Category: Enemies Domestic

They hate us

They hate us. Oh boy, do they ever.
Remember Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, ripping up President Trump’s State of the Union address?
That’s a constitutionally mandated document, by the way, but more importantly, why?
What was in there that was so vile as to justify such an act? Nothing. So, why?

They hate us.

We say things they don’t like. The truth of our assertions is often admitted by them later. But at the time we say it, we are shouted down. Our speech is censored, which is colossally bad enough. But we lose our jobs. We lose our income. We are called the nastiest of things.
And when it’s proven they have censored us, do they apologize? Are they mortified as they should be? Do they swear to amend their ways?
No. They want to keep on doing it. Why?

Because they hate us, and hating us is not only O.K., it is good. Indeed it is the height of morality. It is good to hate us.

Our problem is that we do not fully realize this. We have only recently even begun to contemplate the truth of this, and we are in shock.
We should be. They are like demons possessed.
What they don’t realize is that in hating us, they are hating themselves, too. They are cutting the branch we all sit on. But they insist on it.

An example is the withdrawal from Afghanistan. To withdraw is one thing. To withdraw so as to weaken us (giving up that strategic airfield near China, giving up so many weapons, deserting our own citizens, not informing our Western allies that also had troops there) is another thing.
And none of this was even marginally necessary. None of it. Did it weaken and endanger us? Yes, and they do hate us, so we should learn to expect this. But it weakened America for all for them, too, but they don’t care.

Indeed, they don’t care at all.

So to think some last-minute consideration of self-preservation shall stay their hand is folly. Remember, they do not only hate your kids, they hate their own, too. Indeed, they hate America.
This is completely different from the way things used to be. For instance, in the Civil War there was an Issue. It was fought over and decided. And, to the great and profound credit of both sides, once it was over, it was over. The sides could then get along, since they were united in so much else.

That was yesterday. Today, they even hate the word, “American.”

Consider the beautiful American federal system, with fifty states being able to have fifty variants concerning most political policies. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision, each state could adopt the policy choice it wanted concerning abortion. Several were very liberal. Each state could do as it wanted to, and the laws were easy to modify.
But the Left could not abide this, and forced Roe v. Wade, a decision that had no constitutional basis, down everyone’s throat.

There is no live and let live. No where to run, nowhere to hide.

You must say what they wish to be said, and only that. We know now that they used the government and social media to enforce this. It is ghastly, but it means nothing to them, since censorship is good.
They will not leave you alone. They demand compliance, not only in word, but deed. You will wear a mask and like it, you will not go to church, you will not visit the sick, you will not travel, your business will be shut down, you will not require election integrity. You will have no fun and you will not complain.

This is not a cultural war. It is a fanatical religious frenzy bent on extermination of the heretofore unsuspecting, that is, of us, who are considered heretics. Even though it is not we who have changed our beliefs.
What will happen? Are we doomed?

The future is not written in stone. It may go bad, very bad; even apocalyptic.

It may not. So many incredible things have happened recently, and much depends upon unpredictable changes of heart and attitude. Much of human life is built up on things we barely understand, and we know a lot less than we think we do. That is why principles are important, to guide us through the mess. That is why the American system of governance was so wonderful, because it was built on such principles applied to government.

Yet while indeed incredible things have happened, like with the billionaire buying that social media company and revealing what we had said all along must be the case as being so, or with Ukraine unexpectedly fending off the attacker and destroying the heart of its army, nevertheless one often thinks a ‘short sharp shock’ is necessary to be brought to bear upon the Left in order to start a rollback.
Or perhaps in order for things to turn around, our own ranks have to grow to some certain number, of those who understand, among other things, that they hate us.

One thing is certain. This is not a friendly tug of war. It has been to date a raiding party on their part, descending upon a barn dance.
As we await the future, we must at the very least keep this firmly in mind, even though it is far more comfortable to imagine otherwise.

Biden Administration, State Governments Carried Out Elaborate Hoax On Gun Owners

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The “why” of the attack on the armed citizenry is as pressing as the “how”—the strategies employed. It all goes back to Government’s lust for “power” and “control” over the common people. The Globalists and their puppets in Government treat people like random bits of energy that require a firm hand lest common people get “out of hand.” The fear of the Tyrant is always that the common people will revolt against his Tyranny.

The “sticky wicket” for the Globalists is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It serves, one, as evidence of the sovereignty of the American people over their Government, Federal, State, or local, and serves, two, as a mechanism to thwart the rise of tyranny. The Second Amendment, unlike the First or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Has a tenacity that, when unleashed, a ferocity that scares the dickens of the proponents of a world empire and world domination, as well it should.

In this second half of the Biden Administration regime, we are seeing more and more emphasis placed on reining in the armed citizenry. And State Governments under Democrat Party leadership, like that of New York, are fully on board with this. Expect to see more of this, much more, in the weeks and months ahead.

The argument NY Governor Kathy Hochul makes in support of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) boils down to these two propositions:

  • People are afraid of guns and of average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners who keep and bear them.
  • Average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners pose an imminent threat to public safety and order.

Concerning the first, if some Americans happen to fear guns and those who exercise their fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense—indeed, if any American should happen to register such fears—those fears aren’t the product of something innate in a person, but, rather, are the product of an elaborate, concerted well-coordinated, and executed plan.

The question of why such psychologically damaging programs would be initiated by and ceaselessly and vigorously propagated by the Federal Government and many State Governments against the civilian population has nothing to do with a desire on the part of the Government to secure the life, health, safety, and well-being of Americans.

Rather, it has everything to do with carrying out a plot focused on the demise of a free Constitutional Republic, the only one like it in existence, the dissolution of our Constitution, and the subjugation of our people to the dictates of a new order of reality: the rise of a neo-feudalistic global empire.

Continue reading “”

“No one wants to take your guns”………….

Incrementalism in Action: Anti-Gun Governor Targets Lawfully Registered Firearms for Seizure

There are two absolutes in gun control strategy, and both were on display recently when Gov. Ned Lamont (D-CT) proposed to renege on a promise twice made to the state’s law-abiding gun owners: that they could keep their newly-banned firearms if they registered them with the state.

Connecticut has passed two bans on so-called “assault weapons,” one in 1993 and then an expanded version in 2013.

Each time, the law affected common and popular semi-automatic firearms already owned by law-abiding residents of the state. And each time, the state assured those gun owners that their lawfully-acquired guns would be “grandfathered” under the law if the state were apprised of who owned them and where they were kept.

This led to the sad and ominous spectacle of gun owners who were under no individual suspicion of wrongdoing queing up to report their own identity and constitutionally-protected property to police. As a news report noted, “The application requires information such as the individual’s name, address, telephone number, motor vehicle operator’s license, sex, height, weight and thumbprint, as well as information about the weapon, including the serial number, model and any unique markings.” It was eerily similar, in fact, to the information used when booking someone for a crime.

Meanwhile, some well-meaning but naïve gun owners thought they were simply doing their civic duty by complying with the mandate. “If they were trying to make them illegal, I’d have a real issue, but if they want to just know where they are, that’s fine with me,” one registrant told a local news station.

Readers of this website and other NRA publications knew better, however, as the Association has warned for years of the aforementioned absolutes: that gun control advances incrementally and that firearm registration leads to firearm confiscation.

Following a gubernatorial debate in November, Lamont told reporters: “I think those assault-style weapons that are grandfathered should not be grandfathered.” He continued, “They should not be allowed in the state of Connecticut. I think they’re killers.”

Pressed for specifics on how he would go about enforcing his proposal or recovering the 81,849 “assault weapons” registered with the state, Lamont did not provide details. “Start by making them illegal,” he said. “I think that would be a big difference. That is what you start with.”

In other words, without any explanation of how his plan would work or promote public safety, Lamont is proposing to make tens of thousands of state citizens who complied in good faith with the registration requirements into criminals, with their guns summarily declared contraband and subject to seizure. To make matters worse, the authorities would already know who and where those citizens are.

Lamont ludicrously claimed that the grandfathered guns themselves are “killers,” but he provided no evidence that their owners are. He did not cite statistics, or even examples, of lawfully registered “assault weapons” that were later used in crime. Meanwhile, registered or not, semiautomatic long guns of the types banned in Connecticut are rarely used in homicide, as we have noted time and again, including here, here, and here.

Despite these facts, Lamont seems intent on executing his plan to reclassify peaceable Connecticut residents lawfully exercising their constitutional rights as felons. His example illustrates very clearly what the reassurances of gun control advocates are worth and how anyone who thinks its safe to rely on such reassurances will be in for a rude awakening.

Indeed, the month after Lamont announced his intentions, an editorial in the Connecticut Mirror argued that constitutional assurances the right to keep and bear arms will be protected should themselves be repealed. “It is time to talk about repealing the Second Amendment,” the author insisted. But he made it clear that his plan wasn’t necessarily an alternative to incrementalism but a potential aid to it. “[T]he very existence of a loud argument about the larger issue of repeal will make those incremental proposals seem more moderate, and therefore ultimately more achievable,” the editorialist wrote.

Second Amendment advocates are often faulted for opposing supposedly moderate, “common sense gun safety laws” that fall well short of a comprehensive ban on all types of firearms. But the savvy ones know that punishing law-abiding people for exercising their constitutional rights does not stop criminals, and today’s accommodation for the good guys with guns is tomorrow’s “loophole” that will eventually close around their necks. This is even more so when the authorities already know who owns guns and where those guns are kept.

It’s simple: The object of gun control is the outlawing and seizure of firearms from law-abiding citizens.

But don’t just take our word for it.

Ask Gov. Ned Lamont.

The Feds’ ‘Misinformation’ Scam.

The biggest political story of 2022 was not the midterm election. It was the release of the “Twitter Files” by Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter. In the sixth installment published last week on Twitter in a thread by journalist Matt Taibbi, the headline was “Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary.” The FBI had its own channel of communication for tipping off Twitter executives as to authors of tweets who needed to be censored, if not banned, for posting “election misinformation” during the 2020 election season. What was insidious is that some of the offending tweets were satirical in nature and posted by people with relatively few followers.

At least 80 FBI agents were assigned to a social media task force. The Department of Homeland Security had its own operation. Both were inspired by the alleged foreign interference in the 2016 election, known now as the “Russian collusion hoax.” However, it was just days before Election Day for the 2022 midterms that we learned that censorship has been a secret project for over two years of the DHS, the FBI, and “Big Tech.” Apart from Twitter, that included Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Verizon Media.

The mission creep into attacking political speech, which is entitled to the greatest protection under the First Amendment, was inevitable. During the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election campaign, the New York Post was blocked by Twitter and other Big Tech giants from publicizing its story on the incriminating evidence on the Hunter Biden laptop. It was the smoking gun of influence peddling by Hunter Biden to enrich himself, Joe Biden, and his uncle to the tune of millions of dollars. We now know that the FBI joined in that censorship effort. It worked. A poll in 2022 showed that most Americans believe full coverage of the “laptop from hell” would have cost Biden the election.

To its discredit, most of the mass media joined in suppressing the news. Time magazine even ran a story bragging about how the media “fortified” the election to ensure Donald Trump’s defeat.

The other big free speech story of 2020 was the suppression of the doctors and scientists who refused to get with the program for an experimental mRNA therapy that was sold to the public as a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The subjects targeted for suppression have included the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Facebook created a restricted access portal to facilitate censorship requests from government bureaucrats.

Continue reading “”

Twitter Files Part 7: The Guns Begin to Smoke

This starts to bring it all together.

This isn’t smoking gun proof yet.

But this begins to show us where to find the smoking guns.

And it tells us that yes, the FBI deliberately ran a coordinated disinformation campaign against the people of the United States of America, and a coup against the lawful government of the United States of America that the people had elected.

Michael Shellenberger @ShellenbergerMDIn Twitter Files #7, we present evidence pointing to an organized effort by representatives of the intelligence community (IC), aimed at senior executives at news and social media companies, to discredit leaked information about Hunter Biden before and after it was published.

The story begins in December 2019 when a Delaware computer store owner named John Paul (J.P.) Mac Isaac contacts the FBI about a laptop that Hunter Biden had left with him

On Dec 9, 2019, the FBI issues a subpoena for, and takes, Hunter Biden’s laptop.

By Aug 2020, Mac Isaac still had not heard back from the FBI, even though he had discovered evidence of criminal activity. And so he emails Rudy Giuliani, who was under FBI surveillance at the time. In early Oct, Giuliani gives it to
@nypost

Shortly before 7 pm ET on October 13, Hunter Biden’s lawyer, George Mesires, emails JP Mac Isaac.

Hunter and Mesires had just learned from the New York Post that its story about the laptop would be published the next day.

7. At 9:22 pm ET (6:22 PT), FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan sends 10 documents to Twitter’s then-Head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth, through Teleporter, a one-way communications channel from the FBI to Twitter.

 

Are you kidding me?

So in other words, the FB knew the Post was about to publish, so they directed Chan to start priming Twitter to suppress the story.

8. The next day, October 14, 2020, The New York Post runs its explosive story revealing the business dealings of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. Every single fact in it was accurate.9. And yet, within hours, Twitter and other social media companies censor the NY Post article, preventing it from spreading and, more importantly, undermining its credibility in the minds of many Americans.

Why is that? What, exactly, happened?

Continue reading “”

I have inadvertently joined a Major Killing Force™

WHO Labels Unvaccinated People a ‘Major Killing Force Globally’

The World Health Organization (WHO) has labeled unvaccinated people a “major killing force globally” in a new campaign being promoted on social media.

The WHO is promoting a new video that targets “anti-vaccine activism” by blasting those who choose not to be vaccinated for supporting “anti-science aggression.”

The video features pediatrician and vaccine advocate Dr. Peter Hotez who laments the “devastating impact of misinformation and disinformation” regarding Big Pharma’s Covid shots.

Hotez goes on to link the so-called “anti-science aggression” of people who refuse the Covid vaccines to “far-right extremism.”

The professor continues by making several unsupported claims that “anti-vaccine activism” now “kills more people” than terrorism, gun violence, and several other crimes.

He then alleges that “anti-science” has become a “political movement.”

The WHO has made this wholesale condemnation of “anti-vaccine activists” despite the emerging risks of the experimental mRNA shots.

As Slay News reported, a Swiss study discovered evidence of heart injury, due to elevated troponin levels, across all vaccinated people, with 2.8 percent showing levels associated with subclinical myocarditis.

Furthermore, a group of scientists recently conducted a risk-benefit analysis which showed that getting a COVID-19 “booster shot” is at least 18 times more dangerous than catching the virus itself for young people under the age of 30, as LifeSite News notes.

However, the WHO’s showcased physician did not acknowledge these facts in his rant.

“We have to recognize that anti-vaccine activism, which I actually call anti-science aggression, has now become a major killing force globally,” Hotez said in the video, using a backdrop of photos of protestors against the Covid shots.

The University Professor of Biology at Baylor College of Medicine claims that “during the Covid pandemic in the United States, 200,000 Americans needlessly lost their lives because they refused a COVID vaccine, even after vaccines became widely available.”

“And now the anti-vaccine activism is expanding across the world […].”

“It’s a killing force,” Hotez proclaimed.

“Anti-science now kills more people than things like gun violence, global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or cyber-attacks.”

The scientist did not provide evidence for this dramatic claim.

“And now it’s become a political movement,” he continued.

“In the U.S. it’s linked to far [sic] extremism on the far right, same in Germany.”

“So this is a new face of anti-science aggression.

“And so we need political solutions to address this.”

WATCH:

 

Neither Hotez nor the WHO provided any evidence to support the claims in the video that opposition to the vaccines is linked to extremism.

Hotez is a pediatrician who works in the field of vaccine research and development and, in addition to his post at Baylor College of Medicine, is the Chair of Tropical Pediatrics at Texas Children’s Hospital.

Educator brags about indoctrinating kids, then complains about ‘right-wing’ reporting on it.

[Yep, that kind of weirdo is what some people let teach their children]

Believes right-wing is ‘legitimately trying to bring down our democracy’ A Chicago-area high school “literacy coach” recently recorded a video of herself in which she admits to indoctrinating the students in her charge.Fox News reports Crete-Monee High’s Heather Marie Godbout (pictured), a member of the school’s Equity Team, also rips “right-wing conspiracy theorist nut jobs” in her video and notes she is opposed to traditional grading policies — because grades get “conflated with other things that aren’t actually learning, like effort or ‘work ethic,’ whatever that means.”“All you right wing conspiracy theory nut jobs who seem to think the teachers are out here just indoctrinating children into some sort of woke agenda that you can’t actually define, I’m just going to come clean,” Godbout says. “I am, in fact, indoctrinating your children.”

“I’m indoctrinating children into understanding their own agency and learning how to think critically about the issues that impact their lives… I am indoctrinating children into wanting to be productive citizens of the world… So that’s what I’m doing. I’m indoctrinating them. You’re 100% right.”

In response to a commenter who asks why she appears so angry, Godbout says believes conservatives “are legitimately trying to bring down our democracy,” create “a Christian nationalist theocracy” and “literally un-alive people.” Thus, they aren’t worthy of respect.

In a follow-up video, Godbout complains she is the latest “teacher on TikTok” targeted by Fox News Digital. But she says while Fox News’s article about her is supposed to be “insulting,” she doesn’t actually consider it so.

“I’m fine … my administrators fully support my First Amendment rights to free speech on my own social media platforms,” Godbout says. She notes she’s received only a few “nasty-grams” from people who had bothered to look up her school email, including one from a “Phil McCracken.”

Godbout also points out given how strong tenure and teachers’ unions are in Illinois, any controversy over her remarks have been but a “blip.”

“Ive really had no negative repercussions,” she says. “But … this brings up the larger point about teachers and our ability to speak truth to power and to try to make sure we are creating schools that are, um, equitable and safe and helping to create the society we all want to live in.”

Godbout claims queer teachers, teachers of color and teachers who work in union-weak states face a “chilling effect” with (right-leaning) news outlets reporting on them: “All of this … bullying is designed to shut us up so that [conservatives] can continue to push their agenda.”

Makes sense when “democracy”  means demoncraps are in charge

The Twitter files: leftism requires censorship.

One of the funny (although not ‘funny ha-ha’) things about all of this is that these same people bleat on about ‘democracy’ and its great value and worth. And yet they think of the public as unable to sort out the wheat from the chaff, as children in need of control from – yes – Big Brother Twitter. And they’re not the least bit ashamed about it. They had to do it to save democracy.

America’s Ruling Regime Doesn’t Fear Disinformation. It Fears Truth.

In Joe Biden’s America, attempting to cancel Joe Rogan is just counter-terror policy.

This is because our ruling class—in the name of “defending democracy”—classifies those who question the regime on any matter of consequence as a threat to the homeland, and pledges to pursue them accordingly.

Our ruling elites have engaged in an overt war on wrongthink masquerading as a domestic counter-terror mission since at least January 6, 2021.

Continue reading “”

White House Reveals Twisted View of Constitution

We wrote earlier about Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch nailed the Colorado Solicitor General for Jack Phillips, the Masterpiece Cakemaker, being forced to undergo “re-education” after refusing to create a custom cake celebrating same-sex marriage because it violated his religious convictions.

Gorsuch made those comments in another case involving a Christian website designer Lorie Smith. Colorado claims that her website design business qualifies as a “public accommodation” so therefore she cannot turn down a request to make a personalized website design advertising a same-sex wedding because it violates her religious beliefs, that she can be compelled to make the website. That amounts to the government’s compelling speech since that’s an expressive message that the designer is creating.

“Mr. Phillips had to go through a reeducation program, did he not?” Gorsuch asked Colorado solicitor general Eric Olson. He retorted that it was actually training to educate him about Colorado law.

“Some would call that a reeducation program,” Gorsuch said.

“I strongly disagree,” the defense attorney replied.

“Isn’t religious belief a protected characteristic?” Gorsuch asked, to which Olson conceded, “yes.”

Phillip’s punishment from the Colorado commission also included a requirement that he submit quarterly reports on his company’s compliance progress.

On Monday, Kristin Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney representing Christian website designer Lorie Smith, noted that because of Colorado’s “aggressive enforcement,” her client’s “speech has been chilled for six years.”

The White House doesn’t have a problem with the government’s compelling speech, as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre explained, they think it’s just fine to do it.

“Courts have recognized that we can recog–that we can require businesses…to service people, regardless of their backgrounds, even when that means businesses must, incidentally, engage in speech which they disagree upon.”

Now, she’s being cagey, a bit, here with the language and the speech in the pending case would not be “incidental” — it’s the very heart of the request. What she’s talking about is the public accommodation law. But no, the government can’t compel speech, that’s why SCOTUS is considering this case now.

How dare the White House talk about the Constitution and then pretend they can compel speech? Or violate religious beliefs? Who are the fascists again? It’s always the Biden team who has no problem violating the Constitution to achieve the purposes they want.

We saw the White House’s duplicitous approach when it came to Twitter as well. When liberals controlled Twitter, as Elon Musk revealed, the Biden team or the DNC could contact them and get things they didn’t like suppressed. When people complained about getting banned, we were told by the liberals that Twitter was a “private business” and it could do what it wanted to users (despite the fact there was this apparent government collusion behind the scenes). But now that Elon Musk is in charge and Twitter has slipped out of their control, they must monitor and investigate it, to make sure that he complies with what they want.

They think they can dictate to us and that’s what this is about — control. Karine Jean-Pierre doesn’t even have any shame about admitting it.

My thoughts exactly. It’s another version of “Baffle them with BS”

BLUF
If the end goal is to chill the lawful commerce of arms, then the more purchases flagged as “suspicious” the better, and despite Gillibrand’s claims that law-abiding citizens have nothing to worry about when it comes to these reporting standards, the skepticism and doubt on the part of many gun owners is well-founded.

Gillibrand demands more action from Biden administration on merchant credit codes for gun stores

The establishment of a new merchant category code for firearm retailers poses all kinds of challenges for both retailers and credit card companies (not to mention privacy concerns for gun buyers). One of the biggest issues; the requirement that credit card companies and financial institutions report all “suspicious” transactions that could involve money laundering, human trafficking, terrorist financing, and other criminal activity to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

With the new merchant category code for firearm retailers, gun control activists and anti-gun politicians want to now expand that reporting requirement to the millions of transactions that take place at FFLs across the country every month. How exactly does a financial institution determine whether a particular transaction is suspicious, particularly when the new merchant credit code for gun stores doesn’t detail what exactly is purchased, only the dollar amount and the location? Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and the head of the anti-gun bank that helped to spearhead the effort to establish the new MCCs were awfully short on specifics when they held a news conference on the matter on Sunday, but the bottom line is that they believe the Biden administration could be doing much more to scrutinize retail sales at gun shops.

Continue reading “”

The Elites’ War On Food

A few months back, stories of “suspicious” fires at food-production plants raged across the media. The narrative said the sites were being sabotaged to disrupt the food supply. And it was most likely wrong. But that doesn’t mean there is no effort on the part of Western elites to put the peasants on a strict diet.

Most by now have seen reports that Dutch officials are closing as many as 3,000 farms in the Netherlands, the world’s second-largest exporter of agricultural products by value even though it’s only slightly larger than Maryland, to comply with crackpot European Union carbon dioxide emissions rules. It’s possible that eventually more than 11,000 farms will be shut down, and 17,600 forced to sharply cut their livestock numbers.

On our side of the Atlantic, the malefactors are also busy. Just the News is reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency is quietly quadrupling the regulatory cost of carbon emissions in a new war on fossil fuels, which is, of course, also a war on the food supply.

“If you think about the fact that they would impose this damage factor, let’s say on farmers, because it applies to fertilizer,” Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murill said on the John Solomon Reports podcast. “Fertilizer emits nitrous oxide. So fertilizer is a big contributor. If every family farmer now is going to have to pay more to obtain fertilizer to fertilize crops that feed us, well, what’s that going to do to the price of food?”

Are these mere coincidences, entirely unrelated, isolated events?

Could be. But …

  • U.S. farmers are convinced that “government meddling threatens their livelihoods and the nation’s food security.”
  • “Unrealistic green-energy policies in Europe – and the Biden administration’s hostility to U.S. energy production – are worsening energy shortages,” writes James Meigs in City Journal “With energy prices soaring, food production and distribution will suffer.”
  • Global skunks are promoting bugs as an alternative to the foods we enjoy, which is an implicit way of saying “you can eat insects, as unpalatable as they are, or you can go hungry – it’s almost time to choose.”
  • The White House has added agricultural land to the federal Conservation Reserve Program, encouraging farmers to leave their land fallow. It’s part, says essayist John Mac Ghlionn, writing in the Washington Times, “of a broader, government-wide push to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Interestingly, the Biden administration’s goal is very similar to the Dutch government’s goal.”
  • Canadian boy Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has proposed rules that will “decimate Canadian farming.”
  • “Even as food shortages intensify, governments, including the Biden administration, are cracking down harder on agricultural production,” the Epoch Times reports. “While the attacks on agriculture and related industries look different in different nations, many experts say it’s a coordinated global policy being promoted by the U.N., the World Economic Forum (WEF), the European Union, and other international forces determined to transform civilization.”
  • “The Biden administration has engaged in an omni-directional assault on our food production system,” says the Heartland Institute.

As it turns out, all this is happening at the same time “the number of people affected by hunger has more than doubled in the past three years”, according to the United Nations, as “almost a million people are living in famine conditions, with starvation and death a daily reality.”

Which must tickle the innards of the coat-and-tie savages at the World Economic Forum, a truly vile organization that has made no secret of its concerns over a growing global population, and issued a warning earlier this year that “degrowth,” the shrinking rather than growing of economies, “might mean people in rich countries changing their diets, living in smaller houses and driving and traveling less.”

If only the WEF were some fringe group that had no influence. But it’s not – it’s a well-funded syndicate with an axis of powerful followers.

Is it possible, as unthinkable, conspiratorial and overwrought as it sounds, that the elites want to thin the global population through man-made famine? Groups do exist, and have for decades, for the sole objective of reversing the world’s population growth. They have been treated by politicians and the media as well-meaning organizations that have a valid point.

So far, they’ve done no damage. However, they’re now in a strong position to move beyond their rhetoric. Strong ties with like-minded thinkers that have money and a heavyweight political punch makes them dangerous.

DON’T BELIEVE GIVING UP RIGHTS PROVIDES SECURITY

New York Time columnist David Brooks is reminding America why they shouldn’t put faith in opinion writers pontificating from their metropolitan ivory towers.

Brooks recently said America would be a much safer country if Americans would simply give up their freedoms and become more like Europe. If America wouldn’t hold onto the individual right to keep and bear arms spelled out in the Second Amendment, and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, he argues it would be a much safer place.

In his estimation, giving up the ability for self-defense and defense of loved ones would make crime just go away.

“That would take a gigantic culture shift in this country. A revamping of the way we think about privacy, a revamping of the way we think about the role government plays in protecting the common good,” Brooks said during a segment on PBS’ “Newshour.” “I think it would be something. I think it would be good not only to head off shootings, but good to live in a society where we cared more intimately about each other. And I would be willing to give up certain privacies for that to happen.”

That’s certainly out of the mainstream of how the rest of America views lawful firearm ownership. There were over 21 million background checks for the sale of a firearm in 2020, the most ever in a single year. Last year, Americans submitted to 18.5 million background checks. In 2022, background check figures are headed for the third strongest year on record. During the week up to and including Black Friday, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) tallied over 711,000 background checks, with over 192,000 on Black Friday alone. That was the third busiest day for FBI’s NICS ever.

The Plan: Give Up

Just how would America achieve this utopia that Brooks imagines? Just give up, he said. Give up your rights. Give up your freedoms. Submit to an Orwellian state that provides you with all your needs. He admits this wouldn’t be easy.

“But for many Americans that would just be a massive cultural shift to regard our community and regard our common good in more frankly a European style,” Brooks explained.  “I think it would benefit our society in a whole range of areas, but it’s hard to see that kind of culture change to a society that’s been pretty individualistic for a long, long time.”

America broke away from European-style rule for a reason. The Founding Fathers rejected the British crown’s demands to give up guns then. Based on background checks for gun sales, America continues to reject calls for strict gun control. A recent Gallup poll found that support for more gun control dropped nine points from 66 percent to 57 percent in an October survey.

Failed Disarmament

The argument that individuals should surrender their gun rights has been tried elsewhere with predictable results. Gun owners that complied with gun seizures find themselves unable to protect themselves while criminals that ignore the law are empowered. A recent report from ABC News in Australia showed that criminals find it easier now to obtain illicit firearms than before the multiple amnesty periods when government officials collected firearms from Australians. New Zealand instituted their own gun confiscation program and crime spiked. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern ushered in Draconian gun control, including confiscation, and the country and crime hit new peaks.

The only ones left with guns were the criminals. That’s a lesson that Canada’s grappling with now as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is eyeing his own gun confiscation scheme and banning the transfer of any handguns. Some Canadian provinces are rejecting the heavy-handed measures. Sadly, history is replete with examples of regimes that took away its citizens firearms only to become tyrannical and turn their citizens into defenseless subjects. Those that fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence expressed their fear of a tyrannical government and enshrined our right to keep and bear arms for self defense in the Bill of Rights for a reason.

Brooks is wrong to think that ridding ourselves of rights and lawful gun ownership would reduce crime. The answer to rampant crime is more law enforcement. The changes needed to safeguard America’s communities don’t begin with turning our backs on freedoms. It starts with holding elected officials in The White House, Congress, state capitols and district attorneys responsible for not enforcing the law and failing to hold criminals accountable.

Brooks’ notion is a devil’s bargain. Americans know it. Surrendering freedom has never resulted in anything less than creating a society of victims.

BLUF
The good news is that a bunch of Antifa prags has been arrested and/or convicted lately for violent crimes. The not-so-good news is that many have been been given probation instead of prison time. It’s yet another reminder that despite embracing Nazi tactics and terrorizing cities — and citizens — across the nation, Antifa enjoys the protection of the powerful left, from mayors and prosecutors all the way up to the Big Guy in the White House — just like Hitler’s brown shirts.

Don’t Be Fooled — Antifa Is America’s Nazis.

The key to understanding the Democrats is this: They accuse the Republicans of whatever they are up to. So when the libs call us “Nazis,” it’s time to take a peak under the non-binary, black bloc fashion-wear of their own street thugs and see what they’re really up to.

Antifa violently attacks Republicans, Christians, and conservatives around the nation. They shut down speeches by conservatives like Ann Coulter. Such violence is reminiscent of Hitler’s S.A., which is short for Sturmabteilung (assault division), also known as the “brown shirts.”

FASCISM-O-RAMA! Nazis, commies, and fascists hate democracy. They use/used violence against their political opponents, including shutting down speeches by their ideological adversaries. Antifa also opposes democracy, attacks people who disagree with them, and riots to cancel speeches by conservatives. If it walks like a duck goosesteps like a Nazi…

The only difference between Antifa and Hitler’s street thugs is sartorial: Hitler’s thugs preferred wearing brown shirts, hence their nickname, while Antifa fancies the Italian fascist fashions championed by Mussolini’s Blackshirts.

IRONY-O-RAMA! Fifty tears ago, leftist, soap-dodging hippies fought for free speech at Berkeley. Today, their gender-free Nazi/commie/fascist grandkids screech and battle to shut it down.

Below, we see the dames of Antifa sporting matching helmets and black uniforms. In other pictures, you’ll see them carrying shields.

AP/Reuters Feed Library

Yet Democrats have historically refused to admit Antifa exists, much less tried to leash their street animals. Let’s not forget:

That “myth” recently planned on burning down Tesla dealerships because, as true fascists, they hate that free speech is back on Twitter. Stupidly, they used Elon Musk’s own Twitter to organize their violence. Musk suspended their accounts, something Twitter refused to do before Musk bought the social media giant.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Those who want to disarm you do not have your best interests in mind.

How the Orwellian Term “Gun Violence” is used to Push Citizen Disarmament

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The term “gun violence” has been deliberately inculcated into the public debate over the last 20 years. It is common in news articles. It has been used in numerous court briefs. It appears in court decisions at the appellate level and in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court.

George Orwell, in the novel 1984, explained how language can be structured to eliminate and curtail thought.

“Gun violence” is an Orwellian term designed to structure and limit debate to pre-determined solutions. It is designed to hamper the ability to think about reality in certain ways. The purpose of Orwellian structuring of language is to make it difficult or impossible to think certain thoughts or entertain certain concepts. This is the purpose of the term “gun violence”. The term “gun violence” frames the problem as guns.  It frames all violence committed with guns as illegitimate.

Guns can be used or misused. Violence can be legitimate or illegitimate.

Guns can be used for legitimate purposes such as defense, hunting, recreation, and multiple target sports. Guns can be used for illegitimate purposes, primarily for a crime. Guns can be used for suicide. The legitimacy of suicide is a hotly debated topic.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
When parents, voters, and political leaders understand the true nature of Drag Queen Story Hour and the ideology that drives it, they will work quickly to restore the limits that have been temporarily—and recklessly—abandoned. They will draw a bright line between adult sexuality and childhood innocence, and send the perversions of “genderf***,” “primitivism,” and “degeneracy” back to the margins, where they belong.

The Real Story Behind Drag Queen Story Hour
Aimed at children, the phenomenon is far more subversive than its defenders claim

Drag Queen Story Hour—in which performers in drag read books to kids in libraries, schools, and bookstores—has become a cultural flashpoint. The political Right has denounced these performances as sexual transgressions against children, while the political Left has defended them as an expression of LGBTQ pride. The intellectual debate has even spilled into real-world conflict: right-wing militants affiliated with the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters have staged protests against drag events for children, while their counterparts in the left-wing Antifa movement have responded with offers to serve as a protection force for the drag queens.

Families with children find themselves caught in the middle. Drag Queen Story Hour pitches itself as a family-friendly event to promote reading, tolerance, and inclusion. “In spaces like this,” the organization’s website reads, “kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves.” But many parents, even if reluctant to say it publicly, have an instinctual distrust of adult men in women’s clothing dancing and exploring sexual themes with their children.

These concerns are justified. But to mount an effective opposition, one must first understand the sexual politics behind the glitter, sequins, and heels. This requires a working knowledge of an extensive history, from the origin of the first “queen of drag” in the late nineteenth century to the development of academic queer theory, which provides the intellectual foundation for the modern drag-for-kids movement.

The drag queen might appear as a comic figure, but he carries an utterly serious message: the deconstruction of sex, the reconstruction of child sexuality, and the subversion of middle-class family life. The ideology that drives this movement was born in the sex dungeons of San Francisco and incubated in the academy. It is now being transmitted, with official state support, in a number of public libraries and schools across the United States. By excavating the foundations of this ideology and sifting through the literature of its activists, parents and citizens can finally understand the new sexual politics and formulate a strategy for resisting it.

Continue reading “”

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy questions law enforcement funding for ‘Second Amendment sanctuaries’

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Sunday that there needs to be a “conversation” about whether to continue to fund law enforcement in a “Second Amendment sanctuary state” or counties that are “refusing to implement” gun laws that are on the books.

Murphy said “Second Amendment sanctuaries” are counties that have declared that they are “not going to enforce state and federal gun laws” and that there needs to be discussion in the Senate over whether they want to continue to fund law enforcement in these counties.

CNN’s Dana Bash followed up and asked if he wanted to withhold funding for law enforcement.

“I think we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement in states where they’re refusing to implement these gun laws,” Murphy said. “I’ll talk to my colleagues about what our approach should be to this problem. But 60% of counties in this country are refusing to implement the nation’s gun laws. We’ve got to do something about that.”

Murphy said the county where the Colorado shooting at Club Q happened is a “Second Amendment sanctuary state.”

Continue reading “”

It’s only bizarre until you remember the Chinese media is nothing more than the propaganda organ of the Chinese commie goobermint, just like Tass and Pravda for the commie Russians.

Chinese media makes bizarre claim about guns

The Chinese media has, in recent years, opined plenty about the right to keep and bear arms.
Well, they have and they haven’t.

You see, they talk about guns and gun control, but they don’t acknowledge the right to own guns. A prime example is this editorial from China Daily.

A shooting at a Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia, in the United States late on Tuesday left at least six people dead and some injured, three days after a shooting at a Colorado nightclub left five people dead and 25 injured. The number of mass gun killings in the US has now exceeded 600 for the third year in a row.

Gun violence was a major issue during the recent midterm elections in the US. US President Joe Biden said that gun violence must be tackled, but repeated shootings indicate that the problem is only getting worse.

It is not surprising that deaths from gun violence in the US are far higher than in any other developed country, given that with just 4.2 percent of the world’s population, the country has 46 percent of the world’s civilian guns.

Now, from this, it could appear as if this were just any other editorial from any American city. Guns are bad and shootings are happening and gun control is the only answer, blah blah blah.

But it’s how this wraps up that is telling.

The long-standing gun violence in the US is rooted in its “gun culture”, which came after the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, adopted in 1791, was judged to protect the right of citizens to own arms.

Given that the right to life is the most important human right, whether the US can effectively curb gun violence should be an important yardstick for the international community to measure its human rights.

What we’re seeing here is the communist party there using the Chinese media to try and deflect from their many human rights abuses by claiming America is a human rights abuser.

The problem is that this misrepresents a great deal.

You see, if the United States government was killing people, then maybe China would have a point–and remember, there is no independent media there. It’s all government-run–but that’s not what’s happening. These are private individuals killing private individuals. The government is no more responsible for its actions than any other nation is for the individual actions of its citizens.

The Chinese media here is trying to present our violent crime issue as if it somehow should absolve others of their government-driven abuses.

I’m sorry, but I’m not interested in being lectured by a government that has literal concentration camps that they have herded a minority population into.

Yes, individual Americans are killing other individual Americans, but the Chinese media has no place to criticize anyone when they’re the mouthpiece for a nation that believes in the forced sterilization of so-called undesirables.

Our right to keep and bear arms is a right. It’s anything but a human rights abuse.

While we all agree that something needs to be done about mass shootings, we don’t need to take China’s advice or anything said by the Chinese media. Especially since even the authoritarian controls there can’t stop violent crime.

BLUF
Biden may have directly named Elon Musk at that press conference, but his threat was aimed at every household in America.

Biden’s not-so-subtle lurch toward dictatorship

In the wake of the midterm elections, President Joe Biden was asked during a rare press conference, in reference to Twitter’s new owner, whether he thought Elon Musk was a threat to national security. With a pause and a smirk, the president said that topic was “ worthy of being looked at. ”

With those words, Biden made it clear that if you even seem to oppose his politics, your private life will be under the direct scrutiny of the state. Despite his constant prattle about saving our democracy, Biden seems to think he’s running an authoritarian police state.

In truth, the federal government already maintains entities that review acquisitions such as Musk’s for anything from foreign influence to anti-competitive business practices. After many months in which Musk’s negotiations to purchase Twitter happened in full public view, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said last week that she sees no basis for the government to investigate that purchase.

Despite Musk’s having followed the law, Biden, on a whim, wants to change the game. Suddenly, and after years of Twitter and other social media having significant foreign investors, a normal and transparent voluntary transaction is a potential “threat to national security.”

Biden signaled his desire to strip off the veneer of the rule of law and use the power of the presidency as a dictator would—by his whim and without respect for the rules that everyone else must abide by.

Continue reading “”

‘Roadmap’ Latest ‘Commonsense’ Ploy to Advance Citizen Disarmament

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)-  The 97percent “gun safety” organization purports to have a plan to reduce “gun violence” that can bring people on both sides of the issue together. In Part One, AmmoLand looked at a so-called “Policy Roadmap” put out by the group and examined its three “core principles.” In Part Two we examined the four policies we’re told promise to dramatically reduce gun-related homicides and suicides.

Of course, it will do none of that, but instead is just a “new” tactic to recycle to make old citizen disarmament ideas palatable to a critical mass of low-information Americans amenable to being manipulated by well-funded “gun safety” snake oil salesmen.

What makes 97percent’s “roadmap” all the more insidious is that the organization is (at times) successfully employing a “divide and conquer” strategy by claiming to represent both “responsible” gun owners (as if opponents are irresponsible) as well as “bipartisan” (that is, RINO) interests. We’re essentially talking Fudds and Democrat gun owners, who place faith in centralized government disarmament diktats and hostility to “deplorables” above uninfringed freedom for their countrymen. Out of such, we get groups like Giffords’ calculatedly-named Gun Owners for Safety, and “Republicans” like Joe Walsh, who capitalized on his supposed “pro-gun” bona fides to advance his political career and then “proved” them by “commending” David Hogg and endorsing Joe Biden.

Continue reading “”