Sunday, March 17, 2019

The Coming Red Flag Laws and the Changing Perception of Terror

 There is a continuing trend when it comes to the issue of terrorism. With increasing regularity, acts of terror committed by radical Muslims are ignored while the white Christian male gradually becomes the new threat. The shooting in New Zealand for example, is being called an act of terrorism. The white male shooter, being portrayed as a white supremacist, was said to be triggered by a hatred of immigrants. In the United States, when a Muslim commits a mass shooting, he is portrayed as a crazy individual who isn’t motivated by religious fundamentalism. When a white male commits a mass shooting, he is referred to as an angry right-wing extremist driven by an anti-government ideology. Don’t misunderstand, the shooting in New Zealand was most certainly a terrorist attack complete with socio-political objectives. The point of this article, however, will be to show the deliberate attempts to change the public’s perception of what extremism is and the efforts to shield Muslim extremists from any criticism.

(Personal note: This author believes all peaceful people have the fundamental right to pray without fear of violence. The real people at fault are the ones who deny law abiding people their inalienable right to armed defense. Some reports suggest it took police more than a half hour to respond to the situation in New Zealand.)

Since the beginning of 2019 more than 120 Christians have been slaughtered by radical Islamic militants in Nigeria. Many people don’t know this because it isn’t reported in the news. In fact, throughout 2018 the thousands killed in the African nation have led some to believe that a literal genocide is occurring. In the United States, the left wing press has reported that anti-government, right-wing extremists are responsible for more acts of terror on our soil than radical Muslims. For instance, Time reported since September 11, 2001, more Americans have been killed by white supremacists than by Islamic terrorists. This is a ridiculous assertion as in each case the number is rather insignificant, and the September 11th attacks took the lives of thousands in the first place.

There is a worldwide effort to criminalize any criticism of Muslims. According to The Clarion Project, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has launched a global initiative to “correct” the public’s perception of Islam where one of the goals is seemingly to disconnect the images of the Islamic faith from any acts of terror. In 2011, The Obama administration pushed through UN resolution 16/18, which was pushed by the OIC. This resolution essentially criminalizes criticism of Islam by equating any negative speech to potential threats of violence. Recently, Fox News hostess Jeanine Pirro has fallen under increased scrutiny in response to her comments about Representative IIhan Omar. Furthermore, the New York City Police Department and the FBI, likely as a result of the UN resolution have removed all references to Islamic terrorism from their training manuals. The focus is now on alleged right wing extremism, or white nationalism. As time goes on, and younger generations are brought up under these guide lines, the reality of Islamic terrorism will be non-existent in the minds of our law enforcement officers.

It is ironic that one of the motivations listed in the manifesto of the New Zealand killer is immigration because according to the United States Department of Homeland Security report a concern about illegal immigration is enough to have someone considered a potential threat.

(U)  Illegal Immigration

(U//FOUO)  Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages.  They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.

(U//FOUO)  Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.  Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

(U//FOUO)  DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence.  If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.

It is also ironic that such an event occurred days before Senator Lindsey Graham holds a hearing on his nation Red Flag gun confiscation bill. After the shooting in New Zealand it is entirely possible that any one questioning illegal immigration could be viewed as suspect in the eyes of an ignorant public.

In the eighteen years since the September 11 attacks, Americans have been conditioned through a process called Associationism to view people who support the second amendment, oppose illegal immigration and question the government as potential terrorists. Associationism refers to how human beings learn by associating ideas. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the ideas of associative learning can be traced back to David Hume's Treatise of Human Nature. Hume's theory elaborated on how a person’s perceptions are influenced by previous experience. Furthermore, Hume believed that there was no idea that existed in a person’s mind that was not first shaped by a previous experience. Associative theories of learning were later expanded on by Ivan Pavlov when he developed his theories on classical conditioning. Essentially, it was discovered that trained responses to a given stimulus can be replicated by simply replacing one stimulus with another. For nearly two decades now we have been inundated with images of Islamic terrorism (stimulus) which provoked feelings of fear and panic. This stimulus was accepted by the American people due the nature of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Slowly and ever so surely, this stimulus is being replaced with suggestions of right-wing extremism. Which, because of the already preconditioned perception of terror, is easily provoking the same pre-conditioned response. In other words, the word terror is now being associated with images of patriotic Americans standing up for their rights.

We are approaching a dangerous time. If the Red Flag laws pass and become national it will virtually create a closed society where everyone will be suspect of everyone. People will no longer speak freely for fear of being labeled a potential extremist and having a Red Flag order placed against them. They will no longer seek help if they are experiencing mental duress for the same fear. The more people resist such unconstitutional actions the more people expressing patriotic sentiment will be viewed as extremists and a potential threat to themselves or others. Every time an event like the one in New Zealand occurs the more this narrative will develop. Donald Trump not only supports the idea of Red Flag confiscation laws he agrees with Clinton on the idea of preventing people on the terror watch list from buying guns. According to the DHS you are suspected of being an extremist if you oppose immigration or are concerned about an infringement on your gun rights. How are they going to determine who or who isn't a potential terrorist? Donald Trump has also stated that he believes large purchases of ammunition and body armor should be considered “red flags.” Many of the Red Flag bills being passed at the state level suggest simply purchasing a firearm is enough to have an individual “red flagged.” Where is this going to end?

Saturday, March 9, 2019

The White Supremacy of the Left

Earlier this week at the University of Boston, Robin DiAngelo, a professor with the University of Washington, gave a presentation in which she blamed white people for being “dangerous” if they fail to see people for their skin color. She claims that white people who deny the “reality of being black” while claiming to believe all men are equal are exhibiting white supremacism. What is the reality of black people that she is speaking of? Is she suggesting that they are incapable of achieving anything on their own, without the help of the white liberal welfare state? Is she suggesting they simply accept their place in society as an oppressed underclass and not even try? That is what is implied. Wouldn’t DiAngelo be the white supremacist for thinking this way?

The University of Washing recently made headlines when it was revealed their writing program is teaching students that the English language is racist. They claim there is no conclusive standard for the English language; therefore, holding people to any standard would be unfair because not everyone can be expected to keep up with its constant changes. The following is the full description of the University of Washington’s writing program.

The writing center works from several important beliefs that are crucial to helping writers write and succeed in a racist society. The racist conditions of our society are not simply a matter of bias or prejudice that some people hold. In fact, most racism, for instance, is not accomplished through intent. Racism is the normal condition of things. Racism is pervasive. It is in the systems, structures, rules, languages, expectations, and guidelines that make up our classes, school, and society. For example, linguistic and writing research has shown clearly for many decades that there is no inherent “standard” of English. Language is constantly changing. These two facts make it very difficult to justify placing people in hierarchies or restricting opportunities and privileges because of the way people communicate in particular versions of English.

Because we all live, work, learn, and communicate within such racist systems, the consultants in the writing center assume that a big part of our job is to help students become more critical of these unjust language structures as they affect students’ writing and the judgment of that writing. In particular, being aware of racism as structural offers students the best chances to develop as writers and succeed on their own terms in an inherently racist society.

Furthermore, by acknowledging and critiquing the systemic racism that forms parts of UWT and the languages and literacies expected in it, students and writing center consultants can cultivate a more socially just future for everyone. Just avoiding racism is not enough because it means we are doing nothing to stop racism at large, and it amounts to allowing racism to continue.

Is it any wonder our society is falling apart? Our universities are teaching that everything about our society, including the language we speak, is racist. The message of white privilege has become so perverted and twisted that Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision of a color-blind society, where people were judged by the content of their character, has been turned upside down. The word racism now implies believing that black people are equal with whites.

In a journal article entitled The English Only Movement in the U.S. and the World in the Twenty First Century it is argued by University of Arizona professor Teresa Pac that the English language has historically been used to oppress minorities and prevent them from gaining access to American culture. She also argues that white elitists enforced English as a national language because they feared minority languages would become dominant. This is a ridiculous assertion as English has never been the national language and the United States opens her doors to more immigrants from the third world than any other nation. This is an academic journal your children are reading in college.

The roots of racism can be traced back to the fields of psychology and psychiatry. These fields are heavily influenced by Darwinian/atheistic thinking, meaning that the study of human behavior is generally conducted from a scientific as opposed to a spiritual or religious perspective. Evolutionary theory then, is being applied to the development of mankind. Francis Galton, according to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, was an English psychologist who was related to Charles Darwin and shared many of his views concerning his theory of evolution. Galton, because he believed in evolutionary science, was convinced that Africans were inferior. Stating in his book “Tropical South Africa” that they had no independent will of their own, Galton believed that Africans needed leadership and preferred a life of servitude. This belief is what was later used to justify slavery. In fact, Africans who resisted slavery were considered mentally ill, as it was generally believed that blacks were incapable of self-care and freedom. This disease was referred to as Drapetomania and it is the root belief in what is driving the discussion of racism today. The left’s fundamental argument, as expressed by Professor DiAngelo, is that white people who view blacks as equal, and deny their “reality” as oppressed victims are racists. They are essentially arguing that black people are not as good as white people and need the government to make sure they have an equal chance at success. Isn’t that the very nature of white supremacism? Suggesting that whites are superior and are the only ones capable of helping blacks overcome oppression?

Sunday, February 24, 2019

The Mental Health Myth and the Danger of Red Flag Laws

"Placing some physically healthy persons in the class of sick people may indeed be justified by appeals to ethics or politics; but it cannot be justified by appeals to logic or science." (Szasz, T. 1974. The Myth of Mental Illness)

The National Association of Gun Rights has reported that President Trump's White House has endorsed the use of red flag gun confiscation orders. To the average person, perhaps even the average gun owner, the idea of passing laws restricting access to guns for those diagnosed with mental illness has merit. People have a tendency, according to Thomas Szasz author of The Myth of Mental Illness, to show an intolerance to uncertainty. Therefore, in the minds of the public, it is rational to allow law enforcement to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens if there is any question pertaining to their behavior. Over the past several years, American's have been exposed to a rash of mass public shootings followed by an unending barrage of anti-gun propaganda. These stories were certainly designed to raise consciousness of the dangers of mentally ill people obtaining firearms. Many stories highlighted the failure of the background check system and of local authorities to identify persons who may pose a "danger to themselves or others." The desired effect has been gaining public acceptance of an infringement against the second amendment and the due process rights of those who may be considered mentally unstable.

The question no one is considering is the legitimacy of mental health diagnoses. Take ADHD for example. Millions of children are diagnosed and prescribed powerful drugs for a so called disease that no one can prove is real. According to neurologist Dr. Richard Saul, the disease as defined in the DSM simply does not exist because the described symptoms are so broad that the entire U.S. population could be diagnosed with them. Of eighteen possible symptoms listed in the DSM (Diagnostic Statistical Manual) an individual only needs to exhibit five. These symptoms include everyday behaviors such as forgetfulness, being easily distracted or being unorganized. Another good example is Operational Defiance Disorder, or ODD. According to the DSM V an individual only needs to display disagreeable behavior one day a week for a period of six months to be considered operationally defiant.

The truth is that science has no idea what happens to the brain of a person diagnosed with mental illness. According to Psychology Today, it is understood that mental problems can develop from traumatic instances or drug use; however, there are no biological indicators which prove there is abnormal functions in the brain, and most disorders are diagnosed through observations of behavior rather than pinpointed, scientific tests which are used to identify physical illness. The same is true when it comes to schizophrenia, a disease that many people associate with psychotic behavior. According to Loren Mosher, a psychiatrist at the National Institute of Mental Health, there is no medical evidence that supports the idea that schizophrenia is caused by chemical abnormalities in the brain. Thomas Szasz alludes to the idea in the Myth of Mental Illness that psychiatry, as a profession, fell into the habit of classifying behaviors that were misunderstood as mental illness simply because it is in man's nature to classify things. He says that if we fail to take into account the rules made in classification systems, which according to him do not occur naturally and are always made by men, we run the risk of mistaking our own systems for naturally occurring events. In other words, psychiatry over the years has become to dependent on their own systematic way of understanding; therefore, we have a system where illnesses are diagnosed off of observed behavior instead of something that can be proven to exist through medical tests.

This is important to understand because under many of these red flag laws the ability to quickly assess behavior and make determinations of some one's mental status is being left in the hands of law enforcement. This is troubling in many ways because according to the Crime Prevention Research Center psychiatrists and other mental health specialists routinely miss the signs that may, according to the government, indicate someone may pose a danger to themselves or others. Their research shows that many of the recent mass shooters we have bore witness to have been in the care of psychiatrists and determined to not pose a threat to society. Furthermore, they highlight that only 13 out of 25 mass shooters were known to have mental health diagnosis' such as schizophrenia. This means that the probability of a schizophrenic committing a mass shooting is one out of 123, 077, according to The Crime Prevention Research Center.

"To put it differently, if a psychiatrist was asked to screen 100,000 people with schizophrenia and identify the 1,000 most dangerous people from that group (the most dangerous 1 percent), less than 1 of that 1,000 would actually commit this crime and this assumes that you did accurately pick the 1,000 most dangerous individuals.  To put it differently, you would have hopefully caught at most one real dangerous person, but at the expense of 999+ “false positives.”  Again, note that this is 999 false positives out of 1,000 people is an overly optimistic number.  The true false positive rate will be much, much higher." (The Crime Prevention Research Center)

What this means is that it is incredibly difficult, even for mental health professionals, to identify dangerous people based on the methods used to diagnose mental health. Under the current system of observing behavior, people can be deemed mentally ill for any action that may seem questionable to anyone with authority to make such a determination. If mental health professionals have had difficulty in determining the intentions of their own patients, how can law enforcement or any other part of the justice system do so successfully? If we drive on with this idea then we will be setting a precedent that will leave us with no freedom at all and a society diagnosed as crazy.

Saturday, February 16, 2019

Anti-Gun Narrative Continues to Develop Against Laser Sights

 On Friday, February 15, just hours after the President declared a national emergency, there was a mass shooting in Aurora Illinois.The timing of this shooting, as is the case with most of them, is extremely suspicious. Not only have the Democrats been exposed in their fake Russia collusion story for trying to orchestrate a coup, there are several gun control bills in the house and senate. These bills include high capacity magazine bans, universal background checks and of course, national red flag laws. H.R 5717, for example gives the Attorney General the power to give states tax payer funded grant money to implement their own red flag laws. President Trump's pick for attorney general has just been confirmed by the senate and he is a proponent of these unconstitutional confiscation schemes. Will this shooting, under the pretext of a declared national emergency, be an excuse to push these bills through? We will see.

Gun control has proven over and over to be a failure. If it worked there wouldn't have been a shooting. Not only does Illinois have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, the individual in question was convicted of felony assault in 1995 for stabbing a woman. This means he was already a prohibited person and likely obtained the gun used illegally. A study conducted by the Department of Justice has determined that fewer than 1 in 50 prison inmates convicted of gun crimes purchased their guns through a licensed dealer, meaning that universal background checks would do nothing to stop gun crime. This of course will be ignored by lawmakers because their agenda doesn't revolve around safety, but disarming the citizenry.

After every shooting there is a developing narrative designed to reinforce the notion that more gun laws are needed. For instance, we often hear that the shooter was a normal everyday guy who no one suspected was capable of going off and committing such a crime. This creates the impression in gullible minds that their gun owning neighbor is also such a person. This narrative reinforces the idea that there is a need to confiscate someone's guns if there is any behavior that seems to be questionable. Another example is the one from the Church shooting in Texas. The shooter in that case was able to purchase his gun legally because the U.S. Air Force failed to report his name to the criminal database after being convicted of domestic violence. Like most other systematic failures, this is completely the government's fault; however, it reinforces in the public's mind the idea that our gun laws need to be revamped and more back ground checks are needed. This is all propaganda aimed at  getting the general population to demand change.

The shooting in Illinois is no exception. There is a new narrative developing though and it is dangerous in the sense that it goes along with an executive action taken earlier in the year by President Trump, one that has divided the gun community to be honest. President Trump's bump stock ban is not fully understood for the danger it really presents to the second amendment. It is unconstitutional in the sense that the attorney general essentially re-defined the existing definition of the word machine gun in the 1968 gun control act to include devices like bump stocks, or anything which increases the rate of fire on a semi-automatic rifle. Machine guns are already illegal and are defined as one pull of the trigger for a continuous rate of fire. Bump stocks do not even achieve this as they only use the energy of the rifle's recoil to allow the trigger to be continuously pulled. The trigger, when using a bump stock is still being pulled every time a round is discharged.

Based on this article from CNN, it is safe to assume that laser sights will be next on the list of things to ban. Laser sights allow a shooter to acquire their targets more quickly enabling for more rapid fire. So, there you go. The CNN story describes the shooter as running down the hallway just shooting everybody with a pistol that had a green laser sight. This story is designed purposefully to create fear and possibly add laser sights to a growing list of things democrats want to ban.

The CNN article also described people in the factory running for their lives when they heard the shooting start. People panicking, not knowing what to do. In this writers humble opinion this is part of the problem. This nation was founded on the idea of being a warrior culture. A population trained in the use of arms standing ready in defense of their families, communities and nation. It was understood that firearms in the hands of good men were a necessity in the fight against evil. A relentless propaganda campaign waged by the left has changed all of that. The general public has been brainwashed to fear guns and the people that own them. If this keeps up and there isn't a massive re-education effort in defense of the second amendment we will soon be like Britain where people are reported to the police for buying hammers. This is the inevitable result of encouraging an atmosphere of fear and mistrust and banning guns. People still murder and no one can defend themselves and eventually something as innocent as buying a hammer becomes suspicious behavior.

Update: Reuters is now reporting that the shooter was able to purchase his firearm and obtain a permit legally despite being a convicted felon. According to Reuters, police are claiming that a criminal conviction in Mississippi would not necessarily prevent him from obtaining a gun permit in Illinois. This is a lie. Obviously, this is a developing narrative to justify the passing of universal background checks and eventually, a registration system.

Has there been an intentional effort to brainwash people into thinking differently about guns? Eric Holder can answer that.

Sunday, February 10, 2019

Understanding and Rejecting Darwinian Evolution

With every new sunrise we witness the world plunging deeper and deeper into chaos. Mankind seems to be taking the final steps off the edge and further away from sanity. The Democrat party, having once removed the word God from their party platform has exposed itself for what they really are, pure evil. The party that claims to be looking out for the oppressed and vulnerable has revealed it's true agenda, death. They have shown the world that they have no concern for the most vulnerable amongst us and that life, in their minds, has no value beyond their own definition.They are arguing that a pregnant mother should have the right to kill her baby right up to the point of birth and in some cases, even afterwards. How did we get to this point?

For years, our higher education system has been in the grips of those who do not believe in God. Our universities used to exist for the single purpose of teaching students how to find and pursue truth. Since the advent of Darwinian evolution and Pavlovian conditioning however, education has moved into the realm of the scientific, disregarding Gods word in this search and leaning on man's understanding instead. Once man discovered that behavior can be trained, shaped and manipulated to serve his own ends, life lost value as it was no longer believed that men had wills of their own. 

B.F. Skinner once described the study of human behavior as being either pre-scientific or scientific. Pre-scientific meaning from the perspective that man was in some way able to control his behavior and scientific, after the acceptance of Darwin's theories of evolution. 

"In what we may call the pre-scientific view (and the word is not necessarily pejorative) a person's behavior is at least to some extent his own achievement. He is free to deliberate, decide, and act, possibly in original ways, and he is to be given credit for his successes and blamed for his failures. In the scientific view (and the word is not necessarily honorific) a person’s behavior is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed. Neither view can be proved, but it is in the nature of scientific inquiry that the evidence should shift in favor of the second. As we learn more about the effects of the environment, we have less reason to attribute any part of human behavior to an autonomous controlling agent. And the second view shows a marked advantage when we begin to do something about behavior. Autonomous man is not easily changed: in fact, to the extent that he is autonomous, he is by definition not changeable at all. But the environment can be changed, and we are learning how to change it. The measures we use are those of physical and biological technology, but we use them in special ways to affect behavior." (Skinner, 1971)

In the above statement Skinner says that the study of human behavior should be conducted from the "scientific view" as opposed to the pre-scientific view. Looking at man through this lens has lessoned the value of human life. We have become, in the minds of scientists and behaviorists, no different than the animals Darwin claimed we are. We are not in control of our thoughts, actions and behaviors, they are controlled by the "evolutionary history of our species and the environmental circumstances to which an individual has been exposed." (Skinner, 1971)

 Darwinian evolution is a central theme in Marxist Communism. Marx needed a scientific view which justified his war against God and Darwin's theory of evolution, which claimed that humans had no divine connection or will of their own was used as that justification. 

Marx was at one time a devout Christian. He later became angry and turned against God. Many argue he was an atheist however, the book Marx and Satan by Richard Wurmbrand suggests that Marx developed Communism as a means of destroying God's creation. It is difficult to deny that Communism attacks the very nature of man and turns him into nothing more than a product of our behavior. Marx argued that class struggle was a natural part of evolution or dialectical materialism. The bourgeoise, the oppressor or "thesis" would naturally be overthrown by the proletariat or the anti-thesis, resulting in evolutionary progress of the species. Marx, according to Wurmbrand, reduced man's behavior to being motivated by economics alone. Love, along with other human emotions, was reduced to nothing more than a necessity to achieve economic success.  

It can be argued that the Theory of Evolution, combined with Marx's ideas, are responsible for the atrocities the world witnessed in the twentieth century. When the value of human life is reduced to nothing more than an accident or process or evolution, eliminating undesirables that stand in the way of other's grandiose ideas is easy. Communists killed an estimated 80-100 million people, according to The Black Book of Communism, because they were viewed as being in the way of progress, or creating a better world. 

All of this has brought us to the point where human beings are now viewed as a scourge to the planet and the young have been indoctrinated into this thinking. It is now considered moral to kill a baby right up to birth.

If things are to change in this nation Darwinian evolution must be rejected as the main basis for scientific inquiry. It appears we may be on that path. According to an article at, one thousand scientists from around the world are rejecting the main premise behind Darwin's theory claiming that there is no way it accounts for all the complexities of life. How could a Godless theory explain the complexities in a world created by God? Hopefully, more scientists will follow and our nation can return to a state of sanity. 

Sunday, January 27, 2019

A Conspiracy You Say?

Years ago, anyone talking about a New World Order and an attempt to reduce the worlds population would be labeled a conspiracy theorist. While the government would likely target you for holding those beliefs, it is getting harder and harder to deny that this isn't a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy fact. All you have to do is look at the constant efforts to delegitimize human life itself, and it becomes crystal clear that there is an agenda.

For years we have been told that human activity is causing catastrophic climate change. Today, human beings are viewed as a scourge on the earth and many in the younger generation believe that something must be done to solve this non-existent problem or else, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says, the world will end in twelve years. Additionally, in 2015 United Nations climate chief, Christiana Figueres, publicly stated that the world should make every possible effort to reduce the population in order to save the planet.

New York City just passed a law legalizing abortions right up to birth, and they celebrate this as an advance in women's rights? Imagine the lifelong psychological conditioning required to teach a women that it is a human right to murder her own child. It has been argued that a mother should have the right to kill her child after birth if the child would be some kind of burden on the family. In fact, Peter Singer, a professor of Bioethics at Boston University, (a person in an influential position to shape young minds in other words) argues that a newborn has no claim to the right to life because they are not self-aware or rational beings. He goes onto say that certain animals are born with more self awareness than human babies yet, we don't place as much value on their lives. Therefore, it is justifiable to kill human babies after birth. Democrats claim to be for American values and defending the vulnerable. Whose more vulnerable than a newborn? Where's the value in killing new life?

The younger generation is being bombarded with anti-family propaganda under the guise of transgenderism. Kids across the country are being taught that there are more than two genders and that it is a human right to self identify with which ever gender they choose. Furthermore, to deny them this right or to fail to recognize their preferred gender pro-noun is considered a form of bigotry. Furthermore, there are efforts underway, through public education, to push homosexuality on our children as well. Not only does this corrupt the youth, it also prevents them from reproducing if they pursue the homosexual lifestyle. Could that be the larger agenda?

Men are under full frontal assault. Any characteristic that was once considered masculine is now viewed as toxic. The "Me Too" movement has been weaponized and turned into a vicious man hunting machine where any behavior viewed as traditional "courting rituals" is now a form of sexual harassment. Women, through the feminist movement, have been conditioned to place careers above family and child rearing as an oppressive, patriarchal subjugation of women. The American birth rate is declining drastically, enough so that it will be impossible to maintain our culture. Could it be possible that this is due to the constant propaganda and attacks on our nation's traditional values?

Gun control. The federal government is poised to pass the most oppressive form of gun control imaginable. Something akin to what the Soviet Union did. Red Flag gun laws. Under Senator Rubio's bill, the Attorney General would have the power to give grants to states that pass their own Red Flag gun laws. These laws completely deny an individual due process rights or any knowledge whatsoever that they have been deemed a threat to themselves or others. Armed law enforcement officers, under the unsubstantiated belief that you are somehow a threat, simply show up to your home to confiscate your guns and it is on you, under these laws, to prove your innocence.To deny individuals the inalienable right to self defense is on par with denying a new born the right to life. It shows that those passing the laws place no inherent value in being human. Considering that all gun laws only affect the law abiding willing to comply, and not the criminals intent on murdering gives more weight to the prior statement.

Everyone of these subjects could be elaborated on a great deal more. The one thing they all have in common is that they attack the value of human life. Little by little, inch by inch, our beliefs and traditional morals are being muddied and diluted with the objective of causing so much confusion that the general population simply doesn't know what to believe. If we don't know what to believe we certainly can't defend or argue for a particular belief. The constant attacks against our nations character, and the integrity of our people are carefully orchestrated propaganda campaigns designed to silence and breakdown our beliefs not only in ourselves, our nation and traditions but in God. Television, video games and an overall lack of having any responsibility for anything is exacerbating the problem. Too many people feel that these problems aren't their responsibility. Too many Americans, for example, will simply go along with the passing of Red Flag laws because they will feel it doesn't affect them. They are indifferent to the consequences of accepting abortion at the point of birth because they have been conditioned to believe that it isn't their place to judge. They won't stand up and defend Americanism because of the false associations made between American values and racism.

Nothing short of a mass awakening of the American conscience will turn us around and set the sails right. We have been psychologically conditioned to accept our own downfall in order to push a globalist agenda. By accepting the premise in any of these subjects we have made it easier for them to continue the devaluing of life.

To learn more about this agenda check out my book Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest also available in Paperback

Saturday, January 5, 2019

Welcome to Liberal La-La Land

On Thursday, January 3rd, 2019, the 116th congress convened for the new legislative session. Immediately, newly seated Democrats, as well as members of the established party, began introducing bills to impeach the president, eliminate the electoral college and fund Planned Parenthood. While little else can be expected from the Democrats, another bill was re-introduced in the Senate by Marco Rubio (Rino-FL) that would do the same as Representative Susan Brooks' HR 5717, enable the Attorney General to give tax payer dollars to states that pass their own "Red Flag Gun Confiscation Laws." This is at a time when we are being fed propaganda about the harmful government shutdown and the poor federal workers who are receiving no pay. The IRS has even announced that they won't be issuing refunds as long as the government remains shutdown. Yet, they are going to use our money, OUR MONEY, to illegally confiscate guns while denying people the constitutionally protected right of due process. Does anyone remember this? No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process law? Except for when we are uncomfortable when a certain individual has a gun and we have no compelling evidence to prove they are going to commit a crime but we just feel that it would be better if we took his guns first and made him prove his innocence later. Right?

The Red Flag Laws are based on the notion that mentally ill people shouldn't have firearms and that law enforcement and family members should have at their disposal, more tools to prevent mentally ill people from committing gun violence. There are many problems with this however, there are two that immediately come to mind.

First, there are already laws and procedures in place which enable law enforcement or any other social agency to intervene in the case where an individual is demonstrating the capacity for violence. They simply have to be enforced. The new wave of Red Flag hysteria is the aftermath of the Parkland Florida school shooting where Nicholas Cruz murdered seventeen kids. The problem is that the entire system ignored all the warning signs. Not only that, 53 school districts across the nation, including Broward County were participating in an Obama era program that sought to keep minority children out of the criminal justice system. In fact, according to Real Clear Investigations school districts who were hesitant to comply with the program were threatened with investigations and reduced funding. Furthermore, the Broward County school system superintendent worked with law enforcement to ensure that students committing crimes would not be arrested but put into a counseling program where they would explore the reasons for their anger. Fighting, assault and vandalism were all offenses that would lead to someone being referred to the program where as before, they may have been intercepted by police.

Nicholas Cruz was a part of this program and all of his behaviors that typically would have been considered reasons to involve law enforcement were ignored in order to satisfy the left's misguided notions of social justice.

As mentioned in America's Red Flag Warning: Understanding the Developing Narrative, the nation is looking to Connecticut's Red Flag law, which was passed in 1999 as a model despite the fact that it did nothing to prevent the Sandy Hook shooting.

Secondly, mental health itself is a fallacy, there is no such thing as mental illness. In other words, there are no medical tests which conclusively prove that biological anomalies of the brain cause mental illness. In fact, there is evidence which suggests that the taking of psychotropic drugs lends more to the development of abnormal brain function than the so called condition for which it was prescribed. According to the use of psychotropic drugs to treat conditions like depression actually block the production of serotonin. Low serotonin levels are allegedly the cause of depression in the first place. According to Mercola, the National Institute of Mental Health concluded as early as 1983 that there was no indication that anything was wrong with the serotonin levels of the brain in depressed patients. Furthermore, the use of brain scans to prove the existence of a biological indicator of mental disease have also fallen short of real scientific inquiry because when studying the brain of schizophrenics and depressed patients no real study has been conducted on people who have not been prescribed an array of psychotropic drugs. Despite this, along with the fact that psychotropic drugs kill thousands of more people annually than so called gun violence, mental illness is being used as a catalyst for gun confiscation.

Almost everything is considered a form of mental illness today. The DSM-V lists a total of 297 different mental disorders, none of which as mentioned earlier has a test which confirms their existence. Interestingly enough, so called expert psychiatrists at the University of Colorado have recently concluded that the desire to eat healthy foods is a sign of a mental disorder which they have amply name orthorexia nervosa. What a joke that is. So now we are supposed to believe that eating healthy foods and staying away from the processed garbage that is known to lead to disease is a sign of a mental disorder? That in and of itself should be considered a mental disorder as should the desire to strip Americans of their right to bear arms and rights to due process.

Be careful America when shopping for groceries. If you don't purchase potato chips and soda pop you may get red flagged and get a zero-dark thirty knock on your door by men with guns to take yours because you want to be healthy.

What else is there to do? It is beyond obvious that neither party is working in the interest of the American people but the global elite and their quest for a one world government. Many conservative Americans naively believe that if the house passed a Red Flag bill it would never make it past the Senate. Well, what do you do when the Senate Republicans are introducing their own?  Do you honestly believe that Donald Trump, if presented with a bi-partisan Red Flag bill will veto it? Do you really think he cares about re-election or his second amendment supporting base? We will see. At what point will disagreeing with the reasonableness of preventing mentally ill people from owning firearms be considered in and of itself a form of mental illness? If they will declare the desire to eat healthy a mental disorder they will do anything. Furthermore, academia, along with their usual leftist rhetoric discrediting conservatives, are actively developing studies which declare the belief in the right to bear arms is its self, dangerous. Couple this with some of the language in Red Flag bills that state simply purchasing a firearm may be enough to have one "red flagged" and the stage is being set for all out confiscation.

In all reality the people pushing this nonsense should be declared mentally incompetent for their unwillingness to look at facts and their inability to reason. They continue to push policies which only affect the decent law abiding people while ignoring the fact that these policies do nothing to stop real murderers from murdering. In the meantime, innocent people, such as the man shot during a Red Flag confiscation order in Maryland will be targeted and there is little doubt that more will be killed. The left has become so obsessed with guns that there is little reason to believe that everything will work out in the end. Welcome to liberal la-la land, its going to be a Utopia.

To learn more about mental health and the war on the Second Amendment check out my book Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest also available in Paperback