America's Red Flag Warning: Understanding the Developing Narrative

In just a few short days the Democrats will be in control of the House of Representatives. They have promised bold and decisive action on gun control with several bills in the works that would among other things, make private sales illegal, expand the back ground check system and outlaw the building of customized rifles. One of the most disturbing bills to be introduced in the House was HR 5717 by Representative Susan Brooks (R-In). Introduced last May, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations on June 5, 2018. No action has been taken on this bill since that time. HR 5717 would give the Attorney General $50,000,000 for  each of the fiscal years 2019, 2020 and 2021 to give grants to states that have passed their own "Red Flag" gun confiscation bills. HR 6747 is a similar bill that was introduced in September of 2018 and referred back to the Judiciary Committee where no action has yet been taken. With the Democrats coming into power this could very well change and these bills could get moving.

Red Flag Laws are rapidly gaining ground with 13 states currently having them on the books and nearly all the others ready to introduce their own. With grants promised from the department of Justice why wouldn't they? They get tax payer money to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens while the real criminals and murderers remain untouched. Like all other gun control measures, Red Flag laws, or extreme risk protection order laws have proven to be a failure. California has had them on the books since 2014, yet it did nothing to prevent the illegal alien from murdering Officer Ronil Singh this past week. Shouldn't being in the country illegally be enough to have you deemed a threat to yourself or others?

Ironically, the Red Flag hype gained ground after the Parkland Florida shooting. Connecticut's laws, which have been on the books since 1999, were looked at as the model for other states despite the fact that they did nothing to stop Adam Lanza and the Sandy Hook school shooting.

Gun control laws do nothing to prevent the criminals from using guns to commit their crimes. That is why they are called criminals. California's gun related crime is up eighteen percent since 2014 and they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. In fact, they have had a universal background check system in place since 1991, and have prevented people who have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes from owning firearms. According to a study conducted by John Hopkins University, these measures had no impact on the number of gun deaths in the state. In the UK, another leftists dream gun control state, hand guns were banned in 1997 and firearm ownership was tightly regulated. Despite this, Britain is seeing a vast increase in the flow of illegal guns and gun crime, proving once again that gun control only affects the law abiding citizen who is willing to comply.

It is important to understand that Red Flag Laws, while seeming to be necessary to prevent a dangerous individual from obtaining weapons, are ripe for abuse. It is the language of the bills along with the developing narrative that you have to pay attention to. For example, in HR 5717, one of the listed criteria for issuing an Extreme Risk Protection Order is if the individual in question poses a significant danger to themselves or others by possessing a firearm. If a person is that much of a danger to themselves or others wouldn't that be the case even if they didn't have firearms? After all, according to the FBI more people are murdered with clubs and hammers than rifles. Confiscating their firearms on mere speculation will do nothing to prevent them from murdering if that is what they intend to do. Furthermore, as far as the left is concerned simply owning a firearm is enough to have you considered a threat to yourself or others. Especially if you understand their worldview.

Every time there is a mass shooting we are treated to hours of propaganda describing how the individual involved obtained his weapons legally, or that they stole them from a family member who were the lawful owners. This is purposeful, it is an attempt to plant the idea in the mind of the masses that guns in the hands of the public in general, pose a threat to all of us. They want your neighbor to fear you if by chance they see you loading up your AR-15 for a day at the range. Another common narrative is that the shooter was a well known member of the community who nobody believed was capable of committing such an act. The message here is that anyone at anytime can snap for no reason and that as long as there are guns in the hands of the public we are all at risk. Finally, the new developing narrative is the failure of government systems to function as they should. Individuals purchasing weapons who should have been denied but the background check system failed. While logic dictates that gun control will always fail, the masses will see this as a need to implement more controls.

These talking points are important because it speaks to the lefts worldview and how they see mankind in general. The left, mostly being Communist or Socialist are also subscribers to the theory of Darwinian Evolution. Evolutionary theory contributed greatly to the development of communism. It was the scientific approach of human existence as opposed to the spiritual, that enabled people to accept the tenants of communist rationale. Karl Marx viewed the theory of evolution and it's scientific explanation of natural history being best suited to justify his theory of communism. According to Darwin man has no independent will of his own. We are just animals whose behavior is based on evolutionary traits, not rational thinking or free will. When the left portrays the mass shooter as a normal everyday person who just snapped they truly believe, or want you to believe, that this can be anybody with a gun because we have no control over our own behavior. This justifies, in their minds, the passing of laws that enables them to deem someone a threat simply for owning a weapon.

As the state becomes empowered to confiscate weapons from lawful owners more and more will naturally resist. Extreme Risk Protection Orders can be issued with no forewarning to the owner. Heavily armed agents will show up to individuals homes at zero dark thirty attempting to confiscate legally owned guns as was the case in Maryland where a man was killed in such a situation. As people resist, the narrative will slowly develop into one where all gun owners are a danger to themselves or others because they fear an encroachment on their rights.

(U//FOUO)  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. 
  
 — (U//FOUO)  Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists.  DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.  

If you're worried about gun control you're already considered a threat to yourself or others. This is America's Red Flag warning. The line we have all been drawing in the sand is being crossed. I'm not advocating violence, all they need at this point is an excuse, however; if there was ever a time to become active and let your voice be heard it is now. We must educate the ignorant masses to the dangers these laws pose or else people that innocently file for an ERPO may find themselves minus one family member for nothing more than expressing concern over their behavior. We must also understand that there are already laws on the books to deal with an individual who makes threats or displays suicidal behavior. They simply have to be enforced.

Many people believe that President Trump wouldn't sign such legislation, however; his recent bump stock ban should convince them otherwise. With one swoop of a pen the ATF has gained the authority to go in a law passed by congress and change definitions to suit their needs. They had already declared bump stocks to be perfectly fine for public use in 2010 and now anyone in possession of one after March 2019 will be a felon. America, it is time to wake up and get involved instead of assuming that someone else will save you.

To learn more about the war on the Second Amendment check out my book

Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest 

           Also available in Paperback

Now's The Time For Conservatives To Hold Trump to His Word

Once again the nation was treated to the annual government shut-down soap opera we have all grown so fond of. The left attempts to whip up mass hysteria over a small portion of government being closed as if we can't live without them. The vast majority of people are probably not even aware it happened and of those of us paying attention, most are wishing the whole government would just go away.

Initially, it appeared that President Trump was going to cave on the budget bill again. Last year, after all the drama, Trump had signed a 1.3 trillion dollar spending bill to keep government funded through 2018. This bill allowed Planned Parenthood to receive 500 million in tax payer funds annually.

Defunding Planned Parenthood was a major campaign promise. After signing, Trump immediately took to the airwaves and promised to never sign such a bill again claiming he did so simply for the military funding.

Perhaps this is why the president refused to sign this latest bill. On the other hand, maybe its all just a big game to keep us confused and unsure of what to believe.

In 2006, the year that the Democrats won the house and senate from the Republicans, Donald Trump donated heavily to the Democrats, in particular, Chuck Schumer. In fact, it has been reported that Schumer has received more donations from Donald Trump and his family than any other Democrat. According to The Blaze, Trump told Hannity in an interview that he would naturally donate to Democrats in New York because they are the ones running the state.

"So, what am I going to do, contribute to Republicans? Am I going to contribute to — I mean, one thing, I’m not stupid — am I going to contribute to a Republican for my whole life when they get, they run against some Democrat and the most they can get is 1 percent of the vote?" Donald Trump

Perhaps that is true, however; it doesn't make any sense that someone who has received as much money as they had from President Trump would treat him the way Schumer treats him. Furthermore, it doesn't make any sense that Trump, if he were a principled conservative, would cooperate on any level with someone who treats him the way Schumer does after donating so much money to him. Unless of course, its all just a horse and pony sideshow.

Surprisingly, Trump, along with his son, donated heavily to Hillary Clinton in the early to mid 2000's. He also gave $100,00 to the Clinton Foundation. Is this the same Hillary Clinton that Trump said should be investigated and arrested or the same Hillary Clinton that was an invited guest to Trump's wedding?

Since 2012 Trumps political donations have been exclusively to Republicans, according to Politico.

What's the point of all of this? The new year is rapidly approaching and in a few short weeks the Democrats will be in control of the House of Representatives. They are promising a one two knock on gun bills and as Trump just demonstrated with the bump stock ban, preserving the second amendment may not be a campaign promise he intends to keep. Look at the above quote. Does that sound like the quote of a principled man or someone who will go which ever way the wind blows? If he were a Republican at the time he was donating large sums of money to Democrats. Why? Democrats don't favor big business. He obviously believed it would benefit him somehow. With Democrats in control of the House will he suddenly switch gears under the same belief? At this time that remains unclear.

One thing is for certain, if there ever was a time conservatives needed to unite and stand ready to hold the President to his promises it is now. Far too many people are still insisting that the president is playing a brilliant game of four-dimensional chess with his attack on gun rights. They believe this bump stock ban will end up in the Supreme Court and that Trumps nominees will save us. Well, we already saw how Kavanaugh voted in the last case.

Perhaps President Trump's refusal to sign the latest budget deal was in response to a massive uproar of disapproval from his base. As long as people are willing to hold him accountable and stop with this belief that what we are witnessing is an epic battle of principalities instead a circus sideshow, we may come out of this less damaged. The problem is that too many people refuse to accept the information presented in this article or the fact that Donald Trump himself has expressed support for single payer health care and bans on semi-automatic rifles. A federal court has recently declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional. Obamacare was designed to fail, in order to pave the way for single payer. What will replace it? Donald Trump allegedly changed his position on semi-auto bans when becoming the Republican nominee. In 2019 we will find out for sure. Pay attention, its going to be a bumpy ride.

Democrats and Republicans Uniting on Red Flag Gun Laws

Things are beginning to unravel quickly. The left is engaged in a full frontal assault against the Second Amendment and they intend to keep pushing until they win. Far too many Americans are sitting in a comfortable, ignorant state of euphoria believing Trump and the U.S. Senate are on their side. Senator Lindsey Graham (R) has joined forces with Senator Richard Blumenthal (D) to introduce a red flag gun restraining order bill in the senate. Senator Rubio (R) has plans to introduce one similar to Representative Susan Brooks (R) HR 5717 that would give the U.S. Attorney General the power to give grants, tax payer funded grants, to pass their own red flag gun laws. Ever since President Trump sat next to Diane Feinstein on live television and expressed his support for taking guns from people "deemed to be a threat to themselves or others" before being afforded due process, states have been passing their own red flag laws at an alarming rate with encouragement from Trump's White House.

The concept behind the "red flag gun law" is a simple one that seems to be a common sense solution to what the public sees as a massive gun violence problem. Under these laws a family member or law enforcement agency has the power to file for an extreme risk protective order without an individual being aware of it. If the individual is deemed to be a threat to themselves or others, armed law enforcement officers will show up to the individuals home to confiscate their firearms without any forewarning. In many cases the individual in question has no criminal record nor has any warrant for arrest.

In Maryland a man was shot by police under these circumstances. They showed up at 0500 hours and demanded he give up his firearms. The request for removal was made by the mans niece, who after he was shot and killed admitted that the man was harmless and that the police didn't need to do what they did. The police justify the shooting by claiming they don't know just what they may have prevented by confiscating his firearms. The man had no history of violent behavior but because his niece was uncomfortable, he is dead. 

Ironically, the state where one of the worst school shootings in recent history occurred, Connecticut, red flag gun laws have been on the books since 1999. They obviously were not effective in stopping Adam Lanza from shooting up Sandy Hook Elementary School. Even more ironic is the fact that after the Parkland shooting The Ct Mirror bragged about Connecticut being one of the first states to pass such laws, even though they did nothing to stop Sandy Hook from happening. California is another state where red flag laws, along with other stringent gun control measures have been on the books for many years and their gun related homicide rate is eighteen percent higher than before passing these laws. We all know that gun control affects only those with no inclinations to hurt others.

There is some evidence that suggests red flag laws have prevented people from committing suicide. Indiana for instance, saw a 7.5% decrease in gun related suicides since the enactment of their laws. Connecticut saw a 1.6% drop. These percentages are miniscule however and there is very little research out there that suggests seizing someone's firearms will prevent suicide all together. There are other means of committing suicide but as long as its not done with a firearm the powers that be seem content. 

The truth is that red flag laws are ripe for abuse, and the burden of proof shifts from the accuser to the accused completely eliminating due process. The words "a danger to themselves or others" leave a broad open space for interpretation by law enforcement. It would be one thing to give immediate family member's and them alone the right to petition for such an order in the case of extreme situations. Remember though, it is already against the law to purchase a firearm if a restraining order has been filed against you. Giving law enforcement this power is concerning because law enforcement is being conditioned to view those with opinions differing from the politically correct as potential threats to national security. As this author has mentioned in several other articles, The Department of Homeland Security  considers gun owners that are worried about an infringement of their gun rights as potential extremists. How long before anything you say online, or calling your congressman to express concern about government corruption is enough to have law enforcement consider you a red flag? In New York they are considering legislation that would enable them to do a search of your social media as part of the back ground check process.

The stage is set. All it will take is a few more people resisting these red flag gun confiscation orders and all gun owners will be considered a "threat to themselves or others." This could roll down hill very quickly and it will likely gain support of the sheeple because all they will be told on the news is a dangerous man resisted gun confiscation and was shot by police. The media has relentlessly waged a successful propaganda campaign aimed at terrifying people out of their own rights.

Passing these laws and eliminating our rights to due process is a clear violation of the constitution let alone giving the attorney general the power to fund it with our money. People need to awaken to the fact that Democrats and Republicans are uniting on this issue and in the event any of these laws pass it will be under the guise of bringing the country together to make us all safer. Didn't someone else say this before?

1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has
full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient
and the world will follow our lead to the future!
-- Adolf Hitler

Interview with Cliff Kincaid

This week I was interviewed by the President of America's Survival Inc, Cliff Kincaid, concerning my new book Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest. Among other things we discussed the recent ruling of the Supreme Court to decline a case concerning tax payer funding of Planned Parenthood. Brett Kavanaugh, who many believed was a conservative, sided with the liberals of the court in this decision. While many conservatives may have been surprised, the fact remains that many of us tried to get the word out that Kavanaugh was not a conservative at all, but a big government shill. Cliff Kincaid was one of the first and was attacked and censored for his position. Following his lead I wrote my own articles highlighting the fact that Kavanaugh was telling senators in private meetings that he would uphold abortion law. The country was being led to believe that there was mass opposition to Kavanaugh because he was a pro-life conservative that would undo Roe v Wade. Mentally ill people were being paid to show up to the capital to protest his nomination in an attempt to make the conservative base believe he was really a conservative. A technique designed to keep us asleep at the wheel no doubt. The reality was that they were staging these protests simply to keep the illusion of conflict alive. They wanted us to believe they opposed him when in reality, they wanted him on the court all along. Below is the interview.

Without a Second Amendment

"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.”

The above quote is from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. Look at the words and read them carefully America. This one quote tells the tale of a disarmed, helpless population at the mercy of a brutal communist dictator that had a vision for a better world. In the final days, after years of simply going along and not understanding the implications of what was happening in their country, the Russian peasants trembling in fear, finally understood. Their time was up, there was no better world, only death.

Solzhenitsyn says they didn't love freedom enough and that they had no real awareness of the situation. What does he mean? Clearly he means the Russian people had neglected their own responsibility to the society in which they lived. They lost any appreciation for what freedoms they may have had and believed the propaganda machine that fed them a continuous stream of lies about total equality and fairness. They believed their government when they were promised freedom from responsibility if they would just surrender their own free wills. In the end, the only equality there was the equality of dirt, squalor and the stench of rotting flesh.  

Before the communist revolution of 1917 gun ownership in Russia was quite common and firearms were readily available in cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg.  In 1918 the Bolsheviks, under Vladimir Lenin outlawed gun ownership and specifically targeted non-communist party members for confiscation. Members of the party were of course allowed to keep their guns. 

If you notice, here in America there is a major attempt to portray conservative Christians as potential terrorists even though they commit virtually no violence. Leftist groups like Antifa however, who identify as communist, routinely get away with violent protests against their political rivals which often result in destroyed property and injured people. 

After the communists declared victory the firearms restrictions were codified into Russian law. All those who were found to be in possession of firearms were sentenced to hard labor in the concentration camps, where millions were murdered incidentally. After Lenin died and Stalin took over, the communists, because of the existing gun laws, were easily able to implement a system of terror where all who were found to be in disagreement with communist ideals or were considered a threat, were rounded up for extermination. Stalin was able to confiscate property and engineer famines simply because the people had no means to defend themselves. In the end, Stalin eliminated nearly twenty million people who had been made completely helpless through the passage of gun registration and confiscation laws by people who believed they could create a better world. What the Russians didn't understand was the creation of a better world meant the complete surrendering of their own wills and the right to exist as they see fit. 

This is what happens when the value of life is diminished and people are viewed through the lens of science as opposed to spirituality. Much of Communist, and Nazi philosophy for that matter, is based on the precepts of Darwinian evolution. Human life, being a process of evolution as opposed to being created by God, has no inherent value according to evolutionary science. Human beings have no soul or independent will of their own; therefore, eliminating those who are viewed as inferior has no moral consequence. In America today a new moral ideal is slowly being created and those that disagree with it are labeled as intolerant bigots. This new ideal is presented as a higher form of morality and those that oppose, as Hillary Clinton referred to us, are deplorables. At the same time there is a massive effort by those redefining the nations values to strip us of our rights to keep and bear arms. Why? I think the answer is obvious.

Many people live day to day with the belief that what happened in Soviet Russia can never happen here because we have the Second Amendment. Sadly, most young people in our nation know next to nothing about the constitution let alone something as important as the Second Amendment. Furthermore, a staggering forty-four percent of millennials claim they would prefer to live in a socialist nation as opposed to capitalism. These young skulls full of mush, as Rush Limbaugh would call them, are blissfully unaware of the millions murdered under such systems because they are not taught the truth. 

Unfortunately, America's current situation is not that different from the one described by Solzhenitsyn. Most people are living their lives ignoring the warning signs, unsure of what is happening in their own country. Millions of people, as a result of mass propaganda campaigns designed to get us to think differently about guns, are ready and willing to surrender their rights for the promise of a better, safer world. Most of these people couldn't articulate the reason for the Second Amendment in the first place. The right to gun ownership needs to be viewed as more of a responsibility than a right. The Second Amendment protects the inherent value of human life by ensuring that the right and responsibility to defend it is recognized and protected. When that responsibility is stripped from the individual life no longer has value, or rather, the value of your life is now decided by someone else. In other words, when the right to defend your life is stripped from you and placed in governments hands, government controls whose life has value and whose does not. If the left truly believed in equality they too would hold the Second Amendment up as a cherished right which must be defended at all costs because it is the one thing that protects and defends a system where all men are viewed as equals. Without it we are nothing. When the government is armed and we are not we are no longer equal, but weaker. Without the ability to defend it life become meaningless. The right to life depends on our right to protect it. 

To learn more about the war on the Second Amendment check out my book

Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest 

            Also available in Paperback