Go even further back, if this is all about the re-unification of Jerusalem in 1967 or the state of Israel in 1948, then why the Hevron massacre of 1929? The Haganah showed up in Hevron and told the residents they had knowledge that there would be an attack. Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and good buddy of Hitler was inciting the riots. The citizens of Hevron turned down the protection protesting that they had lived in peace with their Arab neighbors for centuries. True, they had. However, that had been without incitement. They were afraid if the Haganah showed up it would “inflame” the situation and make it worse. Well, we know how that turned out. The British, who had control neither intervened to stop it, and in some cases, assisted the arabs in the slaughter.
Some things don’t change. Or over time, they change and begin to look like they have in the past. Some of that could have been written today. Left wing mayors saying they won’t take help from the federal government to stop peaceful rioters from destroying businesses, hopes, dreams and lives of taxpaying citizens. But they do want the federal dollars. As it’s been said many times, we are our own first responders. I believe that one to be more true than “You don’t need a gun, you can just call the police” which has also been said many times. Mostly by the people trying to disarm U.S. and also defund the police.
As we watch our country being ripped by Marxists products of the massive amount of liberals in the public education system and lack of actual teachers some things are becoming painfully apparent. You can’t always call the police. In some of my other columns recently I linked stories of a terrified driver with her child who was being stopped by peaceful rioters and called 9-1-1 only to be told it was a city sanctioned event and the police wouldn’t respond and she could complain to the city council. Another woman drove through the peaceful rioters who were outraged. They felt entitled to take over the streets and disrupt the lives and traffic patterns of law abiding citizens.
What is also becoming clear is that the law-enforcement that was meant to be the main institution of maintaining order and keeping a civil society civil is becoming unable to do so. They are under attack, often physically, from the peaceful rioters and leftist politicians who, more often than not, side with the peaceful rioters rather than the law-abiding citizens who pay the taxes, own the businesses and are just trying to go about their lives. They often leave their own officers out to dry as well. Those that support the police may well be abandoned by the very police they are trying to help. Recently Michelle Malkin and others at a Back The Blue rally were attacked by the peaceful rioters from antifa and black lives matter in Denver. And I mean physically attacked. The police were present, and they immediately did…..nothing. They were under a stand down order from Police Chief Pazen. Just like in 2016 when conservatives were often attacked physically during rallies and prayer meetings and the leftist police chiefs told officers to stand down and let it happen. And being “Good Germans” they allowed law-abiding citizens to be attacked and beaten by mobs.
Kelly also spoke about the current New York policy requiring officers to stand down as a de-escalation measure, a policy with which he disagrees. He noted that the anti-crime units which the city once had were effective in reducing crime. Now, he says, more people are willing to challenge the police, which puts the most vulnerable faith group, the Jewish community, at high risk.
But as Yuri talked about in his video the left does eat their own useful idiots. And some of these people are seeing that happen. The McCloskey case in St. Louis is an example, the peaceful rioters who broke into their neighborhood and threatened them and their dog were attempting to find Demoncratic Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home so they could threaten her into resigning. Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best has been in the unenviable position of being Seattle’s Police Chief. And they have a liberal mayor and city council who have decided social justice is more important to them than law abiding tax payers. Chief Best sent this letter to residents.
Please also know that the City Council Ordinance 119805 Crowd Control Tool goes into effect this weekend on Sunday, July 26, 2020. This ordinance bans Seattle Police officers the use of less lethal tools, including pepper spray that is commonly used to disperse crowds that have turned violent. Simply put, the legislation gives officers NO ability to safely intercede to preserve property in the midst of a large, violent crowd.
It is important to bring to your attention that yesterday, I sent the City Council a letter ensuring them that as the Chief of Police, I have done my due diligence of informing them numerous times of the foreseeable impact of this ordinance on upcoming events. The letter is attached for your reference.
For these reasons, Seattle Police will have an adjusted deployment in response to any demonstrations this weekend – as I will never ask our officers to risk their personal safety to protect property without the tools to do so in a safe way.
It is becoming quite clear that there is a developing void and law-abiding citizens are being left out to dry.
And so citizens have been stepping into that void. It was armed citizens, her neighbors, that stopped antifa and blm from showing up at Chief Best’s house. This seems to be their newest tactic. Show up at politician and now officer’s homes.
Protestors on their way to harass the Seattle police chief @carmenbest at her home, encountered locals who were not in the mood to host protests in their neighborhood.
Protestor: “We are peaceful! You pointed a gun at my face!”
I thought the plaintive “ We are looking for a friend” was a bit over the top. Sure, a group of thugs goes hunting for the Police Chief’s house. I’m sure they are all besties.
I’d debate the “potential” as they had already defaced the Alamo Cenotaph.
One thing that kind of stands out is in many of these type of stories the media breathlessly (it seems to me) chronicles that the people that don’t want their town destroyed are white and they describe their clothing as if they are longing to be fashion reporters. Fashion reporters that have never been around military much and don’t really think too much of them.
So why do they need to be armed you ask? Portland: Women Defending Police Precinct Attacked by Antifa Terrorists Because two frail little old ladies, one of them on a walker attempted to stop the peaceful rioters from defacing the police precinct and one attempted to put out a fire that the rioters had started next to the building. They were both attacked and threatened. That’s what it looks like in a society where the weaker have no one to protect them, and the rule of law.
In my last column I discussed how Communist Russia planned to take over America, via information revealed by Yuri Bezmenov, KGB defector. But this Marxism has many tentacles, so much evil has come together that the pot has more than boiled over.
I listened to a podcast recently from Avi Abelow, Avi was a compatriot of Ari Fuld’s HY”D. In this episode he had Barry Shaw, Senior Associate for Public Diplomacy at the Israeli Institute for Strategic Studies as his guest. Barry was discussing the threat BLM poses to the America of the past. It’s a show well worth listening to.
I personally don’t know anyone that supports racism, thinks it’s a good idea or wants more of it. But since the election of Barry Sotero which was supposed to show that racism in America was being healed it’s gotten worse. Barry took the chance to foment racial division, the war on Police and the take over of large parts of the economy ie the cellphone industry and healthcare to name a couple. I support an end to racism, going all directions.
Of course, some forms are acceptable. From January 2020
I do think some are unaware of what Black Lives Matter really stands for, and what their goals are. Yes, black lives matter, ALL lives matter. Apparently that is now a rraaaccciiisst statement. But one of the things Barry Shaw brought out was the founding and founders of BLM.
“We actually do have an ideological frame,” Cullors said. “Myself and Alicia are particularly trained organizers — we are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories…”
You know, if statures of Lincoln and George Washington, Ulysses Grant and an abolitionist are being torn down, it’s a pretty good clue this has nothing to do with slavery. Remember just a few short years ago when people opined that the attacks on statues would soon extend past those of the Confederacy and the Confederate flag to others and they were told to take off their tin foil hats? Maybe they should get an apology, huh? It was never about that, it was about boiling frogs.
But Black Lives Matter web site still repeats the tired old lies, I guess they think everyone watches #FakeNews so they don’t know any better. From their about us page, I’m not linking to it.
BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer
Trayvon was beating a guy’s head against a sidewalk, most folks don’t take kindly to that.
From their what we believe page
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
Huh? What exactly does destroying the family unit do to promote “social justice” or help improve the lives of blacks?
Enraged by the death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of his killer, George Zimmerman, and inspired by the 31-day takeover of the Florida State Capitol by POWER U and the Dream Defenders, we took to the streets. A year later, we set out together on the Black Lives Matter Freedom Ride to Ferguson, in search of justice for Mike Brown and all of those who have been torn apart by state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism.
So, either their beliefs are delusions, or they just lie and don’t think folks will question them, because to do so is rrraaaccciiisttt. As previously stated, most folks don’t take kindly to having their heads bashed against sidewalks, and Mike Brown was trying to take an officer’s sidearm away from him. Hands up don’t shoot never happened. Wilson was cleared by Sotero’s justice department, and if they could have got him, they would have.
The number and race of people killed by the police
Then there is blaming only white people for slavery. Well, actually no. Prior to Anthony Johnson’s lawsuit in the British court system in 1655 (Before the War for Independence) didn’t matter if you came from Ireland or Africa, you served seven years and were set free with a little grub stake of some sort. But that changed with Anthony Johnson’s lawsuit. Anthony Johnson was a black former slave who had earned his freedom in just that way. He also had 4 white indentured servants, but there is no record after the first lawsuit if he also kept them as slaves. So, the first legal slave owner in America, was a black man. Nor was he the only one.
Krisanne Hall JD, has an excellent YouTube channel and this is part of this episodes lecture. “Black men and women were free before America was even free from Great Britain”.
The Democrat party is dead. This, this is the day it died.
The Democrat party lost to the leftists, who lost to the progressives who have now lost to the communist/marxist influence. It’s dead, stick a fork in it, the modern Democrat party is the party of Lenin, Marx and Stalin.
So, if all this really isn’t about “systemic racism” what is it about?
It’s about fundamentally changing America. While Sotero was in office, it became forbidden to say anything about Islam or Muslims. You were labeled Islamaphobic. This charge completely ignored the fact that people were upset and enraged at the actions of those committing terrorist acts. So many of them were muslims, and the cry of Allie’s Snack Bar became well known. Which, just by the by, does not mean “G-d is great” as the media dutifully repeated. It means “Allah is greater”, meaning greater than the whimpy G-d of the Jews and Christians.
Now it is forbidden to say anything about the rioting, looting, violence and destruction because that’s rrraaaccciiiiissst. Well, I have news, a bunch of those doing the rioting,looting, violence and destruction are white leftists. And I’m pretty sure the shop owners and people attacked and burned out of their homes don’t care about the color of the person lighting the match.
Something else people may not realize is BLM’s alliance with Hamas. Sort of explains their trip to Gaza a few years ago doesn’t it? I was surprised at the time, not realizing the depth of BLM’s knowledge of middle eastern affairs. But it wasn’t about that. I’m not sure how old this article is, but it’s well worth reading. Hamas and Black Lives Matter: A marriage made in hell
Bazian once publicly called for an “intifada” in America. In the Media he claimed he was speaking rhetorically, but what is happening now is in fact his “intifada” coming to fruition. The race riots in Ferguson, in Baltimore and Milwaukee and the shooting of police officers in Dallas and elsewhere in the country are finally importing the violence Israel faces every day. And it will probably only get worse because these events are not designed to promote discourse but rather to bring down the current society. In Israel, it is to end a Jewish state in the Arab-Muslim umma. In America, it is to gain control of our government to facilitate the attacks on Israel and eventually subvert the rule of law in the U.S.
Terrorism is a business for Hamas, and business is booming. An alliance with Black Lives Matter is creating an even bigger business.
According to Diana West, “here is more on Antifa/jihad connections from Edward Klein’s book, All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump. Note that in Portland they were chanting, “Allah-u Akbar, smash these Nazi scums.”….
On numerous occasions, Antifa has openly threatened to massacre American patriots and even President Trump. This group is one of Obama’s legacies, created to inflict more pain on the American people. “Eight years of Obama’s leadership has left America demonstrably weaker and more divided. Rather than the promised “healing”—racial and other—the Obama era frayed the ties that bind us.”
Yes, yes I’d say it does provide a cover for jihad.
It started with George Zimmerman, self-defense became a crime to be tried in the court of public opinion, and considering the number of people who listen to #FakeNews and believe it, that’s a big pool.
Then came the jihadi attacks and charges of Islamaphobia. Now the attacks on the police, businesses and people bring charges of racism when people (of any color) complain.
McClosky said one of the militants pulled out a loaded pistol magazine and clicked them together and said ‘you’re next.’
“We were threatened with our lives, threatened with a house being burned down, my office building being burned down, even our dog’s life being threatened. It was, it was about as bad as it can get,” McCloskey said.
McCloskey believes that the only thing that stopped the crowd from approaching his home was his rifle.
Emphasis mine. The couple has now been doxxed. Irony of ironies, he’s an attorney who has represented alleged victims of police brutality. The mob didn’t care. Because it’s not about police brutality either.
They couple that protected their dog, their home and their lives by arming up against the “peaceful” BLM mob may now face charges. Did you catch earlier where I said this happened in St. Louis? Well, the prosecutor in that town is the corrupt Kim Gardner who apparently hasn’t been brought up on charges yet, but she still may be over her handling of the case against the former Governor. The case with former Gov Eric Greitens was covered here.
So for those elected officials that are all in favor of de-funding the police, watching elitism is an interesting thing isn’t it? To be part of the elitist privileged. You know who avails themselves of it? The communist/marxists.
A police report obtained by DailyMail.com showed that Chiara was among those arrested for refusing to move off the road and throwing objects at NYPD officers.
“Peacefully” mayor? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
“This security service is intended to be temporary and bridge to other security measures implemented by council members themselves,” city spokeswoman Sarah McKenzie said Monday.
McKenzie said the city has spent $63,000 over the past three weeks for security service for three council members. She said contracts for less than $175,000 typically do not need public approval from council, and they do not expect these expenses to surpass that threshold.
For the past 11 days, each of 16 city council members — with the lone exception of Councilman Alan Domb — have had three city detectives working 8 hour shifts every 24 hours to provide them with private security. Since May 30th, some 48 plainclothes detectives were paid to sit in unmarked police cars outside the homes of City Council members. That’s instead of going out to investigate crimes, or obtain search warrants and arrest warrants. The estimated cost of the City Council security detail: about $178,000 without including the costs of overtime….
“They think Donald Trump is going to reimburse the city because they declared an emergency,” one cop cracked. “What a f*cking joke.”
Especially when you consider that every chance he gets, Mayor Jim “Sanctuary City” Kenney does nothing but trash Trump.
Except it won’t be President Trump, it will be us, U.S. the people who have been hit hard with unemployment, loss of business first due to the Wuhan Flu and then due to the riots. I object to ANY federal money being spent to bail out these lame brains. They caused the problem with their policies and decisions, they can find their own solutions. It’s not our job to fix their mess. Elections have consequences.
So what will the police be replaced with? I mentioned this briefly in Russian Collusion, but since Minneapolis is Illan Omar country, one option may be “community policing”. After all, it’s already in place in NYC. Unlike the Jewish and Asian groups that worked with the police on setting up their community patrol, the muslim group who had cars marked just like the NYPD and uniforms made to look like the NYPD did not work with the NYPD.
When the actual police are scared to do their job, or their hands are tied by elected officials how do people think this is going to turn out? Look at a few of the linked columns above and you will know. When the poor officer who is being sacrificed to the whims of the mob in Atlanta is tried, what will be the result? Because no matter the outcome, there will be riots, burning and looting. In other words, more “peaceful protests”. At some point officers are going to lay down their badge and say enough, I’m going to take care of my family and that’s it.
What is it the mob wants? For us to be so cowed we can no longer express opinions, we can no longer have debates, it will be their way……or else. We are living in an American Intifada.
No, not that Russian Collusion. But there certainly has been some Russian collusion going on for a while, a good long while. As horse trainer Pat Parelli says “Prior proper preparation prevent pee poor performance.” And the KGB (because this goes back to then) has done a good job of it.
Back in another lifetime, back before the government forgot about the 1st Amendment, specifically the part that says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I used to go to Beit Knesset on Shabbat. It was wonderful, I learned things, prayed with the others and there was reading from the Torah and then Rabbi would give a talk. Afterwards we usually had Kiddush (meaning the light meal after morning prayers). We would visit and eat, and I would learn, I loved that. One of the people that was very interesting to visit with was a gentleman from Russia. He is a good person, you can tell this because he is a good parent to his fur children, and, he is a rock solid second amendment supporter, he is also a strong conservative. Come to think of it, one of my favorite ladies from Hebrew school is from the Ukraine, and she is a solid conservative, and another lady I know from Russia is a solid conservative, and my cousin’s brother-in-law is from Russia and he is a strong Second Amendment supporter and a conservative. Wait, I think I’m starting to see a pattern here!! All these people that have lived under actual Communism want nothing to do with it, and don’t seem to believe the pablum the left spews out! Huh, funny that eh?
So sometime last year, when life was what life used to be like, we were sitting around eating and he was telling me about this video, from Yuri Bezmenov, a former KGB propaganda agent that had defected to the US. The interview was from the 1984. Quite awhile ago, but what he said has come to pass. My buddy sent me the link to a video, I watched it. After I picked my jaw up, I knew there was a column there, and now is the time for that column. I will tell you the link to the video he originally sent me is gone. YouTube has taken it down, it violated the community standards. I think that means it told the truth. Because they are now shutting down anyone who says anything they don’t like, with an iron fist so to speak. CNN and Now NBC Are Colluding with Tech Giants to Cut Out Conservative Competition This is a shorter snippet from the original video interview on the “useful idiots” his term, not mine. But I agree with him.
If you want to watch the whole video my friend sent, I think this is the same one.
But, in the event those are gone by the time you see this column, I’ll hit the points that Yuri makes.
There were two type of people, those that would play ball with the communists and those that wouldn’t. Those that would were promoted into positions of power and influence. Those that wouldn’t were character assassinated and sometimes just assassinated.
The communists had a large army of contact tracers,data collectors spies. And they had information on everyone, who they hung out with, where they could be found, if they were favorable to the USA, their political beliefs. It’s how the communists were able to wipe out certain people in villages in Viet Nam within hours of coming into the village. Their spies had done their homework for them. But come revolution time, those are the people that will be executed. Why? Because they know too much. And when the useful idiots see that communism doesn’t play out as advertised, they become bitter enemies of it. If they live.
His KGB instructors told him to never bother with leftists. To avoid those political prostitutes, to aim higher: mainstream media, filthy rich movie producers, academic circles, people who can look you in the eye and lie. People who have no moral principles. He then makes the point that our leftists, the professors, civil rights people that believe in the lies of socialism and communism are instrumental in the process of subversion, only to destabilize the nation. They are then offended when they don’t come to power. Thus, useful idiots.
There are no grassroots revolutions, every revolution is the result of a highly organized professionals.
Ideological subversion. You can see it with your own eyes, nothing to do with espionage. The main emphasis on the KGB is slow process of ideological subversion or active measures, psychological warfare. It involves changing the perception of reality. No one is able, despite an abundance of information to come to a sensible conclusion about defending themselves, their families and their community and their country.
Stage 1: Demoralization, educate one generation of students in the country that you want to influence. So for the US, it’s educate one generation of students in Marxist ideology. And I don’t mean Groucho. He says it’s been pumped into the soft heads of American students for 3 generations without any counter-balancing education in American values and patriotism. Dropouts and half baked intellectuals from the 60s are now politicians and teachers influencing others, you can not change their minds despite plenty of information. You can not get rid of them and it will take 20-50 years to educate a group of pro-American students, common sense people. And when those people see what Marxist ideology looks like in real life, they won’t be allowed to speak out. Because with communism, no dissent is allowed. Sort of like the current cancel culture and the increasing attempts to shut down conservative voices on YouTube, the internet and TV. No opposing voices allowed. They will be squashed. The demoralization process in the US is completed (and this was in 1984). They don’t believe facts they are shown.
Stage 2: Destabilization, the subverter doesn’t care about your ideas anymore. It only takes 2-5 years to destabilize a nation. What matters is economy, foreign relations and defense systems.
Stage 3: Crisis, it can take only six weeks to bring a country to crisis.
Stage 4: Normalization, this is after a violent change in power structure and economy. This is a cynical Soviet expression, like when the tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia. The commander said now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalized. This is what will happen in the US if we allow the schmucks to bring the US and us, to crisis. To promise people all kind of goodies and the paradise on earth. It will destabilize our economy, and eliminate our free market and put a big glob of government in Washington D.C. with benevolent dictators; he gave the example of Walter Mondale. Told you it was old. He says the United States is in a war, a war against the foundations of this Leninist/Marxist system. The world communist system. There will be nowhere for Americans to defect as he did. This is the last country of freedom. Like some people’s idea of what is acceptable in the new Covid world’s “new normal” in communism “normalization” stinks.
His solution? To make a real national effort to educate people in the real spirit of patriotism. To explain the real danger of the socialist/communist welfare state. If we fail to do that, nothing can help the United States. We have to stop aiding communism.
Again, that was from 1984. How is this playing out now, today? We see what he was talking about. And it’s been going on a long time, since the early 1900s. Former Representative Curtis Bowers did a documentary called Agenda: Grinding America Down that gives you the tentacles of it.
I ran across a couple of interesting posts from ex-pats living in different parts of the world. I’ll just give the last bit of the first one.
Because the truth is so utterly dispiriting. Most of us who have actually worked there, who have seen the world, seen Man in all his squabbling, raping, squandering, polluting, destructive, ROUTINE-GENOCIDAL abomination, quietly despair. We have a heart. We are sad for those people. For the G*d AWFUL conditions they live in. We have seen things. Burned and tortured bodies. Hideously staring faces, frozen in death. Their eyes, yet, communicating soul chilling terror.
Years later, we still have the dreams.
But you know something? We are also sad for YOU.
Because YOU are wildly misled by your Media, misled by your shallow, self serving, Jackass politicians, misled by your own intrinsic goodness. Your naivety.
Your good intentions and sense of charity, fair play, will haunt your descendants for generations. Or, worse. For-ever. It makes us despair that we cannot find the proper words to communicate to you that you must, you MUST, jealously, fiercely, without respite, GUARD your country, your ancestral homelands, your culture and your people. Against the invaders, and those who ceaselessly conspire for Open Borders, Diversity, and a laughable, fictitious, non-existent, poppycock, Multi-cultural Nirvana.
The other is from Michael Yon (he’s EXPAT in Thailand). This one I’m giving you the whole thing, then think about what Yuri said.
Possible Insurgency Starting in United States: I have to be there myself to judge, but watching 24/7 from afar this looks like it might be more than protests
There is a significant difference between protests, civil unrest, general civil unrest, insurgency, and civil war.
I’ve been watching, reading and talking with people almost every waking our since this began.
This began as protests.
Some differences:
Protests are normal background noise in any healthy society. Something is always wrong and needs attention. Often the best way to get attention is protest. Loads of open and non-violent protests can be a sign of a HEALTHY country.
Protests generally (but not always) are small in relation to the number of people in the population. For instance, if only school teachers come out about pay in Arkansas, that is very local to Arkansas with very specific demographic. Fix the problem they go home happy, or at least reasonably satisfied. Normal. Healthy. Lots of protests, again, can be a good thing, if sometimes annoying. (Which they need to be sometimes.)
Vital: in protests — the vast majority of people still see the government as legitimate. They do not want to overthrow the government, or at least are not trying to.
Occasionally there are massive protests but, again, they will be about something specific and usually die or peter out quickly.
Civil Unrest — most media just toss this term around, but among a tiny number of people it actually means something beyond looting. In civil unrest, a relatively large number of people protest in some way, violent or not. There may even be lethal terrorism as with from the terrorist groups Black Lives Matter and Antifa. (Both are communist, by the way, and communists normally use terrorism).
In Civil Unrest — the motivations are far deeper than something simple like teacher pay. Could be anger over high crime, poor economy, police abuse. In Civil Unrest, most of those involved still see the government as legitimate. (I would underline that last sentence if I could.)
In Civil Unrest, the restive people still might be limited to one or a few groups. More than something simple like teachers, but something greater like poor people. Or a million people being tossed off their land. Or a racial group that feels downtrodden or senses weakness in a wealthy other group and wants to take that wealth. Civil unrest comes in endless variations. No two are the same.
But again, relatively speaking, the people who are taking action are not a huge portion of the population. For argument sake, say 10%. Not a huge part of the population but plenty to make a big fight.
In Civil Unrest, they still are NOT trying to overthrow the government.
General Civil Unrest (GCU) normally brings a large portion AND cross-section of the population. GENERAL meaning a large cross-section who might also have many grievances. Economy. Crime. Police abuse. Pollution. Name it. Basically, if you reach this point…you got serious problems.
BUT, in GCU, they still are not necessarily trying to overthrow the government, or change the entire system. GCU can be peaceful, or massively deadly.
Insurgency — at this point, someone is making an honest go at either overthrowing the government but keeping the system, or completely swapping out the operating system, and the former operators. Basically, leaders in exile or swinging from lampposts.
I am greatly simplifying. This could go for hours. Bottom line: with Insurgency, there is a credible threat beyond mere terrorism. (There can be terrorism without insurgency, and there are peaceful insurgencies, too. In USA, highly doubt it would be peaceful.)
Today, there clearly are many Americans protesting who see the government as legitimate and just want limited but important changes.
There are others, however, who clearly are staking turf such as the terrorist group BLM who is right now painting roads and so forth in DC, and doing a lot more than occupy. They have politicians on their side who, for instance, just evicted Utah National Guard and let the terrorists move in.
They are making a power play and this is very delicate.
Some military officers appear to be siding with BLM. They should be fired on the spot. Any US military officer who openly sides with a terrorist organization during such a critical time must be fired. On the spot. No matter the consequences. Consequences of not firing are far worse.
The risk of course includes race war within the ranks, or rebellion (which clearly has happened already) by officers.
Must. Fire. Benedict. Arnold.
With his public video, General Charles ‘CQ’ Brown just publicly challenged the President. That was a power play. An, “I dare you to fire me I am a black General.”
Fire Brown now. If not, cancer within the ranks can explode.
Insurgencies are far, far different than protests. Protests are like a headache. Two to aspirin, make an agreement, call me in the morning.
Insurgency…those typically include elements of civil war. IF we enter into a profound insurgency, chances of various civil wars unfolding immediately are very high. Like 99%. Chance of profound insurgency starting from here? Coin flip. But if we get there, it’s game on.
Likely, at some point, if we enter into profound insurgency and then into civil wars, I would expect that some journalists and politicians would start being assassinated as per banana republic revolutionary style.
There is still ample opportunity to head this off. You know…like the pandemic.
For starters, fire everyone military officer who openly rebels. Immediately. We are right on the edge but not on fire yet.
Hey, do you remember all those warnings I gave in Iraq, then Afghanistan, and other countries, and then warned about this pandemic and economic difficulties back in January, and was saying clearly in January to stop incoming flights?
I am saying it here, loud and clear. Appears that we are moving into a sponsored insurgency. BLM and ANTIFA are two of the gloves and must be vigorously targeted.
Touchy, right? I get it. Trust me…spent years in many conflicts. I know exactly how touchy this is. This is like bomb squad working on a giant ticking bomb while under sniper fire.
Fire those officers right now. Anyone who sides with BLM or ANFITA out the door.
If this continues for one more week, invoke the Insurrection Act.
Remember, only a relatively small percentage of the population is fighting now. If you start getting millions of whites, hispanics, and asians fighting…this will be Iraq 10x and could result in a huge slaughter of blacks.
STOP IT NOW.
Be prepared to defend yourself. The police and government cannot even defend themselves. You are on your own. Remember — this pandemic is real. Stock up on food and all other essentials.
These are not peaceful protests, I don’t care what Fredo Cuomo says. Antifa is training to hurt people.
We are at a defining moment in America’s history. The covid scam (IMHO) shut down and destabilized the economy, and now the riots over a man who held a gun to a pregnant woman’s belly. No, I am not standing up for the police officer that knelt on George Floyd’s neck, but I don’t believe police departments are filled with racists either as the mainstream media would have you believe. I actually don’t even really think this is about police that much at all. I think it’s about removing the thin blue line that is holding back stage 4. Do I believe there are bad cops? Of course! There are bad doctors and bad plumbers as well. There is a bad Fex-Ex driver that delivered someone else’s package to me today. But I think by and large, they are good decent people. Without the thin blue line we descend into the stage 4 that Yuri talked about. Not to mention what the police will be replaced with. If you are curious I’ve got a interesting radio show for you. It’s Barry Shaw on the Tamar Yonah show.
The hypocrisy of the left is amazing. While they are free to shout threats most vile, to attack elderly people, set buildings on fire, loot vandalize and destroy people lives and livelihoods has there been one word, just one from the global warming alarmists? No? No Greta Thunberg rising up to stop the arsonists waving a little shovel to put out the fires, her tiny nostrils flaring screaming “How DARE you”! No AOC screaming at the rioters “You’ve just cost us a year off our remaining 10 years with these carbon emissions? This is why you don’t make laws according to the whims of spoiled immature children. Then there is communist Comrade de Blasio Bill de Blasio Responds to Massive ‘Black Trans Lives Matter’ Protest in Brooklyn by Welding Gates Shut at Biggest Park in Jewish Community That’ll fix it! And his consistent policy on Wuhan flu? COVID-19 Tracers In NYC Ordered Not Ask Those Who Test Positive If They Attended Protests
It has become so customary to appease the out of control bullies on the left. If anyone dares to say anything in favor of the police that when Egard Watches put out a pro-law enforcement video, YouTube restricted it. In fact the left is in full on pack mentality mode. Two college professors are under attack, one for stating a fact the left didn’t like. And now they are trying to get him fired. This is the result of years of “participation trophies”. Kids didn’t have to do anything to achieve, they got a trophy anyway. No reason to try to be the best, everyone is equal because we don’t want to damage anyone’s self esteem so no winners and losers. They are the result of teachers that didn’t teach but rather indoctrinated them to be the useful idiots. Man arrested for vandalizing Christopher Columbus statue — He is a social studies teacher These mobs are violent, and vicious. Far left mayors who have been so supportive of both groups rioting have had a very different response when it was their house that was vandalized and their neighborhood that saw marchers. Far Left WA Mayor Who ‘Took a Knee’ with Black Lives Matter Thugs Gets Home Vandalized During George Floyd Riots, Calls it “Domestic Terrorism” and New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell Cheers Black Lives Matter… Except When They’re Outside Her House. Don’t worry Mayor LaToya, I’m kind of thinking the way things are going New Orleans may not be seeing a whole lot of tourism. I mean who would want to take a chance on going to your city and spending money there right now? Not that there will be much in the way of goods available anyway.
You know the saying “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes”? Well, in the real world, not the alternate universe of the left which they think revolves around them, there are consequences. There are consequences to elections. If your business has burned and you are under siege by the mob and you voted Democrat, I’m sorry, but what did you expect? Democrats never side with the law abiding citizen just trying to make a living and take care of their family. That’s not who they are and not what they stand for.
If you are really wishing you had a firearm or could get one to defend your family and you voted for Democrats, I’m sorry, but what did you expect? Even if your local Democrat said “Oh I duck hunt every year” you should know that is not what the Second Amendment is about. You should also know that if that politician is a Democrat he will have to go with the party platform, which is civilian disarmament. Have you noticed, the party that has been trying to render citizens defenseless for years is now the party trying to defund the police? The party that stands with rioters and looters is the one that wants to remove the impediment to destruction. Yes, elections have consequences. As do the actions by those elected officials in the real world. Truck Drivers Say They Won’t Deliver To Cities with Defunded Police Departments Guess it’s a good thing people horded all that toilet paper, huh?
So back to the good Egard watch company video. Unless YouTube has removed it, I’ll close with this thought, if we don’t stand up for the decent people in law enforcement, all we will be left with are those that want the job for the power it provides or as Barry Shaw talked about in Tamar’s show, the new version of the brown shirts. Barry Sotero’s national police force. And we aren’t going to like it. Communists have their play book down and have been putting their plan into action for years, decision time.
During an interview with Yahoo News, a sports journalist asked Drew Brees his opinion on football players kneeling during the National Anthem. Brees declared love and support for teammates and their fight for racial equality and justice. However, he could never agree with anyone “disrespecting” the flag during the National Anthem. He cited the heroic World War II records of his grandfathers and pays homage to them during the Anthem. Who could find fault with that? Nevertheless, following the interview, Brees’ black teammates and black professional athletes in other sports attacked and savaged him. They called him ignorant, a racist, and next the profanity and threats flew. Brees, an openly devout Christian, then apologized for his insensitive remarks in defense of patriotism and America. He apologized to teammates, the city of New Orleans, the NFL, and the black community at large. Brees rejected President Trump’s support when he came to the QBs defense. Brees now claims it is not about the flag afterall.1
Legos is pulling its police station and related game sets from the market as if policemen and women who protect and defend the weak, vulnerable, and defenseless are now evil and unacceptable. Taboo. A&E is pulling its most popular television show, Live PD, from the airwaves again, as if anything to do with the police is dirty, filthy, intolerably offensive. This they do in solidarity with an extremist group promoting assassination of police officers, riots and looting, anarchy, overturning Western Society and its Judeo-Christian foundations. This group is Black Lives Matter (BLM). Legos, A&E, and many other corporations are choosing sides against the folks behind the badge who willingly lay their lives on the line every day for their fellow Americans.
Where are the corporate chieftains, business leaders, elected officials, pastors, priests, rabbis, school boards, principals, teachers, and sports figures willing to stand for the truth? What is that truth? Contrary to what BLM claims on its webpage, the white race is not engaged in a war of genocide, with the police its instrument of execution, to exterminate the black race. This is what they preach and believe. Who is pointing this out?
What are you saying Drew, police officers, who never ask what the job pays or count the risks, but only how to protect Americans from the ravenous wolves that prey on them, are the bad guys? Men and women who, instead of being home with their families for birthdays, Thanksgiving, and Christmas, who work long hours, weekends, nights, in the heat, cold, rain, and snow, with little sleep and no food to make streets safe for you deserve no respect? That our brothers and sisters killed in the line of duty, whose names are quickly forgotten or never known, deserve no respect? That our family members who fought in wars and served in the military no longer deserve respect? What have millionaires like you done in comparison to make America a better and safer place, throw a piece of leather to other millionaires on Sundays? Think of the little kids who wear your jersey and hang your poster on their bedroom walls. You are telling them to side with those who spit on the flag and the men and women who sacrifice so much to keep their little lives safe.
Today, now more than ever, leaders like you should be standing up for America but instead abdicate that responsibility. Is it because you have too much to lose, fame, fortune, and career? Or, do you hope someone else will take your place sparing you from putting it on the line? When you count the cost and say no, you abandon us behind enemy lines. When you surrender without a fight, the time comes when there is nothing left for which to fight.
Black as well as white have died for the flag. In apologizing for your patriotism, you surrender that flag to those who hate all for which it stands. Once you kneel before its enemies, as you have, that is where they will keep you. You must continue kneeling to prove you are not a racist but no proof will ever be enough. Do you believe they respect you for turning your back on devoutly held beliefs? In capitulating, you have lost your dignity, respect, and moral authority to speak for the truth. Kids long for adults who are men and women of character possessing the strength of their convictions. Adults who never waver regardless of how sharp the arrows fired at them. You cannot get back what you surrender.
Yes, there is a price for standing your ground. We average Americans who stand up for the truth pay it every day in our work and in our lives. This country is worth it. How sad, in spite of all the blessings playing in the NFL, for you this nation does not merit the same affection. The choices we make when those choices are difficult define who and what we are. You have made your choice.
The Wuhan Flu madness continues. But I’m seeing additional deterioration of our society I think. You might want to grab a cup of coffee for this one.
We are in the middle days of Pesach, the festival we celebrate and re-live being taken out of slavery and bondage by the strong arm of G-d. We didn’t know the land we were going to live in, we didn’t know how we were going to get there and we had been living as slaves for a few hundred years so living as a free and just society was all new. Self-governance? What’s that? But we had G-d and his appointed leaders, so we had the courage and faith to leave Egypt מצרים . The word narrow is צרים see how similar they look? And if you put a Mem מ in front of it that means “from”. So I guess you could say we left “from narrows”, slavery.
Plagues, and seclusion, sounding familiar?
But what I am seeing that is totally new, to me at least, is the astonishing amount of fear and blatant attempts of people to seize power. The power-crazed Governor of Michigan Gretchen Whitmer has banned the sale of baby car seats, vegetable seeds, certain things in Home Depot are ok, others aren’t. Travel between residences is no longer allowed, so forget taking food to elderly neighbors or family that can’t get out. She has a whole host of other demands while the sale of pot and alcohol are still essential and fine. All at Queen Gretchen’s whim. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear ordered license plate numbers to be collected on christians who attended church in their cars, parked a distance apart and the service was over a loud speaker. Each would be getting a $500 fine, as would the pastor. Unbelievable. Oh wait, they are both Demoncrats, so I guess not.
I’m also increasingly disturbed by some of the messages I see on facebook. One friend posted a article that the Gov of Texas is considering reopening the state, and she asked for thoughts. Two people responded how foolish, and another it was a big mistake. Everyone just needed to stay home. Anyone that didn’t was selfish and wanted people to die. Another friend re-posted and excellent opinion piece about what this Wuhan Flu is doing to our liberty. Someone commented under it as a doctor he should know better about viruses. Huh, I think he does, but I wonder about her medical training /snark. Yet another friend shared a photo that a friend of hers had put on a page. It was a handwritten note someone had left on her Mother’s door. Apparently family had dropped off some food for the woman for Easter. The nasty-gram read something about no family, no visitors, no people were allowed due to the coronavirus quarantine orders, and that next time they would call the police. Wow. Well, some places make it very easy. I used to hear people say “Oh we would never had called the police and informed on the Jews during the holocaust”. Got news, there are those that would that are alive and well and still dialing. Yep, you too can easily be a socialist.
We can get into the why in a bit. Because “why” and “motives” matter.
Let’s look at the number of Wuhan Flu deaths, and how they are calculated and how they are presented. You like charts? I like charts especially when they are easy to understand and make a good points.
But according to comments I read, if we don’t stay shut down as a country and everyone stay sequestered in their homes we are selfish fools exposing the rest of the world to our death wish. I did see a interesting graphic on facebook, it read “Quarantine is when you lock sick people away. When you lock healthy people away it’s tyranny”.
Data indicates there no material differences in fatalities between the three countries leading the casual observer to question why is the US killing its economy?
The US continues to prevent nearly all commerce from occurring to combat the China coronavirus. Many other countries are following suit. But some countries like Sweden and Brazil are keeping their countries open for business.
Data shows that the fatalities related to the coronavirus in these countries are very similar to those in the US.
In fact there is a twitter thread #FilmYourHospital going. It’s people driving by their local hospitals showing empty parking lots, some with those tent cities outside for the overflow of sick people, they too are empty. Some of the people filming the empty tents were told they had to leave and weren’t allowed to film. There are stories of healthcare workers being sent home, laid off and told not to report to work, they are just “on-call”. Yep, in the midst of this healthcare crisis healthcare workers are going without hours, which means without pay.
I heard a guest on the Ben Shapiro show saying how if/when we ever had another pandemic again we needed to have one policy across the US, none of this patchwork stuff of each state doing what they want. That there needs to be one policy and the CDC needs to be in charge. I’m thinking “OH HELL NO”. But then I’d already been gathering sources for this column.
Then there is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who was involved in the creation of Obamacare, who says this needs to go on another 18 months.
UNLESS there is a vaccine. Did you catch that? The MUST be a vaccine. Remember when I talked about the “why” of things matter? The motive matters. And here we go.
In concert with the ramp-up in death statistics, the government-steered vaccination industry has run an elaborate bureaucracy designed to hype vaccine use, as seen in a slide show presentation last April by Glen Nowak, the CDC’s spokesman for the National Immunization Program, to the American Medical Association. Here is the “Recipe that fosters influenza vaccine interest and demand,” in the truncated language that appears on his slides: “Medical experts and public health authorities [should] publicly (e.g. via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes) – and urge influenza vaccination.” This “recipe,” the slide show indicated, would result in “A. Significant media interest and attention [and] B. Framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behaviour (e.g. as ‘very severe,’ ‘more severe than last or past years,’ ‘deadly’).” Other aspects of the CDC’s “Seven-Step Recipe for Generating Interest in, and Demand for, Flu (or any other) Vaccination” includes “Continued reports (e.g., from health officials and media) that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people – helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.” and “Visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce).”
That is from 2004, the CDC has been at this for awhile. The whole thing is worth reading.
Flu results in “about 250,000 to 500,000 yearly deaths” worldwide, Wikipedia tells us. “The typical estimate is 36,000 [deaths] a year in the United States,” reports NBC, citing the Centers for Disease Control. “Somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 Canadians a year die of influenza and its related complications, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada,” the Globe and Mail says, adding that “Those numbers are controversial because they are estimates.”
snippety snip snip
According to the National Vital Statistics System in the U.S., for example, annual flu deaths in 2010 amounted to just 500 per year — fewer than deaths from ulcers (2,977), hernias (1,832) and pregnancy and childbirth (825), and a far cry from the big killers such as heart disease (597,689) and cancers (574,743). The story is similar in Canada, where unlikely killers likewise dwarf Statistics Canada’s count of flu deaths.
Even that 500 figure for the U.S. could be too high, according to analyses in authoritative journals such as the American Journal of Public Health and the British Medical Journal. Only about 15-20 per cent of people who come down with flu-like symptoms have the influenza virus — the other 80-85 per cent actually caught rhinovirus or other germs that are indistinguishable from the true flu without laboratory tests, which are rarely done. In 2001, a year in which death certificates listed 257 Americans as having died of flu, only 18 were positively identified as true flus. The other 239 were simply assumed to be flus and most likely had few true flus among them.
So why?
The CDC’s decision to play up flu deaths dates back a decade, when it realized the public wasn’t following its advice on the flu vaccine. During the 2003 flu season “the manufacturers were telling us that they weren’t receiving a lot of orders for vaccine,”Dr. Glen Nowak, associate director for communications at CDC’s National Immunization Program, told National Public Radio. “It really did look like we needed to do something to encourage people to get a flu shot.”
The implication is this: when a new vaccine is invented then mass produced, it will not necessarily be mandatory, but everything else in your life, such as work, school, community, and sociality, will all become privileges granted by the state under the condition that you take the new vaccine.
Promising to eradicate Polio with $1.2 billion, Gates took control of India’s National Advisory Board (NAB) and mandated 50 polio vaccines (up from 5) to every child before age 5. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating vaccine-strain polio epidemic that paralyzed 496,000 children between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian Government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and evicted Gates and his cronies from the NAB. Polio paralysis rates dropped precipitously. In 2017, the World Health Organization reluctantly admitted that the global polio explosion is predominantly vaccine strain, meaning it is coming from Gates’ Vaccine Program. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, the Philippines, and Afghanistan are all linked to Gates’ vaccines. By 2018, ¾ of global polio cases were from Gates’ vaccines.
In 2014, the #GatesFoundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by GSK and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.
In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a trial of a GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,049 children.
During Gates 2002 MenAfriVac Campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Between 50-500 children developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for drug makers”
Nelson Mandela’s former Senior Economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philantropic practices as “ruthless” and “immoral”.
In 2010, Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO promising to reduce population, in part, through new vaccines. A month later Gates told a Ted Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population”. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a phony “tetanus” vaccine campaign.
Independent labs found the sterility formula in every vaccine tested.
After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade.
Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines.
A 2017 study (Morgensen et.Al.2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP is killing more African than the disease it pretends to prevent. Vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of unvaccinated children.
Gates and the WHO refused to recall the lethal vaccine which WHO forces upon millions of African children annually.
Some might even say his track record is criminal. Go back to the first link on Gates thinking vaccines are extremely important and look at the financial conflicts of interest. The stock he owns in pharmaceutical companies. Also interesting is
Perhaps a gold star? We can’t travel, work, see a doctor or shop without it?
But hey, Bill Gates has that covered too, no need for a gold star. That’s so 1940s. Nope, digital implants.
“Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it,” the Microsoft founder had speculated.
Snippty snip snip
However, as outlined in a December 2019 Scientific American article, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded Massachusetts Institute of Technology research that suggested embedding vaccine records “directly into the skin” of children: “Along with the vaccine, a child would be injected with a bit of dye that is invisible to the naked eye but easily seen with a special cell-phone filter, combined with an app that shines near-infrared light onto the skin. The dye would be expected to last up to five years, according to tests on pig and rat skin and human skin in a dish.”
Through his foundation, Gates has invested billions of dollars in vaccines.
Attorney General Bill Barr is skeptical of Gates’ idea to tag people with these mark-of-the-beast implants. He said he is concerned about “the tracking of people and so forth, generally, especially going forward over a long period of time.” Barr also said that he is “very concerned about the slippery slope in terms of continuing encroachments on personal liberty.”
However, Barr said he did feel like “appropriate, reasonable steps are fine.” This leaves the door open for some sort of government action in order to enforce vaccine compliance.
If you want to know even more about this, there is a doctor, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai who is running for the Senate in Massachusetts and he has been weighing in on the Wuhan flu debacle. He’s a very bright man, 4 degrees from MIT. Here’s a youtube, he talks about Wuhan Flu, your immune system and the massive fraud being foisted upon us.
So, who or W.H.O. gets to decide what is reasonable and appropriate? The government? The panicked people on facebook, the crazed neighbors, the media, vaccine despot Gates? There are those that would clamor for a vaccine to be stuck in everything that moves right now. They have no idea of Gates record of “successful” vaccines. Remember, he wants to reduce the population. They would say the same things about being vaccinated as they do the lock down. If you don’t you’re selfish and want people to die. They will “demand” the government take action.
Look, I am not saying I’m against vaccines. That’s not what this is about. If you want to get a vaccination I’m all for it, you can take every vaccination out there. I won’t say a word. This is about forced vaccinations. And since some employers already do this I’m pretty sure this could go that route as well. With the added bit about governmental control and the vaccine despot’s lousy record added in. This is about being able to make free choices of what goes in your body, not what is forced in your body by the government or fear crazed people deceived by a willing media. I guess with all those people out of work due to the lock down, or those that will be looking for work because their business went under it will be easy. Potential employers will just say something along the lines of “I’m sorry, but governmental regulations state a certain percentage of our staff have to be vaccinated, so you must have the new Gates/Fauci vaccine for us to hire you”.
But we got scared
10 Pharaoh drew near, and the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and behold! the Egyptians were advancing after them. They were very frightened, and the children of Israel cried out to the Lord.
11 They said to Moses, Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us to die in the desert? What is this that you have done to us to take us out of Egypt?
12 Isn’t this the thing [about] which we spoke to you in Egypt, saying, Leave us alone, and we will serve the Egyptians, because we would rather serve the Egyptians than die in the desert
13 Moses said to the people, Don’t be afraid! Stand firm and see the Lord’s salvation that He will wreak for you today, for the way you have seen the Egyptians is [only] today, [but] you shall no longer continue to see them for eternity.
~~Exodus/Shemot 14:10-13
The opening of The Ten Commandments,
Leaving Egypt and slavery
I do not want to be one of those clamoring to go back into the slavery of governmental control over my life. Choose freedom, there is Moshe on the right, see him? He’s holding the reins of a camel for you, choose freedom.
What I find most galling are not Republican allegations former Democrat Vice President Joe “Boss Tweed” Biden leveraged his position to benefit his son Hunter in Ukraine.1 Nor do I find Democrat accusations President Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine pressuring President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate potential Biden influence peddling most galling. Democrats want Americans to believe Trump withheld aid while Ukraine was at war with Russia. However, Putin invaded Ukrainian Crimea on 20 February 2014 and later sent military units across Russia’s western border into Ukraine to assist “separatists” in May of the same year. Trump did not place his party line call to Zelensky until July of 2019, five years later.2 Can we be frank? Notions Ukraine would survive let alone prevail in a war with Russia are preposterous. Therefore, American military and economic aid would be pointless. Why then do Democrat and Republican administrations send it? Are Americans willing to offer their sons to die for Ukrainians fighting Russia? Is the U.S. willing to risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine? We must address yet another reality.
Since Tsar Nicholas I, Russia has pursued a policy of “Russification” in conquered nations and territories. Imperial Russia took control of the education system, mass media, and popular culture in subjugated countries. They replaced native tongues, customs, history, literature, art, music, and holidays with those of Mother Russia. Whether the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania for those who attended public schools) the Caucasus, Poland, or Ukraine, conquered people were forced to grow up as Russians.3
Soviets added a new dynamic to Russification by transplanting hundreds of thousands of Russians to the Baltics and especially Ukraine. The Communist’s goal was to displace natives and breed them into a minority population or, at least have a forward base of Russian immigrants embedded in targeted nations. Under Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviets uprooted entire Russian villages and moved them to Ukraine. In 1926, only 8.2% of Ukrainians were ethnic Russian. That figure rose to 16.9% in 1959 and 22.1% in 1989. In addition, by 1985, the Soviets had relocated by force, over 185,000 Ukrainians to faraway places in Russia and to the Baltics. So successful was Russification (America’s open-borders crowd pay attention), that native Ukrainians living along their eastern border with Russia dropped from 33.4% in 1926 to 2.3% by 1970. In a conflict with Russia, where will their loyalties lie? With whom will ethnic-Russian “Ukrainians” side?4 The idea that America can simply show up with her military and straighten this all out is ludicrous but still, this is not what is most galling. Instead, it is the profound degree of self-inflicted constitutional ignorance afflicting so many Americans. Who asks; what part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to seize the wages and property of American citizens and hand it over to foreigners in other countries? Go ahead and look. I’ll wait. You will be the subject of an archeological dig before you find it because no such authority exists. What the Constitution does not authorize it forbids.
The Constitution’s Framers and State Ratifying Conventions were clear in 1787-1788; powers they delegated to the new federal government were finite and few. The Framers enumerated (listed) them in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. These powers are explicit. They rejected notions that, through novel interpretations later on, anyone could create implied from explicit powers. Scottish immigrant James Wilson became a prominent Philadelphia attorney and patriot. He signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and was a “Federalist” delegate to the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention. Wilson described the new form of government that would replace the Articles of Confederation as a “confederate republic”. It was not a “single centralized state” because that would lead to “despotism” and tyranny. The federal government had only those powers delegated to it by the States. It could not exercise powers it did not have nor could the government imply powers into existence.5 No one is asking why the U.S. government, under Democrats and Republicans, is stealing the money and property of its citizens in order to buy and reward “friends” around the world.
I suspect to some degree America’s ruling class elite have always hamstrung the cause of liberty. They do not quite trust Americans, even their political followers, with liberty. A condemnation of liberals and Democrats? On the contrary. Republican Presidents, including Richard Nixon, George H W and George W Bush, and candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney ran as conservatives who would defend the Constitution. Once in office, as Presidents, Governors, or Senators, they shed conservative principles like snakes squirming from old skin. It is as if they believe the job of supporters is to get them elected and then shut up and go away until the next election. They talk a good game and then make one compromise after another always moving in the direction of opponents. One can find unease and mistrust of social “inferiors” even in the writing of some conservatives.
Writing for conservative The American Spectator, Daniel McCarthy notes liberals believe the mere existence of firearms, in conjunction with the election of Donald Trump, whose words have radicalized the young, is the cause of public mass shootings (PMS). For liberals the only remedy is to remove Trump from office, ban and seize all firearms in private hands, and double down on suppression of “hate speech”. This in spite of the fact police investigations reveal those guilty of PMS are typically creatures of the Left, not Trump supporters. McCarthy notes the Second Amendment’s intent was to protect the firearms liberals want to seize. He adds that a “well-regulated militia” means a citizenry well practiced with arms as opposed to a standing army. To be effective, the militia must have the same firearms as a federal standing army. So far so good. Then McCarthy runs off the rails. He asserts notions the Second Amendment supports citizen rebellion, like Shays’ Rebellion, is “right-wing folklore”. McCarthy offers as proof the Virginia Declaration of Rights, authored by George Mason that “inspired” the Second Amendment. Its stated reason for arms is to maintain a well-regulated militia “under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power”.6 Where to start? Part one covered the meaning of “militia”. Here we turn to a story of mistrust by the people’s “betters”.
Typical high school government textbooks allege the Articles of Confederation had failed. This led to unpaid State and private debt, violence, and economic chaos verging on tearing the union apart. “Shays’ Rebellion in Western Massachusetts (31 August 1786-June 1787) was only the most spectacular of several incidents”.7 They assert “By 1786, people in many states were on the verge of rebellion…Led by Daniel Shays, a veteran of the Revolution, hundreds of angry farmers and laborers banded together, marched on court houses, and freed imprisoned debtors from jail”. Richard Hardy, like other government textbook authors, uses Shays’ Rebellion (a name invented by enemies of the farmer’s protest) as an argument for abolishing the Articles and replacing it with a strong national government of centralized powers.8 This interpretation was strongly echoed by liberal teachers (is there a distinction?) with whom I taught and the jock-coaches principals assign to teach government. Ill-versed in the subject, the latter deviated not from the script. Little, if any, of what they teach, including the book’s representation, of Shays’ Rebellion is accurate. The same holds true at the University. For example, a typical college text explains “hard times, tight money, and heavy taxes” sent Massachusetts farmers to debtors’ prison while others “lost their land”. The farmers’ rebellion was “put down” by “state troops”.9 Liberal John Garraty’s text asserts Shays’ Rebellion was the result of Massachusetts attempting to pay off its war debt with the tax bite “falling most heavily on those of moderate income”. He describes mobs shutting down courts to prevent foreclosures and Daniel Shays leading an army to seize the federal arsenal in Springfield, a battle they lost.10 Liberal historian Samuel Eliot Morison, despised by Communist Howard Zinn, author of the most popular fictionalized history passing as truth in public schools and universities,11 writes that Shay’s Rebellion consisted of poor farmers facing harsh economic conditions who demanded relief from their State government. They seized control of courts in Western Massachusetts preventing them from opening until the legislature amended the Constitution. Their demands included ending requirements debts be paid in specie and ending legal favoritism of coastal commercial interests at the expense of farmers. Morison labels Massachusetts’ Governor James Bowdoin a “staunch conservative” who called out the militia to put down these illegal protests.12 Postwar economic conditions were indeed harsh in several colonies but were not the cause of the so-called Shays’ Rebellion. Liberal teachers wield the story in classrooms as a “cautionary tale” to convince students the United States must have a strong national government of consolidated powers. Moreover, at the expense of State and individual rights.
Scare stories are part and parcel of the weapons used by those pushing an agenda to effect a desired outcome. Their creators spin and spoon-feed them to gullible Americans all too willing to embrace lies over truth. It works because Americans are too intellectually lazy to think beyond the accepted wisdom of the herd. Manipulators fuel preexistent worry and fear already planted by mass media and government schools (global warming, Putin under every bed) to create panic and alarm. Their goal is to cause rash imprudent reaction. The nation’s “Father” was the target of such an effort.
With no desire to leave Mount Vernon again, George Washington was enjoying retirement from public life. In 1786, he received visitors and letters from friends and veterans reporting on a “rebellion” in Massachusetts. Their shared goal was abolition of the Articles of Confederation and replacing it with a strong national government of consolidated powers. They wanted to reduce or eliminate State sovereignty. They weaved scare stories ranging from exaggeration to outright lies. Washington was already discomfited by hysterical scare stories he read in newspapers written by editors who also shared a strong desire to scrap the Articles. Political leaders, former army officers, bankers, merchants, and large landowners added their voices to claims the nation was falling apart and about to disintegrate into revolution or civil war.13
General Henry Knox, Washington’s former artillery commander, along with others, knew Washington was a large landowner constantly dealing with squatters. Therefore, they painted Massachusetts’ rebels in the most lurid and false terms. They told him rebels wanted to close courts to stop foreclosure on land for unpaid debt, seize land belonging to the rich, and that Massachusetts’ militias were too weak to oppose them. Knox claimed a “licentious spirit” was widespread among the rebels and they were “malcontents” and “levellers” who, through violence, would abolish all social, economic, and class distinctions. In addition, they would erase all private debt and redistribute amongst themselves the land they seized.14 Knox used the term “levellers” to spark alarm in Washington and others. It sprang from the English Civil War of 1642 between Charles I and Parliament. Near the end of that war, common soldiers discussed what improvements they desired for postwar England. Levellers wanted to abolish the tax-supported state church, establish basic natural rights belonging to all men, declared sovereignty was in the people not kings, and that government was a social-compact with the people.15
Through malice or ignorance, Knox was conflating Levellers with English “Diggers”. The latter were essentially proto-communists. Basing their doctrine on the New Testament, Diggers wanted all unenclosed land seized and made communal, farmed, and its produce distributed by the commune to the poor. England would abolish private property along with “unequal wealth”.16 Knox’s misrepresentation of Shay’s Rebellion, and use of the term “Levellers”, had the desired effect. He conjured images of rogue uneducated, poor, and debt- ridden rabble rising up to burn the homes and farms of the rich, looting businesses and banks, and overthrowing the government in Boston. None of this was true.
The men in Western Massachusetts who marched on and closed courts in several towns were comprised of farmers, large landowners, merchants, Revolutionary War heroes and veterans, and political leaders. They were typically middle class, from leading long established families, and were neither poor nor debtors. They rebelled because land and note speculators, led by Governor James Bowdoin, had taken over the government in Boston. Like other states during the war, Massachusetts issued paper notes to pay its soldiers, farmers, and merchants from whom it requisitioned supplies. Not backed by specie, inflation ensued and soon, like the famous Continentals, they were worthless. People had to eat and pay bills so, when speculators offered to buy these notes for a fraction of their face value, their holders sold them. After the war, Bowdoin and his cronies bought up as many notes as they could. Once in power, they passed a law requiring the State redeem them at full face value, with interest, and much of it paid in specie. To finance redemption, Bowdoin’s government passed a head tax on families for every male 16 and older and farm families tended to be large. In addition, the state would tax their land. Those unable to pay faced losing family farms and going to prison. The State had forced soldiers, farmers, and small merchants to accept worthless notes during the war. From them speculators bought these notes for next to nothing. Now the state was taxing those who lost an enormous sum selling the notes to speculators to pay an even greater amount to redeem them on their behalf.17 Public school texts seem to leave out this part of the story.
Is it any wonder farmers in Western Massachusetts reacted in anger and protest? They demanded a change in the law. Specie was scarce and farmers knew the government in Boston was robbing them to benefit Bowdoin and his wealthy cronies. Boston was deaf to farmers’ complaints. Their protests became larger and eventually they closed local courts to force change. They were not attempting to overthrow the government. Bowdoin reacted with force. The State Legislature granted him authority to arrest, torture, and even hang rebels. He could also seize their land and sell it. To his benefactors, naturally. He suspended habeas corpus meaning he could arrest and keep rebels, even political enemies, in jail until they rotted. This he did. Massachusetts’ militia was more than large enough to suppress the rebellion but, when Bowdoin called it out, they refused. They would not march against men they knew to be honorable, patriots, and war veterans. Bowdoin and his rich speculator friends passed the hat amongst themselves and raised enough money to hire a mercenary army of 4,400 led by war veteran General Benjamin Lincoln to suppress the “rebellion”. Following several skirmishes, the rebellion ended when Lincoln’s State army seized the federal arsenal at Springfield before the farmers did.18 Proponents of a new “national” government did not tell George Washington this side of the story.
Although a war hero, Daniel Shays was a newcomer to Western Massachusetts. He was leader of one of many groups who protested what Boston was doing. Those comprising “rebel” groups never called themselves “rebels, insurgents”, or “Shayites”. The press and allies of Bowdoin invented these labels. The same way the left uses “right-wing” for conservatives implying the latter are Nazis. Shame on you Daniel McCarthy. Instead, they referred to themselves as “Regulators” a term originating in England during the 1680s. Britons who took this name opposed corruption, cronyism, and tyranny in government. Americans knew this history. The term Regulator gained usage In Britain’s North American colonies in the 1760s, first in North and then in South Carolina. Lawyers and land speculators gained control of Carolina County Courts and used their position to levy heavy taxes, fees, and fines on farmers. They jailed delinquent taxpayers, seized, and sold their land. When the governments in each colony refused to reply to the farmer’s pleas for relief, they took matters into their own hands forming organizations of Regulators who drove corrupt lawyers, judges, and officials from office. Like Massachusetts, the aristocracy consolidated political power into its hands rewarding themselves and cronies at the expense of farmers, exactly what Britain’s appointed Royal Governors had done in the colonies. Each state in turn suppressed rebellion. Following in the footsteps of those who came before, Massachusetts’ Regulators vowed to end tyrannical government in Boston based on cronyism and corruption. Their goal was to rewrite the hated State Constitution of 1780.19
Men who favored creating a European style strong national government with centralized powers used Shay’s Rebellion to argue the government under the Articles was too weak to survive. They stoked fear and panic. “Nationalizers” created and disseminated false narratives through the media they controlled. They pressured Madison and Washington to support abandoning the Articles in favor of a yet, unwritten new form of government.20 It is remarkable that American patriots did not realize that, in beholding the rebels of 1786, they were seeing themselves in the mirror of 1776. There can be but one explanation. These men evinced a trait shared from time immemorial among those who would rule. They do not trust “lesser” citizens to rule themselves sharing the same amount of freedom as their “betters”. It is why they target the Second Amendment, freedom of speech, and challenge the outcomes of elections. Even some Republicans, conservative pundits, opinion makers, and movers and shakers believe in government for, not of the people. They want their base to vote and then shut up. Do not accommodate them. Read and learn the truth.
11 Peter Schweizer, Secret Empires (New York, N.Y., HarperCollins Publishers, 2018), 55-73. Spoiler alert, Republicans have their hands in the till as well.
77 William A. McClenaghan, Magruders’ American Government, 2000 Edition (Needham, Massachusetts, Prentice Hall, 2000), 37.
88 Richard J. Hardy, Government In America (Boston, Massachusetts, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), 45.
99 Rebecca Brooks Gruever, An American History, Second Edition, Volume 1 to 1877 (Reading, Massachusetts, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1976), 175.
1010 John A. Garraty and Robert A. McCaughey, The American Nation: A History Of The United States, Sixth Edition (New York, N.Y., Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987), 151.
1111 Mary Grabar, Debunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the Fake History That Turned a Generation against America (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, 2019), 6, 12, 14, 23-28, 251, 257.
1212 Samuel Eliot Morison, The Oxford History Of The American People, Prehistory to 1789 (New York, N.Y., A Mentor Book from New American Library, 1972), 390-394, 395.
1313 Leonard L. Richards, Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 1-3.
My opposition to Red-Flag laws has been steadfast countenancing no exceptions. Until now. Liberal Time Magazine’s Girl, er um “Person”1 of the Year’s trembling quivering rage-filled Greta Thunberg, who should be starring in H. P. Lovecraft inspired movies, could be that one exception. Ghostwriters and Handlers, please, do not allow Greta near sharp objects or anything that goes bang. Perhaps parents should be scheduling counseling sessions rather than enabling Greta’s delusions of imminent human extinction. Scandinavia once gave the world Vikings. What happened?2
From the Great Depression, mass starvation, to man-created global warming, the Left needs crises with which to menace people. Only through scare tactics terrifying the masses can they evoke reaction based on emotion rather than reason. People who have lost their minds seldom make good decisions. Since the Second World War, the Left, either through ideological compatibility or supreme naïveté, has promoted notions the way to deal with adversarial nations (Communist dictatorships) and people is through non-violent appeasement. Leftists are moral relativists rejecting concepts of good and evil. Therefore global and personal conflicts result from misunderstandings not malevolent intentions. Because people have “issues”, not problems, conflicts can be resolved without anyone having to accept blame or facing consequences. All Stalin needed was a couch, a good listener, and a hug. Today, if the puny underweight wretched victim of bullying stands up to his tormentors, school administrators suspend him along with the thugs. Through its evangelists teaching in public schools, the Left has indoctrinated Americans to reject notions of self-reliance and taking responsibility for their own safety. Lockdowns, shelter-in-place, hide under your desk or in your home…Hence, they grow up to despise the Second Amendment. They are aghast at the idea citizens can own guns and decide when and where to use them in self-defense. Appearing on Fox’s Martha MacCallum Show in response to the Fort Worth Texas church shooting, Democrat strategist Doug Schoen argued people are not competent to carry guns for personal defense. This he added, should be left to the police who, coincidentally, were not there.3 The Left hates the Second Amendment for two reasons; first, it exposes their unwillingness to stand up to bullies and criminals whether on American streets or as heads of State. Think, Justin Trudeau. Second, it is an obstacle to the Great Project.
Whether taking the name Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Central Planner, Democratic-Socialist, and so forth, Statists are determined to dismantle the Second Amendment either through abolition or redefining it out of existence. Until accomplished, it remains the single greatest impediment to The Project begun by 19th century American Progressives and European Socialists. Its central imperative is to bend the will of the individual completely to the volition of the State to plan, control, and regulate every aspect of human existence. And, the Left is the State. Because altering the Constitution has proven un-doable, the Left has chosen to redefine the Second Amendment as they did the Commerce, General Welfare, Necessary and Proper, and Supremacy clauses until they mean the opposite of their intent. For example they claim owning firearms is dependent upon membership in a federal (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines) or State (“National” sic Guard) standing army. This claim could not be more wrong.4
Proponents and enemies of the Bill of Rights have debated the Founders’ meaning of “militia” ad nauseam. Rehashing it here would seem superfluous. That is, if its enemies were not using mass media, popular culture, and public dis-education to peddle lies conjoined with an American public too intellectually lazy to read and think for itself. As a recovering public school teacher, I can attest to the pervasiveness of this mental lassitude.
Mises Institute’s Ryan McMaken writes that the Founders’ idea of a militia was not one comprised of “unorganized amateurs”, called up by local authorities, to address insurrection or invasion. Instead, it was to consist of men between a certain age range, proficient in arms, possessing some degree of training in military discipline and tactics, a system of choosing officers, subject to call up by State or local authorities, and under civilian control.5 McMaken’s conclusion is problematic. In the 1740s, the French, perennially at war with England, established a large fort at Louisbourg near Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. From there the French threatened New England with invasion and provided safe haven for pirates and “cruisers” who raided its fishing villages and naval commerce. Finding the British unwilling to act, in 1744 New England raised an army of unorganized amateurs including commoners, farmers, merchants, fishermen, and so forth. With little or no experience, these New England boys executed a successful amphibious landing under difficult conditions, besieged the fort for three months, and forced the French to surrender.6 During the French and Indian War, the British could not have defeated the French without the assistance of colonial militia troops, amateur soldiers who fought as local units under American command.7
On 1 October 1768, in a lead up to what became the War of Independence, Britain dispatched 700 troops led by General Thomas Gage from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Boston. His orders were to suppress resistance to British commerce, trading, and tax laws.8 A month later (8 November 1768), King George III declared Bostonians to be in rebellion against English law and government. British political and military leaders drew up plans to subdue the insurrection.9 They employed their standard method of subjugation; round up, jail, and execute the rebellion’s leaders and door-to-door searches for arms and munitions in private hands. Colonials often stored gunpowder in storehouses outside of town due to its volatility. In order to prevent the Red Coats from seizing it, locals formed militias to guard them. In Virginia, Patrick Henry led the Hanover Independent Militia Company comprised of armed locals independent of the Governor’s control. They comprised the nucleus of resistance against British forces. Other colonies replicated this strategy.10
In 1774, British soldiers marched from Boston into the countryside to seize colonial supplies of gunpowder and weapons in Charlestown, Cambridge, Medford, and Salem. Forty thousand militiamen met the British, called “Bloody Lobsterbacks”, by locals, at Charlestown. These amateurs drove them back to Boston without firing a shot.11 British confiscation of private arms led to the “shot heard round the world”, the British march on Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts, to seize arms.12 Among the militiamen awaiting the British attack were farmers, craftsmen, mechanics, gentlemen, laborers, slaves, dairy farmers, and veterans of the French Indian War. Americans gave as good as they got forcing the British back to Boston.13
McMaken contends, “Gun Rights advocates fixate” on the latter part of the Second Amendment, “The people having a right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” as the rationale for private ownership of arms separate from militia membership. He asserts the Second Amendment’s purpose was to guarantee that States “would be free to raise and train their own militias as a defense against federal power and as a means of keeping defensive military force available to Americans while remaining outside the direct control of the federal government”.14 He is correct state militias are supposed to be outside federal control but his assertion the militia is the primary focus of the Second Amendment is incorrect. The Second Amendment clearly contains two independent parts that framers could have fashioned into separate amendments. In fairness to McMaken, his purpose was to demonstrate State Militias are to be independent of federal control and that the so-called “National” (sic) Guard is a standing army and a gross violation of the Constitution.
Drafters wrote definitions of a militia into State Declarations of Rights and later into the federal and State Constitutions from 1791 on. They typically refer to “the mass of ordinary citizens, trained to arms” who would be available for call-up by State or local authorities, and to which was often appended an age range for those subject to service. Founding Fathers from Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Adams to Thomas Jefferson made clear the purpose of the Second Amendment was “that every man” be armed.15 Was this not so that the people would be equipped for militia service if needed? True but only in part. The Founders clearly saw that as an auxiliary advantage. However, the stress was that all men possess the right to keep and bear arms and government in no way have the power to infringe on this right or disarm the people. During debates over ratification of the proposed Constitution (1788) at the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry declared, “The great object is that every man be armed…Everyone who is able may have a gun”. Zachariah Johnson added, “The new Constitution could never result in religious or other oppression because ‘the people are not to be disarmed of their weapons”. Not militias, people. At the Massachusetts’ ratifying convention, Samuel Adams stated, “That the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms”.16 Again, these rights, freedom of speech, religion, and arms belong to individuals, not states or any other form of organized political entity including militias.
Many States, including Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, and others specifically state people have an individual right to keep and bear arms and it is not tied to membership in a militia, military, or any form of security force.17 The Founders knew Americans opposed standing peacetime armies (as we have today) and that States were reluctant to cede any of their sovereignty to this new untried federal system of government. They also knew government, like an irresistible force of nature, attracts to it men of ambition, those craving power, and men with no moral scruples. Therefore, they added the militia phrase. States would retain the means to resist federal usurpations of their power and infringement against the liberties of people. Under the proposed Constitution, the federal government, facing a national emergency such as invasion or insurrection, could request the states call up their militias. Governors would send them to federal authorities who in turn would arm, equip, and organize them into a standing army. The States would retain the right to choose officers commanding their militia units. Once the crisis was resolved, militiamen would return to their respective states and mustered out of service. Constitution or not, efforts to “federalize” (actually, “nationalize”) State militias placing them under presidential control began almost at once just as so-called Anti-Federalists had warned.18 The individual right to possess arms was always a separate issue.
English philosopher John Locke’s Treatises On Government were widely read (1689) in the colonies. He argued man had a “natural” (G-D given) right to life, liberty, and property. Inherent in each is the right to the means of defending it.19 Under the supervision of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.20 Drawing on many widely held philosophical and theological roots; Jefferson wrote that all rights are individual and a gift from G-D. Among them are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property, wages, and the fruits of one’s labor). Rights imputed by Divinity are inherent in the nature of each individual’s humanity. People are born already possessing these rights. A right to life presupposes a right to the means of defending it.21
The Second Amendment employs the words “right” and “shall not be infringed demonstrating it refers to “a right that is already assumed to exist” (which comports with the Declaration). It does not say, “The people shall have a right to keep and bear arms.” The amendment recognizes but does not grant the right” [emphasis in the original].22 Requirements to join the military, a militia, or engage in a government specified activity in order exercise a right would negate that right. Any regulation, red tape, or hoops one must jump through before accessing a right is a gross infringement and, again, negates it as a right. Governments can in no way qualify a right. No vote by a majority of one’s neighbors to limit a right in any way is legitimate. In addition, people cannot through constitutions or laws, “agree to an infringement on their rights”.23 This is because of the inherency of rights. Only Divinity can alter or abolish rights divinely created. So why does the Second Amendment continue to confound people?
George Mason’s proposed draft of the amendment read, “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state”.24 Madison’s version read, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well-regulated militia being the best security to a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”.25 Madison, like Mason and other Founders, wanted it understood that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right separate from membership in any form of militia. For example, those objecting to military service on religious grounds, still possessed the right to keep and bear arms. This would not be true had the right been dependent on being in a militia. Madison’s intent “is clear not only from his wording, but also from his notes for his speech proposing the amendment”. He states it pertains to an individual right which his “colleagues clearly understood the proposal to be protective of individual rights”. Massachusetts delegate Fisher Ames wrote that among other rights, that of bearing arms “to be inherent in the people”. Writing under the name “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, Madison’s friend Tench Coxe argued that the delegates wrote the Second Amendment to “guarantee the right of the people to have ‘their private arms’ to prevent tyranny and to overpower an abusive standing army or select militia”. Madison read Coxe’s articles and agreed, the amendment pertained to an individual right.26
So much, did the Founders write about the Second Amendment; its meaning is beyond question. These documents and writings are available to anyone. On what basis can opponents of an individual right interpretation justify their position? Simple. The truth is unimportant. Only the Great Project matters. All narratives, including history, must be made to fit and support it. Like a starfish turning a clamshell over searching for a vulnerability by which to penetrate its defenses, so too do enemies of the Bill of Rights search for weaknesses. They find it in contemporary American’s unfamiliarity with grammatical construction.
It is important to keep in mind, of the Bill of Rights none refers to “States having rights”. Each refers to a right of the people. These are individual rights. To argue the Second Amendment applies only to members of a military organization turns it into a State not individual right. We have clearly seen that was not the Founder’s intention. If the Founders had intended military or militia membership dependency in order to own or possess arms, “Why would they say, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Madison and those who shaped the amendment’s wording “chose to put the militia reference into a dependent phrase” choosing “the weakest possible construction by using the participle (word formed from a verb) ‘being’ instead of writing say, ‘Since a well regulated militia is necessary…” The militia wording’s weak form demonstrates its framers listed it as a right of states. “The main independent clause” of the amendment reads, “The people’s right to have guns ‘shall not be infringed”.27
An independent clause is a stand-alone sentence dependent on nothing. The militia part of the Second Amendment forms a dependent phrase. It cannot stand alone by itself containing a subject, verb, and complete thought. Therefore, it is secondary in importance to the main independent clause. The words; “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” would mean what by itself? The words; “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” would mean what without the first part of the amendment? People have a right to keep and bear arms. By reversing this order, the amendment’s drafters made emphatic that the independent clause was its most important part. “The Founders correctly intuited that in a bill of rights (list), the last thing the reader should have ringing in his mind’s ear is the absolute prohibition on infringement of the natural right to own guns”.28
If the Bill of Right’s enemies read America’s founding documents and writings, they know the truth. None of that matters. What does matter to them is total disarmament of American citizens. The Great Project cannot culminate until that happens. Toward that goal, the end always justifies the means.
11 Unlike men and women since the dawn of time, those on the Left are stymied when it comes to determining their sex, of which, there are but the two aforementioned options.
22 As with the Marjory Stoned Man Douglass high school “useful idiots,” Emma Gonzalez, Cameron Kasky, David Hogg, et al, the Left cowardly uses kids as stooge props, their youth supposedly giving them and their terribly immature and uninformed rantings an unassailable immunity against critique. Isn’t this what Muslim terrorists do, hide behind children?
33 Martha MacCallum Show, FOX News, 31 December 2019.
44 Sheldon Richman, “Reading the Second Amendment”, The Freeman 2 (February 1998), 112.
66 Marvin Olasky, Fighting For Liberty And Virtue: Political and Cultural Wars in Eighteenth Century America (Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books, A Division of Good News Publishers, 1995), 93.
1616 Stephen Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Albuquerque, New Mexico, University of New Mexico Press, 1984), 73-75.
1818 Edwin Meese III, Matthew Spalding, and David Forte, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), 139-143.
2020 Clarence B. Carson, A Basic History of the United States, Volume I: The Colonial Experience 1607-1774 (Wadley, Alabama, American Textbook Committee, 1987), 182-183.
2121 Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (Lawrence, Kansas, University Press of Kansas, 1985), ix, 60-63. See also, Gary T. Amos, Defending the Declaration (Brentwood, Tennessee, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1989), 35-74, 117-118.
2222 Sheldon Richman, “Properly Interpreting the 2nd Amendment” Human Events (June 16, 1995), 16.
Liberal media’s bouffant coxcomb chattering class bemoans the fact most women elected to Congress are Democrats thereby suggesting Republicans are the party of sexist misogynists as claimed by bitter harridan Hillary Clinton. It is true most women in Congress are Democrats1 but what the princes of pompous pontification ignore is Republican women often lose to Democrat males in general elections. It’s not Republicans voting against them. Genitalia plays no part in my voting. I’d climb over a pile of limp celery stick Republican males like Kit Bond, John McCain, Jeff Flake, John Kasich, Mitt Romney, and Pot-Peddler John Boehner any day to vote for a Phyllis Schlafly.2 Female Republican candidates are likely to be conservative, a serious enough offense, but worse, some commit the unpardonable sin according to Leftist Holy Writ; they are Christians. Against this horrific threat, the Democrat Party Machine swings into action deploying its myrmidons; Hollywood’s Big Donors, spokesboob actors and actresses, radical environmentalists (Crypto-Marxists), feminists (Crypto-Marxists), radicalized college youth (Crypto-Marxists), liberal media, and union and race voters. Blacks and Hispanics in large urban areas typically vote against one of their own if she is a Republican. And who are the misogynists?
Liberals have accused conservative males debating liberal females of “picking on thegirl” if they “come on too strong”. Just ask Rick Lazio who lost to Hillary Clinton in their New York Senate race (2000).3 Conservative males now face an additional quandary. Do they “go easy” on liberal males in political debates? After all, with liberals, you never know when ‘he’ might come out a ‘she’. Lest anyone consider this an attack against Democrats on behalf of Republicans, read on.
Conservative radio talk show host Joe Pags recently interviewed Texas Republican Lieutenant Governor, Dan Patrick (23 September, 2019) about the latter’s support for universal background checks. Patrick proclaimed fidelity to the Second Amendment with a ‘but’…an affirmation followed by an equivocation is a negation…as was the case. Sure enough, Patrick argued in favor of total, 100%, universal background checks (UBC’s). His rationale was, since 90% of guns purchased already involve a background check, what’s the harm in extending it to the remaining 10%? In support of his proposal, Patrick claimed the people now avoiding background checks, presumably his 10%, do so because they cannot legally buy firearms. He said UBC’s would end this practice.4
Next Patrick asserted “gun-merchants” are getting rich selling firearms to persons who cannot legally buy them charging $4000 dollars for a $2000 dollar gun. Because of their ineligible status, “customers” have no choice but to pay huge markups. Patrick said UBC’s would shut these gun merchants down. In addition, he declared UBC’s would also stop and end public mass shootings because they would prevent the mentally ill from buying guns. Patrick believes suspects in recent mass shootings were legally able to buy guns even though health officials had adjudicated them to be mentally unfit. When Joe Pags (Pagliarulo) observed Second Amendment “hard-liners” might object to Patrick’s proposal, the Lieutenant Governor said the Second Amendment guarantees people the right to “bear” not “sell” their guns.5 Wow. Where to start? Trying to follow Patrick’s “logic” is like untangling twine after an explosion in a string factory.
If an unknown number of people are not subject to background checks, how does Patrick know what percentage are, let alone 90%? What is 90% of an unknown number? Is this the “new math?” He didn’t say. Private transfers between family members, friends, and acquaintances are not subject to background checks and hence not recorded. Again, how can Patrick quantify an unknown quantity? This is an important question because he grounds support for UBC’s on the claim since so many people are already subject to background checks, no one would notice if extended to the rest. Sort of like being covered with poison ivy and getting one more bump. Even if Patrick’s numbers are correct, when has the “everyone else is doing it” ever been a compelling argument? Would it be valid to argue, because government has suppressed 90% of American’s First Amendment rights, what is the harm in surrendering the rest? At the risk of being crass, would a rescuer tell the victim of a shark attack; “Well, he got most of your leg so, you might as well let him have the rest”? Imagine its pre-W.W. II Berlin. Jacob hears a harsh banging on his door. He opens it to find goons standing there dressed in black uniforms trimmed in ominous silver runes.
“Your guns, give them to us now!” barks one of the goons.
“But why, gun ownership is legal” responds Jacob.
“Ninety percent of the other Jews have handed theirs over. What could be the harm if you do too?” says the goon.
If the people surrender any portion of a right to the government, will government ever cede it back? Would not any rationale for the government to seize a portion of a right also be equally compelling with respect to it taking the rest? Ten percent of a bad idea is still a bad idea let alone ninety percent.
I wish Pags had asked Patrick how UBC’s would force ineligible persons to submit to background checks. If a person is ineligible, they are ineligible. Most criminals obtain firearms through the black and secondary markets. This includes theft and straw purchases wherein eligible individuals buy firearms on behalf of those who are not. Who are Patrick’s “gun-merchants”? If he knows, why doesn’t he alert the Texas Department of Public Safety? Those willing to break the law selling contraband, be it untaxed cigarettes, bootleg music CDs, drugs, guns, and so forth, have and always will regardless of prohibitions and legal sanctions. Experience, history, and the facts contradict Patrick’s arguments. How could the number two man in the Texas Republican Party make such an ill-conceived and dangerous argument?
Contrary to what Patrick believes, the law already prohibits individuals from buying or possessing firearms if the Courts and or mental health officials have determined them to be mentally “defective”. In addition, the law requires officials to report such adjudications to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Anyone purchasing a firearm through an FFL is required to fill out form 4473. This an affidavit swearing they do not fit in any prohibited class listed on the form (felons, domestic abusers, illegal aliens, drug users, mentally unfit, etc.). Lying on this form is a felony. The FFL then calls the FBI’s NICS who determine if the customer is eligible to purchase the firearm. How does Texas’ Lieutenant Governor not know this? If individuals, barred by law from buying firearms, resort to the black market already operating outside the law, how would they be stopped by universal background checks?
I like Joe Pags but have to ask; what is a Second Amendment “hardliner?” Are they people who believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms, that the Second Amendment means what it says, and that one cannot compromise rights endowed by G-d? ? I’m a homicide hardliner. I reject exceptions to laws prohibiting anyone from illegally taking my life. Am I extreme? Liberals use “hardliner” to cast opponents as unreasonable in order to soften up the rest of gun owners to accept compromises. With all gun laws, each compromise leads to a diminution of rights.
According to Patrick, although the Second Amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms, those arms are not your private property. If one does not have the right to sell his or her property, then someone else does. Who is that? Government? If the latter, your arms must belong to them. The Declaration states people have a right to life and it is a gift from G-D, not one created by man or his laws. Inherent in this right is also a right to the means to protect it. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments recognizes the individual’s absolute right to own private property and dispose of it as they see fit. Firearms are private property. Crypto-Confiscationists argue, however, because firearms possess an intrinsic potential for lethality, exceptions to Second Amendment and property rights are valid. Baseball bats, knives, ice picks, meat cleavers, hammers, hatchets, axes, arrows, staves, and so forth also possess intrinsic lethal potential. This is no facetious comparison. The FBI reports that murderers kill more people with knives, hammers, clubs, and feet each year than rifles. In 2018, 297 people were killed with rifles, 1,515 were killed by murderers using a knife, 443 were murdered by killers using hammers, clubs, and blunt objects, and 672 were killed with “fists, feet and other ‘personal weapons”.6 The law can impose harsh consequences for irresponsible behavior but government cannot abridge an individual’s 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights based on potential lethality of property owned. More importantly, American government, constituted as “federal”, cannot pass “national” laws.7
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” writing in Federalist #39 noted a national government has authority over the “individual citizens” along with “an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things.” Under this system, “supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature” that has total control over city, county, and state governments as well as all commercial and other activities within the states. However, the United States has a “federal” not a “national” government. Its jurisdiction extends only to powers delegated to it, and enumerated, by the states.8 In Federalist #45, Madison wrote; “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects such as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which the last, the power of taxation, will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concerns the lives, liberties, and properties of the people”9 [emphasis mine]. Oops, the “federal” government has no Constitutional authority to establish any form of “national” background check law in the first place! It is sad those calling themselves Republicans and conservatives know so little about the Constitution.10
Lieutenant Governor Patrick predicates his failure-doomed proposal on two false notions near and dear to liberals; 1) the mere existence of firearms “causes” violent crime and 2) Individuals engaging in “hate” or “hate-speech” are dangerous to others, mentally ill, and the ones who commit public mass shootings. In the first case, the solution is simple; eliminate firearms thus ending violent crime, so they say. In the second, “red-flag” and stop mentally unstable persons from possessing arms or have police seize those they possess.
First, there is no correlation between the degree of access to firearms and the degree of evil in a person’s heart. Intent to inflict pain, great bodily injury, and murder germinate from within the individual not from proximity to implements of harm. In addition, access to firearms, including by teenagers under 18, was relatively unregulated before the 1960s. People could purchase firearms through the mail. “Federal” (sic) background checks did not exist, yet public mass shootings, were rare. Each decade of the twentieth century, until the 1970s, “had fewer than 10 mass public shootings with one in the 1950s. The rise began in the 1960s with six, followed by 13 in the 1970s. This upsurge spiked in the 1980s with 32 public mass shootings jumping to an unimaginable 42 in the 1990s even though access to firearms was increasingly regulated and controlled by the government following the Gun Control Act of 1968.10 What changed?
It began in 1947 with Everson versus Board of Education (330, 1, 18, 1947) in which the Supreme Court illegally amended the Constitution inventing the doctrine of “separation of church and state”. Through the Court’s tortured interpretation, it granted Liberal Humanism the means to drive G-d, its greatest foe, from the public square.
In the 1960s, moral relativism, the notion that all values are “relative”, that there is no good and evil or right and wrong, or moral absolutes became the dominant philosophy in America. Books like, I’m Okay, You’re Okay and The Pathology of Normalcy became wildly popular along with the philosophy of “do your own thing”. Simon and Garfunkel’s prophets wrote, “G-d is Dead” on subway walls. The humanist left, the equivalent of cultural acid, declared concepts of right and wrong to be judgements and those holding to them to be judgmental. If notions of morality are relative, “who are you to impose your values on me” became the battle cry of those destroying Judeo-Christian based Western Society. In order to force cultural and moral relativism on everyone, liberal humanists worked through “modern” left teachers and the Courts to drive G-d and Judeo-Christian based values from schools. For decades, Public Dis-Education has taught notions of morality and even truth are merely social constructs. How then could the consequences surprise anyone? Religion’s decline in the role of people’s lives, disintegration of the family, loss of respect for law and order and spike in violent crime, massive drug use, wild promiscuity, murdering unborn babies, normalizing sexual perversion, school and public mass shootings, and a rise in suicides. And all this would be solved by more background checks?
Patrick’s claim that all public mass killers were/are known to have been mentally unstable and dangerous is problematic. Most recent mass killers, with exceptions, did not exhibit a “specific profile” that would have identified them as potential murderers. An FBI Study (2013) revealed only 25% of mass murderers had previously been diagnosed with a serious mental illness. However, many of the others had displayed behavior considered hostile and anti-social.11 Laws designed to prevent violent crime before it happens by nature must be anticipatory. They rely on “red-flags” triggering a response from the courts and police. Who and on what basis determines what constitutes a red flag resulting in the police seizing a person’s arms? Therein lies the rub. Short of actions requiring incarceration in the Puzzle Factory, what constitutes behavior triggering these responses? According to the “Left”, hate speech should be a “Red-Flag” because it is de facto “proof” of mental instability and potential for violence. But what is hate speech? The Left defines it as anyone holding to Biblical morality, opposition to the invasion of the US by illegal aliens, belief in limited government, and a demand government follow the original intent of the Constitution. In short, opposition to any part of the left’s agenda.
Criminals and the mentally unstable are already prohibited from buying and possessing firearms. Universal background checks will do nothing to stop the ineligible from obtaining them. Nor will they stop criminals from buying guns on the black market. UBCs serve two purposes. First, a misguided attempt to buy off Confiscationists through compromise. Second, when UBC’s fail in their intended goal, Liberals will argue it’s because gun laws didn’t go far enough and what is needed is total gun registration. This too will fail and again the Left will say it’s because “We didn’t go far enough”. Guess what they’ll call for next. Support no sell-outs regardless of political party.
22 Phyllis Schlafly was a giant in the conservative movement. She led the battle against “me-too” males in the Republican Party, fought the radical feminist and homosexual movement, and worked to expose leftwing bias in schools. The Left, in conjunction were their useful idiots in the liberal media, pop-culture, and public diss-education,have done all in their power to flush her down Orwell’s Memory Hole.
77 Teaching Government for years, I never encountered a student who knew the difference between a federal and national government or why it even mattered. Using primary sources, I addressed this ignorance for which I was summarily punished by Administration and colleagues in the SocialIST Studies Department.
88 Clinton Rossiter, Editor, The Federalist Papers (New York, N.Y., A Mentor Book from the New American Library, 1961), 244-245.
1010 I explained the difference and significance between a “national” and “federal” government to self-avowed conservatives for years. All listened, few cared. To one in particular stocking up on supplies because Constitutional abandonment will lead to collapse, I supplied primary source and scholarly articles. He refused to read them and called me, and those like me, “deranged a**holes.”
Here we ago again, compliments of the “pro-2A Trump” administration.
I noted this issue 8 months ago: A Texas state judge let a suit go forward against Academy Sports & Outdoors, for selling a long gun to an out-of-state resident (specifically: the Sutherland Springs chumbucket). The legal theory was that the sale should not have proceeded because “high capacity” (i.e.- standard) magazines are banned in the asshole’s home state of Colorado, and 18 U.S. Code § 922(a)(3) bans the interstate sale of a firearm if it isn’t lawful in both states. (Never mind that the shooter was a prohibited person whom no one bothered reporting to NICS.)
The problem with that is that magazines are not firearms. The ATF has said so repeatedly. Therefore, 18 U.S. Code § 922 doesn’t apply.
Until now. Welcome to the wonderful world of feds redefining words… again.
Trump administration: Academy Sports liable for selling gun to Sutherland Springs shooter
Now, Trump administration lawyers are trying to shift some of the attention onto Academy Sports + Outdoors, writing in a motion filed Tuesday that the retailer is liable for the massacre because the shooter purchased his gun and high-capacity magazine at one of its stores.
[chumbucket] showed a Colorado license but carried out the purchase in Texas. High-capacity magazines are illegal in Colorado.
Same argument, but now it’s the federal government, rather than plaintiffs, doing the redefinition.
How Orwellian. We have always been at war with East Asia. Magazines were always firearms.
Trump is the most anti-2A President in decades, since 1994 at least. And he has successfully imposed more restrictions than any other President, Republican or Democrat, in his two and a half years in office.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
I wish Ammoland land would stop giving presumed-Bloomberg-mole Harold Hutchison virtual ink, but I suppose his garbage does drive traffic as outraged pro-rights people try to counter his appeasement cries.
The Zelman Partisans will not join him: No compromise. No surrender.
How Second Amendment Commissars Make it Easy for Bloomberg to Take Our Rights
Second Amendment supporters face one big difficulty when trying to defend their rights. It comes from someone who shares the same objectives, but who seems to think “no compromise” means not giving an inch – even rhetorically, when a different technique might be better. They act as self-appointed commissars, and much of their time and energy is spent on denouncing Second Amendment supporters for being insufficiently pro-Second Amendment.
You’re calling us Soviet commissars, you little [expurgated]? Do you have the slightest idea how [expurgated] offensive that is? Or how [expurgated] insane it is to consider someone supporting human/civil rights to be the same as a rights-violating Thought Police boss for the authoritarian state?
TZP has offered Hutchison the opportunity to comment here before. We’ll do it again, with this challenge:
Name one “compromise” that gave something to the pro-human/civil rights side.
Should he answer, I expect he’ll cite FOPA, in which we gave up machineguns (and bump-fire stocks, and soon semi-autos due to yet another “compromise” by his beloved Vichy NRA), and received a few promises that the evil SOBs would stop a short list of infringements… which they immediately ignored.
Safe passage? Ask the folks NY and NJ are still busting. Ask me why I had to disassemble my firearms, zip tie the individual parts, lock them in separate cases, and chain the cases down, just to feel reasonably safe from the police when I drove through Massachusetts.
No firearms databasing? Ask FFLs who watch the ATF copy 4473s for mass scanning? The ATF brags on that one.
Victim-disarmers compromising with each other (bans with grandfathering, for example) aren’t a compromise with us either.
Come on, Harold. Name the compromise. Email us, and we’ll update this post. Or leave a comment below.
We’re waiting.
-crickets-
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
