational savagery, widespread violence, starvation, and death.


In another era, governmental checks and balances were the preferred choice. Why did America’s Founding Fathers prefer Constitutional Law over totalitarianism? Why didn’t we? These are questions for the ages.


The Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles J. Chaput, quoting the French author, Georges Bernanos, once wrote:


The world will be saved only by free men. We must make a world for free men. When trouble is looking for you it’s primarily a question of facing it, since it would be still more dangerous to turn your back on it.


There are laws, like gravity, that are hard to fight.  It’s like standing on high ground watching a flooded river and waiting for it to recede. Time flows forward and whatever happens next, virtue always points in the right direction; back to better. Some choices will be more valuable than gold and silver, or digital cash, in the days ahead. Some laws may be inevitable but, at the same time, some rights are inalienable.


Beware the patient ones. They’re out of time.