Monday, June 18, 2018

The American Medical Association Hides its Own Failures by Pushing Gun Control

The American Medical Association is jumping on board the gun control band wagon by organizing a massive push to lobby law makers to enact stricter gun laws. Among some of these proposals are a ban on so called assault weapons, high capacity magazines, licensing and registration of all firearms, and laws which prohibit anyone under the age of twenty-one from purchasing any type of weapon.  Currently, people under twenty-one are already prohibited from owning handguns. These new proposals, mirroring Florida’s new gun control measures, would make purchasing any type of rifle or shot gun illegal by anyone under the age of twenty-one. Imagine the hypocrisy of such laws, eighteen-year old’s fight for our freedom only to be denied the freedoms they believe they are fighting for. The second amendment was written to guarantee everyone’s inalienable right to self-defense. The American Medical Association has no authority to offer policy initiatives on this subject.

The American Medical Association is attempting to present gun ownership as a public health crisis. This began under President Obama’s Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. Murthy is responsible for organizing a group called Doctors for Obama and helped lobby congress for the passage of Obamacare. This group has already pressed for these gun control laws under the misguided notion that banning guns is a part of medicine and would result in a healthier America.

While labeling gun ownership as a public health crisis may seem far fetched to some, the fact is that conservatism have been labeled as a potential mental illness for quite some time.  In the article Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, the authors argue that a conservative’s unwillingness to change is a sign of a mental disorder. They also argue that the right generally shows a favorable attitude towards inequality while the left pushes for total equality, meaning that conservatives are intolerant bigots. This, according to the authors, is because the right believes in a hierarchal structure for society. This of course, is non-sense. The right believes in equality of opportunity, not forced out comes. In any case, the label of mental illness is being associated with political conservatism. Soon, those showing an unwillingness to accept the idea that gun ownership is creating a public health crisis could be considered mentally ill as well.

“The populace must be brought into the belief that every individual within it who rebels in any way, shape, or form against efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic or insane and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.” (Beria, Manual on Psychopolitics)

The AMA may be seeking to treat gun ownership as a public health crisis; however, in doing so they appear to be hiding some of their own public health problems. For instance, a report released in 2016 by John Hopkins Medicine reveals that medical errors and malpractice are now the third leading cause of death in America. According to John Hopkins safety experts, more than 250,000 people per year die of medical errors. This far surpasses the three hundred and seventy-six people murdered by rifles in 2016. It is amazing because the AMA cites the devastating human toll of so called gun violence without mentioning a word about the numbers killed by their own errors.

Another point the AMA is failing to mention is the number of people killed annually using prescription drugs, namely anti-psychotics. Over fifteen thousand people died because of psychiatric drug use in 2014, this is more than the number of deaths due to heroin addiction. Yet, the AMA is directly involved in marketing these drugs through advertising campaigns designed to make people think the drugs are designed just for their specific symptoms. These ads play daily on television, depicting a normal everyday family suffering the effects of some illness wondering what they can do about it. The chosen drug is marketed directly to individuals who may feel they are experiencing these symptoms. Unfortunately, the list of potential (side) effects, in many cases include suicidal and homicidal behavior. It is a well-established fact that many of the mass shootings recently witnessed in America were committed by people taking these types of medications. The AMA then, appears to be pushing gun control to divert attention away from the fact that they are profiting from one of the probable causes of gun violence.

The AMA also employs a subtler tactic of using standardized billing codes. As a student in social work this author was taught this as a common method of collecting payment from Medicare. Service providers, whether they be physicians, or mental health counselors are forced to give a diagnosis and prescribe a drug and assign it a billing code to receive payment. The Diagnostic Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders, for example, is nothing but a list of billing codes for hundreds of so called mental disorders for which people are prescribed drugs. The AMA established this method to establish communications between providers and insurance companies. Now, it has just become a source of income for the pharmaceutical industry whose profits are in the billions.

The AMA can push gun control all they want. It is apparent that they are doing so to hide the atrocities committed by their own greed. There are over two million defensive gun uses annually in the United States, a finding incidentally, which was hidden from public view by the Centers for Disease Control. By jumping aboard the gun control wagon, the AMA is only re-affirming the lefts commitment to leave good people helpless while empowering those who have the inclination to prey on others. The idea of gun ownership being a public health crisis without addressing the root causes of violent behavior does absolutely nothing to keep people safe. Britain found out the hard way. First they surrendered their guns, now the government is demanding people surrender their knives.

Sunday, June 3, 2018

Killing Us With Our Own Rules: Means and Ends Moralists Part Two

One of Alinsky’s most effective strategy’s, one that we see play out daily, can be found in the chapter entitled Tactics. This chapter highlights twelve rules of tactics, and one of them sticks out because it encourages those pushing for social change to use our own rules against us in a way that discredits everything we do.

“The fourth rule of tactics is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.” (Alinsky, 1971)

What this comes down to in its most basic elements is that the left doesn’t believe that men can be free and self-governing, and that the system that allegedly believes in “justice for all” has failed. In order then, to re-organize society to their liking they must use our system against us to show that it has been a massive failure. This is akin to the discussion on means and ends morality because what they seek to do is use our morals against us in a way that makes us appear hypocritical in our most fundamental beliefs. They employ this to destroy the constitution as well as the Christian religion.

One of the best examples to point to is the mainstream media. One would think that after the constant exposure as liars and partisan hacks, along with the massive ratings drop that they would wake up and see the light. What if their agenda goes beyond simply being partisan hacks for the Democrat party? What if their purpose is to completely discredit the first amendment to the constitution by deliberately lying and hiding behind it? If this was the case, eventually people would come to see the first amendment as something that enables people to lie cheat and steal as opposed to using it for its intended purpose, which is to hold government accountable and seek truth. This would be another application of the Hegelian Dialectic discussed earlier. Create the problem so that the people demand a solution, thus ensuring the consent of the governed. In some instances, this has already proven to be the case when it comes to the issue of regulating the internet. Earlier this year we saw the issue of censorship on social media. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube have all been found to be targeting conservative views and censoring them through a change in their algorithms. This has resulted in far less people being able to access conservative sites. In fact, it led to a dramatic reduction in traffic to conservative based sites, which included sites dealing with political campaigns. Sites dealing with liberal issues or Democrat candidates saw no reduction in their traffic.[1]

“President Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts dropped 45 percent. In contrast, potential left-wing presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) did not see drops. Fox News had a drop of 26 percent in its Facebook engagement, whereas CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post saw virtually no change. The only left-leaning sites that appear to be affected were clickbait sites.

Right Wing News, which has over a million fans on its page, saw such a decrease in traffic that owner John Hawkins said it was no longer profitable to keep running. He shut down the page and site (it’s still online but is not updated). IJ Review, another popular site on the right that got much of its traffic from Facebook, was forced into layoffs last week. Three other sites are depending heavily on Facebook. Young Cons, Western Journalism and Sarah Palin, saw huge decreases in website traffic in January. Some sites had to switch domain names to survive. Western Journalism renamed its domain Western Journal. Even the most popular sites on the right were affected, like Breitbart.” (Alexander, 2018)

Another tactic being employed by social media giants was the re-direction from conservative based sites to liberal ones like the associated press. According to Alexander, an article published by The Gateway Pundit featuring a pro-second amendment position by the father of two Parkland shooting survivors was flagged and re-directed in this manner. What we are witnessing is an all-out attempt to control the public’s perception of reality and what they believe. Could there be another agenda? The conservative reaction to this was to demand that the government get involved and regulate the internet to ensure everyone’s viewpoint is heard equally.[2] They are effectively using the first amendment against us in ways that could have probably never been imagined. Some will argue that Facebook, and YouTube, for example, are private entities who themselves have a first amendment right to determine what is appropriate to post on their media platforms. The result however, is the demand from a group that historically has unabashedly argued for unrestricted free speech demanding the government do something. The same is being accomplished through the television media. There is a demand to hold the major, liberal run media organizations accountable for their constant lying and attacks upon conservative beliefs. Essentially, by demanding a government solution we are giving them what they want, power over us.  What they want is a demand to end freedom, a demand to implement government control and a belief that the experiment in individual liberty and natural rights has failed.

“There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” (Alinsky, 1971)

What Alinsky is essentially arguing is that by controlling the system from the inside the conditions of hopelessness can be created, thus leading to a demand for change from the people who created the hopelessness in the first place. In the case of the mainstream, and social media, the goal is to completely eradicate the concept of free speech while hiding behind it. If they can make people believe that the first amendment leads to nothing but lying, and that people’s speech must be controlled, then the work of eliminating free speech from our society is all but completed for them. 

The 2017 football season saw the war on free speech rise to new levels as players, in attempt to portray themselves as oppressed victims of American imperialism, took a knee during the Star-Spangled Banner. This tactic enraged and isolated much of the NFL fanbase as ratings took a massive hit; however, the actions of players like Colin Kaepernick were lauded by liberal outlets as heroic and courageous. The left is portraying this as an example of the exercise of free speech while many on-lookers took offense to it. Of course, anything the left takes offense to must immediately become a national televised issue with panels of talking heads telling us to be offended. When the right takes offense to something we are often called bigots and presented as people unwilling to tolerate other people’s worldviews. Here-in lies the brilliance of the tactic of using our own rules against us, how can we claim to support freedom of speech if we don’t tolerate an expression that differs from our own? That is why the left continually wins the narrative. What if the right just learned to collectively ignore the immature antics of the left and let them express themselves without the fan-fare spectacularism pushed by the media? Would any of these tactics ever become mainstream if we didn’t pay attention to them? It is doubtful. In any case, the non-sense is sure to continue into the 2018/2019 football season as the NFL has officially made it their policy that there will be no kneeling during the national anthem while players are on the field.[3] They are free however, to remain in the locker rooms if they choose. The following line from this MSNBC article proves that this is an effort to label conservatives as intolerant and hypocritical.

“The league that wraps themselves in the flag but doesn’t honor the first amendment its showing its true colors.” (Kluwe, 2018)

They are working to portray the NFL, an allegedly patriotic, pro-American organization as unable to live to the values they espouse by not allowing their players to freely express themselves as they should be allowed under the first amendment. In all truth they should let the players take a knee, they look like idiots. Nowhere else in the world can people, no matter their skin color, be paid millions of dollars a year to play a ball game professionally. By taking a knee during the national anthem these players are in a roundabout way, biting the hand that feeds them. They make millions of dollars while the very people fighting to protect their rights to do so make pennies in comparison. This is what angers NFL fans, not they are taking a knee, but that they are ignorant in the reason they are doing so.

This tactic, of employing our rules against us, is employed in almost all aspects of society to make conservative morals look hypocritical. Our constitution states that all men are created equal and that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. What this means of course is that we are all created in the eyes of God with the same rights and we are entitled to equal treatment under natural law. It does not mean that we are all equally capable of achieving the same things. This is the definition that the left has given equality to destroy the constitution and present its writers as selfish elitists.  The left knows that there is no way everyone can be made completely equal; however, they use this as their rallying call against our system claiming that the constitution guarantees equality and that it is a value we hold dear as Americans.

One thing that the Obama Administration was able to do, which is the epitome of this type of strategy, was put in place a rule which allowed the government to waive the ninety-day residency requirements for new immigrants to obtain firearms, this was rule 1140-AA44[4] signed by Eric Holder. This rule virtually allowed an illegal immigrant to come into the country and legally purchase a firearm. Technically, it applied to only immigrants here legally; however, given the fact that several states give illegal immigrants drivers licenses that would enable them to purchase a firearm under this rule.

Rule 1140-AA44, originally signed by Eric Holder, “would finalize an interim rule published on June 7, 2012 that removes the 90-day state residency requirement for aliens lawfully present in the United States to purchase or acquire a firearm.

Rule 1140-AA05 will “require a firearms purchaser’s affirmative statement of his or her state of residence”–although with states like California, New York and even Georgia providing drivers licenses to illegal aliens, a person could enter the country illegally and then purchase a gun on the same day.

Another rule, 1140-AA08, opens the door for nearly unrestricted importation of firearms and ammunition by non-immigrants, i.e., aliens that are in the country temporarily.

Generally, the importation of firearms or ammunition by non-immigrant aliens is prohibited by law. Yet the exemptions provided by 1140-AA08 would make sidestepping this prohibition as easy as being admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes, or by simply filling out a permit application and affirming that one is not in the country on a non-immigrant visa.”[5]

This was done for discrediting the belief that we are all entitled to equal unalienable rights because conservatives rightfully argue that only citizens of the United States should be entitled to these rights. The left is again portraying the conservative beliefs as being unable to stand up to scrutiny. Conservatives are unable to live up to their values therefore; the constitution is invalid because it isn’t working to ensure equality for all. That is the left’s argument. It isn’t that the conservatives don’t believe that immigrants don’t have rights, they believe there should be a certain amount of assimilation into the culture to understand where those rights are derived from. According to the Washington Times,[6] the Obama administration had also eliminated the required oath of new citizens to be willing to bear arms in defense of the nation, yet they are going to allow them the right to exercise the second amendment? Again, this is being done to turn our system against us and it works perfectly. As long as people are afraid of being labeled as a hypocrite, or accused of not standing up for the values they claim to stand for this tactic will continue to work against us.  

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Means and Ends Morality

No matter what agenda the left is focused on, they are undoubtedly committed to it in ways that conservatives seem unable to achieve. Liberals stick together on every issue bound by the belief that they are working towards creating a better world, a state-run Utopia if you will, where everyone is equal, and no one is treated unfairly. Liberals, being collectivists, are willing to commit all their efforts in the push for this Utopia while conservatives on the other hand, being individualists, have a hard time uniting around the very principles we claim to believe in. The nation is founded upon the principles of individual liberty, not collectivism; however, collectivism is one of the biggest attributes the left possesses as they all work in unison pushing the same narrative. The media certainly plays a role in this as they seem to be telling their audience what to believe about the issues facing us today. 

The left has demonstrated that they are willing to lie, cheat and steal their way to the achievement of any goal. This is because they are operating on an “ends justify the means” mentality. This essentially means that the end goal of a state-run Utopia would ultimately create a better world for everyone; therefore, whatever method is employed in achieving it, is justified. They do not hold themselves back by notions of morality or concepts of right and wrong. If, for example, the passage of red flag gun confiscation laws leads to innocent people being disarmed for no reason and without due process there is no wrong committed because the end goal of ending the second amendment is being advanced. The conservative, or anyone who believes in principles and universal morality would see this as an absolute wrong. To deprive an individual of liberty when they’ve broke no law while murderers are still murdering is the most egregious wrong that could be committed by the state. To the left, there is no right or wrong, only in the context of advancing socialism. If it serves to break down American culture while creating a socialist state, it is right as far as they are concerned.  

Where does this “ends justify the means” mentality come from? Most recently it can be traced to Saul Alinsky and his book “Rules for Radicals.[1]” Alinsky argued that having morals stands in the way of achieving goals, so to say. To understand this better he refers to people unwilling to employ any means necessary as “means and ends moralists.” According to Alinsky, means and ends moralists, holding themselves back due to some misconceived perception of right and wrong, are always left behind, unable to reach their goal. If you ever find yourself wondering why liberals always seem so far ahead of the curve, this is why. Conservatives, believing in what Alinsky refers to as the “immaculate conception of ends and principles” are simply not willing to employ the same methods of deceit in achieving our goals. This is because most conservatives are guided by their religious conscious and belief in Christ. Liberals are mostly atheist, to them there is no right or wrong in being deceitful, only the advancement of their agenda. 

“To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody.” (Alinsky, 1971)

Alinsky goes on to describe the Jews in WWII Germany as being means and ends moralists. He describes their unwillingness to fight back against the Nazis as a misguided sense of morality preventing them from acting. In this case Alinsky is right, though he is wrong to use this as an example in describing his concept of means and ends morality. It would have been absolute moral and right in the eyes of God to fight back against the oppression of the Nazi’s. This is different from rigging the primaries in favor of your preferred candidate under the belief that she would be a better president[2], for example. Or running guns to Mexican drug cartels to discredit the second amendment[3], as another. 

Alinsky argues, in a roundabout way, that having no morality is the highest form of morality one can have in pushing for social change. He says that an unwillingness to corrupt yourself shows that you have no concern for the people, only yourself. 

In action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation,” he doesn’t care enough for the people to be “corrupted” for them. (Alinsky, 1971)

What Alinsky is essentially arguing here is that the traditional, Christian sense of salvation of the soul is selfish, and that being concerned about your own salvation as opposed to the worlds salvation is misguided if you claim to care about people. In pushing for social change one, according to this twisted logic, should be willing to corrupt themselves to achieve their goal if they truly care. The entire premise of this argument is in and of itself evil for several reasons. One, man cannot save man, only Christ can. To argue that man can create a perfect world without God or even a unifying principle of morality is simply, wrong. It cannot happen. Furthermore, no matter how the left may work to destroy religion in the minds of men, determining what is or isn’t right for mankind is not man’s job, it is God’s. 

This concept best explains the motives behind many of the lefts agenda initiatives. They believe they know what is best for the country and mankind in general; therefore, they are willing to employ any methods to achieve their goals because the result, in their twisted little minds, will be a better world for everyone. In recent months we have seen this concept pushed to its ultimate limits with the investigation into the presidency of Donald Trump and alleged Russian collusion. They cannot have Donald Trump in office and they have demonstrated that they truly are willing to corrupt themselves to despicable levels in their efforts to discredit him. 

The problem for the left is that they fail to grasp the fact that there is a universal truth, there is a universal morality. It is wrong to lie cheat and steal your way to victory no matter what the issue. How many people teach their kids that it is ok to cheat to win a ball game, or to pass a test? To argue that corrupted means will not corrupt the ends is to suggest that man himself is the ultimate decider of morality and that God’s word is something to be spit on. There is simply no way that pushing an agenda based on lies and deceit will result in a world where everyone is honest, and equality is the highest virtue. Frankly, the only type of world that can result from such actions is like the one we are living in today where truth is decided not by an ultimate moral standard that is applicable to everyone, but based on circumstances and situational ethics, or worse yet, people’s feelings on certain issues. 

Saul Alinsky is the poster child of leftist political strategy. Barack Obama, as a community organizer taught his methodologies and Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on him. As long as the right faces an ideological enemy willing to employ deceit as a primary strategy, they will have a hard time winning by sticking to traditional morality. This is the point Alinsky is making, that morals are a superstitious dogma that do little else but stand in the way of all out victory in a world desperate for change. Perhaps the biggest problem is an unwillingness on the part of conservatives to fight by bringing our morals to the table and refusing to let them go. That is why the left works so hard to turn public opinion against conservatism, in a fair fight based on ideas and results there is no way they would win.

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

A Plea For Reason and the Fallacy of Red Flag Laws

Ever since President Trump signaled that he supported taking guns from people deemed to be a threat to themselves or others before being afforded due process rights, the push to pass so called “red flag laws” has driven on full speed ahead. After the most recent shooting in Texas, President Trump once again remarked about his administration’s commitment to keeping weapons out of the hands of people who can be considered a threat to society. What does this mean? Will he sign national legislation supporting stricter back ground checks? Will he support a national red flag law which would enable the authorities to seize weapons from people they deem to be dangerous? Hopefully not, because these laws do not work to prevent murder. They do however, put on us on a dangerous path to totalitarianism where any idea expressed that goes against the state can be deemed a threat. The police would have the power to seize firearms from people who have committed no crime while those willing to commit murder do so slowed down by no law. Florida’s red flag laws provide us with a perfect example.

The Sun Sentinel ran a story on March 16, describing the first incident in which Florida’s new red flag laws were used. A man’s firearms were confiscated, and he was involuntarily placed in a psychiatric facility because he was tampering with the electrical breakers in his condominium. He reportedly told police he was being targeted by an individual in his building who was a shapeshifter as well. So, he was a conspiracy theorist exhibiting some signs of paranoia, this doesn’t mean he is a threat to anyone. Even in the event he is proven to be mentally unstable the fact remains that this red flag seizure of his firearms did absolutely nothing to prevent murderers from committing murder. The law didn’t prevent the May 2nd shooting in Orange County where a man was shot twice in a drive by incident, nor did it stop the murder of one Shanti Cooper-Troones who was found dead in her home on the first of May. On April 18, 2018 a man named Albert Hanks was shot when the perpetrator discovered there was no money in his bank account after stealing his ATM card. One of the individuals involved in this crime was under the age of twenty-one. Florida also passed a law prohibiting anyone under twenty-one years of age from possessing firearms. Perhaps they should pass a law prohibiting people under twenty-one from stealing people’s ATM cards. This will surely prevent theft just as the red flag laws will prevent murder.

On May 16, 2018, Miami-Dade Police made a firearm and ammunition seizure from a man who allegedly was on their radar for two years. Though, no explanation is given as to why he was on their radar, aside from the vague comment that he had made threats. What kind of threats did he make? According to Todd Tongen, writing for Local Ten News, the man willingly surrendered all of his firearms without a struggle to police when asked, so what kind of threat could he have possibly posed? Don’t worry, they prevented him from doing something they suspected he may have done even if they are not sure what it may have been. If the guy is that much of a threat what will stop him from buying a gun illegally? Oh yes, it’s against the law to buy a gun illegally, nothing to worry about then. On May 20, 2018, Marquette Arnaud Clark was found shot to death and he had been robbed of his shoes and cell phone. On May 19, 2018, Darious Marquious Anderson was shot to death in an apparent gang shoot out where several homes were also struck by gun fire. These shootings took place after the May 16th red flag seizure from a man who willingly surrendered his firearms to police. Looks like they are targeting the easy people first, these shooters are still on the loose. Finally, just today there was a shooter who barricaded himself in a room and had a shoot-out with police before killing himself. Those red flag laws did nothing to prevent him from committing homicide days earlier. There is literally no way of knowing if the twenty-two incidents in which authorities seized lawfully owned firearms from people on mere suspicion prevented any crimes. But, at least they tried right? Perhaps the community expressing anger that their neighbor is building massive sheds in his own yard should be red flagged because they are described as being “up in arms” over it.

We are on very dangerous ground here. The left is working incessantly to turn public opinion against lawful gun owners who do nothing wrong. If they are not careful, the very laws they seek to use against us will be used against them as well when they are no longer ideologically aligned with the state. Mental Health has long been a tool of communist regimes to silence dissent and label opposition to communist ideals as insanity. We have already seen government reports labeling gun owners as potential threats to society simply for expressing concerns on infringements against the second amendment. If we are not careful, or if we do not employ reason to this argument we will find ourselves in a nation where disagreeing with the “reasonableness” of common sense gun laws is seen as a reason to be red flagged.

Man must be consistently demonstrated to be a mechanism without individuality, and it must be educated into a populace under attack that Man's individualistic reactions are the product of mental derangement. The populace must be brought into the belief that every individual within it who rebels in any way, shape, or form against efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic or insane, and who must have at once the treatment of a Psychopolitician. (Lavetia Beria)

Friday, May 18, 2018

The Psychopolitical Agenda Drives On

By psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression and scientific turmoil. At last a weary populace can seek peace only in our offered Communist State, at last only Communism can resolve the problems of the masses. (Leventia Beria)

I'm sure across the nation many writers, liberal and conservative alike, stare dumbfounded at an empty screen searching for a way to write about another school shooting. That's right, another school shooting. In this instance the weapon used wasn't a high powered super-duper one thousand round clip AR-15 with an assault rocket launcher attachment, it was a sawed-off shotgun and a .38 revolver. Neither of which by the way have a high ammunition capability. The revolver holds five rounds and the shotgun probably has an eight plus one capacity meaning it can hold eight shells in the tube with one in the chamber. The shooter also planted pressure cookers and pipe bombs around the school meaning that people could have easily been killed even if there were no scary guns involved. If people want to kill they will find a way.

How could this possibly happen just two months after the shooting in Parkland? More specifically, how did a government run school, after the observed systematic failures which led to the Parkland shooting, become lax enough that a student can enter the building with a sawed-off shotgun and a .38 revolver undetected? Something is wrong with this picture. Our government sits smug and cozy preaching to us about gun control from the comfort and safety of one of the most heavily guarded cities in the country. They all have personal armed guards which leads one to believe they understand that a good guy with a gun is needed to stop a bad guy. Yet, most of our schools are defenseless, target rich environments run by liberal nut jobs that produce the very type of kid willing to carry out these types of atrocities because they are afraid to punish them and hurt their feelings! This was clearly the case with Nikolas Cruz in Parkland Florida as it has been confirmed that he was a participant in the Promise Program. This program was designed to limit the number of student arrests in the district by not punishing students for the crimes they committed. In other words, it is America's fault the kids get in trouble and it isn't fair dog gone it. Why would a problem child work to control his own behavior when those entrusted to teach him right from wrong let them get away with misbehaving? Seems like a no brainer since though most school administrators approach human behavior from a social science perspective.

As we endure the insanity of renewed calls for gun control made by people who would just as soon let MS-13 roam the countryside than recognize your inalienable right to life, the question of how this happened will loom over us because it won't even be addressed in any meaningful way. Well, because guns stupid.

Perhaps its time to realize that we as a nation, have let our morality be destroyed by evil people who seek to manipulate our emotions and our perception of reality. Everything that we believe in has been twisted and distorted to the point where many believe it is our traditional values that have caused the problems we face today. America and her culture of liberty has been so thoroughly discredited that the idea of rugged individualism is to blame for everything from gun violence to climate change. People are now conditioned, in K-12 education, to believe that government should be their problem solvers and sole providers. They believe our rights come from government, and not the fact that we exist in a natural state of freedom. Our kids, in government run schools, are being taught that they need government to get along.

The tenets of rugged individualism, personal determinism, self-will, imagination, and personal creativeness are alike in the masses antipathetic to the good of the Greater State. These willful and unaligned forces are no more than illnesses which will bring about disaffection, disunity, and at length the collapse of the group to which the individual is attached. (Leventia Beria)

We live in a society where life is no longer valued, we are not human beings we are human capital. We justify the death of hundreds of thousands of yet to be born babies a year, under the guise of some misguided human rights campaign and wonder how we could possibly reach a point where a kid walks into a school and starts blowing people away. Scientists are now arguing that there is no moral difference between aborting a fetus and killing a new born child because they are incapable of living as full persons until they can provide for themselves. Under these standards it would be justifiable to kill a child up until they reach adulthood. Perhaps they are trying to condition us to the idea that the very act of having children contributes to climate change and that the population needs to be controlled in order for the planet to survive.

Most of us live our lives believing whatever the media tells us, allowing our government to get away with lies and usurpations of our liberty. In the past eight years we have witnessed our government sell guns to Mexican drug cartels and then blame the murders committed with those guns on the second amendment. While screaming for gun control in America, the previous administration allowed high powered machine guns to find their way into the hands of America's enemies in Syria, and as we speak a fallacious witch hunt continues against a duly elected president with only one goal in mind, destroy his credibility in the minds of the American voter by any means necessary.

Our young men are told they are violent rapist as they are drugged with ADHD medicine in school. They are told they are racist and privileged, and that their existence contributes to the oppression of minorities. All initiative to try as hard as we can to achieve our dreams is destroyed as misguided liberals with heads full of mush take away all competition because, well because it’s not fair that some people can try harder than others. We are creating an existence of meaninglessness as government works to level the playing field, so we are all the same, exactly the same. Boys can get away with self-identifying as a girl, join a girl wrestling team and be recognized as a winner. Bruce Jenner was recognized as woman of the year. Our kids are taught that their gender is not a physical reality but a social construct, and they can self-identify with any of the so called one hundred twelve genders liberals now claim exist. This does nothing to bring attention to the real qualities men and women possess which not only highlight our differences but bound us by a common humanity, a reason for existing. Perhaps they are conditioning us for the arrival of artificial intelligence and the fact that creating human life in a laboratory is now within the realm of scientific possibility. Can you imagine a world where government scientists can create what they consider to be the perfect compliant human being while robots guided by artificial intelligence dominate the planet? I wonder what these people who have demonstrated such a value for human life will do with the rest of us?

Perhaps we should look at this from the mental health angle? Who do we blame then, the mental health of the shooter who obviously had issues or the mental health of a gym teacher who harassed him instead of addressing the issues he was dealing with? 

Students recalled that Pagourtzis was a quiet student, and was teased by a number of people, including the gym coach.

“He’s been picked on by coaches before, for smelling bad and stuff like that,” a student told local reporters. “And he doesn’t really talk to very many people either. He keeps to himself.

What do you do with an adult man that harasses teenagers because they smell bad? It was beyond obvious to anyone paying attention that this kid was having emotional distress and the most he got from an adult male that could have helped was harassment? Sometimes it is ok to suggest that people need to suck it up and drive on, other times however, people really need help and no child should feel like they are being bullied by adults in tax payer funded public schools.

Looking at this from the mental health angle will do nothing to help for several reasons. One, there is no biological indicator or medical test which proves people suffering from mental duress have an actual medical condition which is treatable by psychotropic drugs. Two, mental health itself is a tool that has been used to turn people away from religion and towards science. In other words, the world is becoming more twisted because we are listening to psychologists and psychiatrists more than we are following God.

A psychopolitician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of "mental healing." He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of "mental healing." He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of "mental healing" until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.

To achieve these goals the psychopolitician must crush every "home-grown" variety of mental healing in America. Actual teachings of James, Eddy and Pentecostal Bible faith healers amongst your misguided people must be swept aside. They must be discredited, defamed, arrested, stamped upon even by their own government until there is no credit in them and only Communist-oriented "healing" remains. You must work until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise of "psychology." You must labor until every doctor and psychiatrist is either a psycho-politician or an unwitting assistant to our aims. (Leventia Beria)

Many people will struggle to understand how a kid can walk in and murder eight of his classmates only two months after the Parkland shooting. Still, many others understand a simple reality that seems to allude those who seek Utopian ideals from misguided government promises. That reality is that we allowed ourselves to be corrupted, we have lost touch with God as we plugged into our electronics and let smart phones tell us what to think. We let government tell us we can't pray in the schools we pay to operate while they silently indoctrinate our children into the tenets of humanism/communism. We have turned our backs on truth as we let fear prevent us from standing for the values we claim to espouse. We let someone else assume our responsibility and then act shocked when we discover our failure. We can blame this on all of society’s ills, we can blame guns, mental health, bullies, the schools, and bad parenting. The one thing that never gets blamed is the individual himself and it is meant to be that way by design. Man is not to be viewed as being able to take responsibility for his own actions. Society itself, from the perspective of the psychopolitical operator is to be suffering from an illness that only alignment with communist ideals can fix.

Basically, Man is an animal. He is an animal which has been given a civilized veneer. Man is a collective animal, grouped together for his own protection before the threat of the environment. Those who so group and control him must then have in their possession specialized techniques to direct the vagaries and energies of the animal Man toward greater efficiency in the accomplishment of the goals of the State. (Leventia Beria)

Perhaps the biggest problem we face is that we forgot we are not animals but children of God. For far too long our children have been beat down with Darwinian evolution which teaches them they are nothing special, just another animal. If that’s the truth then what does anything matter?

Saturday, April 7, 2018

The S is hitting the F America

The left has become completely unmasked in their intentions. There is no longer any doubt whatsoever that they seek nothing less than a full repeal of the Second Amendment and the disarming of good, law abiding Americans of all weapons. Despite the fact that Donald Trump, who happened to support the assault weapons ban under Clinton by the way, recently tweeting that a repeal of the Second Amendment would never happen, anti-gun laws are being passed at the local level without a peep from the President. The truth is that they don't need to repeal the Second Amendment at all, they simply have to gain enough public support by creating a hatred of firearms and their owners to pass laws that pull the teeth from the Second Amendment. This is exactly what they are trying to do. As usual, the attempts to demonize the gun culture by blaming innocent people collectively for the crimes of deranged individuals has backfired. David Hogg may have been the best thing for gun rights as their main target, the NRA, has enjoyed surging memberships.

The City Council's of Deerfield Illinois and Boulder Colorado have recently passed local "assault weapons bans" with the expectation that owners will surrender their weapons within sixty days or become criminals. In Illinois they expect to be able to levy a fine of one thousand dollars for everyday of non-compliance. How do they expect to do this? It is against the law for a locality to pass statues going against the federal Constitution.

Article VI, paragraph II, of the Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause and it establishes federal law in compliance with the Constitution to be the law of the land. Chief Justice John Marshall, ruling in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, declared that federal laws passed are in compliance with the Supremacy Clause only if they are pursuant to the Constitution itself. (Heritage Guide to the Constitution)

"The Supremacy Clause does not grant power to any federal actor, such as Congress. It deals with resolving conflicts between the federal and state governments once federal power has been validly exercised." (Heritage Guide to the Constitution)

In other words, in order for state laws dealing with constitutional issues, such as depriving an individual of their rights and property without due process, the state must be in compliance with federal law. There is no section in the United States Constitution which allows for the confiscation of private property or the banning of firearms, period as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, protects the natural right of self-defense.

A federal court in Massachusetts has just ruled that a ban on AR-15 style rifles is not unconstitutional as these types of weapons are not within the original meaning of an individuals right to keep and bear arms. U.S. District Judge William Young made the following determination.

This is absurd as the Second Amendment itself was written for the express purpose of protecting the Citizen Militia. 

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What type of arms then does the Second Amendment protect? This amendment was written for the explicit purpose of people being able to defend their liberty from tyrannical government power. Not for hunting. The ruling in the case of the Massachusetts court goes against the determination found in the Supreme Court case District of Colombia v. Heller, where the individual right to keep and bear arms was upheld. The court said the following-

“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms.” Consequently, one of the purposes of the Second Amendment “is to secure a well-armed militia. . . . But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms." 

Clearly, the right to keep weapons such as an AR-15 is protected by the Second Amendment. Despite the fear being pushed about these rifles they are not military weapons because they do not have the three round burst selector fire switch that the standard military issue M-4 has. It is only a semi-automatic rifle. Most of the generated hype surrounding the AR-15 is due to cosmetic features which many claim give the rifle an ominous, threatening appearance.

As local city councils and states alike continue to pass laws banning the possession of such rifles, there is guaranteed to be resistance. People are not going to automatically comply with such laws and as such, the decision will have to be made whether or not to enforce them. To attempt to forcefully remove lawfully acquired property, or to render someone a criminal simply for possessing something the left suddenly criminalized is unethical, immoral and could be considered an act of aggression. It is perfectly legal to purchase an AR-15 rifle and as many thirty round magazines as you wish. These rifles can be bought at almost any sporting goods store. No government, on the local or federal level has any power to make them illegal and then punish the legal owners for possessing them. This is clearly established in the Heller opinion.

Not only is the right to arms a natural right, it is a Biblical responsibility. We have the responsibility to protect our own lives as well as the lives of our families. It is absurd to think that restricting the law abiding citizens right to semi automatic firearms such as the AR-15 they will be safe from criminals who do not follow the law. Criminals mind you, who routinely are in possession of much more powerful weapons. The police have drastically upgraded their weaponry due to the fact that criminals often have fully automatic weapons. Why then, should the citizenry be left helpless against such threats?

If any provide not for his own, and specifically for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 1 Timothy 5:8

Ted Weiland writes in Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution that a failure to recognize the responsibility of self defense as being ordained by God would result in the belief that government grants such rights as bearing arms; therefore, people would be more likely to comply with unjust laws. It was the original intent of the Second Amendment, many believe, to recognize a right that existed before the creation of the state and that the amendment itself protects, not grants the right to self defense. In other words, the repealing of the Second Amendment should not matter, it is not government that grants us our rights. The right to self defense predates government. We are along ways away from the original intent and with the constant attacks against Christianity, anyone holding the Christian view of Biblical self defense is likely to be considered an extremist.

The danger we face is a misled public being enraged through the demonization of gun owners. People are easily manipulated into a mob mentality and the efforts directed towards gun owners are designed to make the public mistrust them. All it would take, if the government chose to enforce gun confiscation, is a few people resisting and the stage would be set to treat all gun owners as potential threats. The framework for this is already established in a report published by the Department of Homeland Security in 2009 entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. According to this report the very fact that people would be worried about an infringement on their right to bear arms is suspect enough for the federal government to consider you a potential extremist. The following paragraphs are from this report.

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government.  The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.

As you can see, the rules of the game have already been established. They fully intend to restrict firearm ownership and those that disagree or resist are going to be considered extremists and dealt with accordingly.

Why would people be concerned about the restriction of firearms? All throughout the twentieth century, gun confiscation was followed up by mass round ups and the extermination of people considered to be undesirables by Communist governments. All in all it is estimated that over one hundred and sixty million people were murdered in peace time by their own governments. Clearly, had these people refused to surrender their natural rights to self defense the outcome would have been different.

Our nation has reached a point where hatred and mistrust is boiling over the top. The government, along with academia and media continue to push a narrative that demonizes not only gun owners but white, Christian men through the white privilege narrative. In South Africa, this same mentality has led to the slaughter of over 30,000 white farmers, and the government has passed laws allowing for the confiscation of their land. With the constant attacks against the main stream culture in America and the demonization of white men what reason do we have to believe that surrendering our weapons would not leave us vulnerable to the same? In closing I would like to leave you with a quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's, The Gulag Archipelago.

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

We have to win this before it reaches this point America