March 6, 2015

State Proselytism Via Concealed Carry Permitting

Ammoland today has an article about how the Washington Post is attempting to wrongfully scare the hell out of people over the fact that some states are considering legislation that would bring back “Constitutional Carry” of weapons, vs. Concealed Carry and Open Carry. Constitutional Carry allows an American citizen to carry open or concealed without having to jump through hoops and get a license from the government.

Ammoland brings out an interesting point:

In saying these things, WaPo misses the fact that the ultimate purpose of many concealed carry permit classes around the country isn’t to make the citizen a better shot or more adept at drawing and shooting a gun to begin with.

Rather, the purpose is to lecture them on state laws regarding lethal use of force, thereby absolving the state of liability in a licensing situation.

But Constitutional Carry is another way to absolve the state of liability —it is perhaps the best way— for it makes responsibility and liability a personal matter once again.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

The America Few Want to Recognize

“Mr Bosworth was handcuffed and taken away. He was never read his rights; his gun was taken, illegally; he was refused an attorney, although asking for one at least six times; and he was interrogated illegally for several hours. The incident culminated when the Spokane County Sheriff intervened and Mr Bosworth was released after being cited for “failure to comply.””<<<Read More>>>

FCC New Statist Unelected “Seize” er of Human Control

Mostly due to fake cyber security breeches, relentless government fear mongering and a sedentary citizenry, manipulated into uncaring and unquestioning servitude, the Federal Communications Commission, took a giant bite out of the last bastion of free speech, a place to express independent thought. The Internet is now a government-controlled wasteland…or soon will be.

What is described as a 300-plus page book of regulations, has remained secret. Reports are that even the FCC board that voted on the new central control actions, didn’t see the pages of the plan, but they voted to approve it anyway.

Perhaps the largest grab of power away from the citizens and free enterprise in many, many years, and for the most part, aside from a random reporting about the vote, the media is silent and the population is ignorant. The false focus and distraction is on “Net Neutrality”.

And now you know why all of this fascist control is being undertaken at breakneck speed. We are too blind to see it nor do we care…evidently. People should help the government and the puppet dupes out and keep discussing the pros and cons of “Net Neutrality”. That way they can implement all the other anti rights portions of the new regulations none of us are allowed to see.

What in God’s name is it that humans cannot see in this? WHAT?

Message to Jesse Jackson: Stop Lying About the Voting Rights Act

Jesse Jackson Wrong to Claim U.S. Supreme Court Made Voting Rights Act “Null and Void”

“Resorting to Hyperbole… Unnecessarily Divides People,” Says Project 21’s Cherylyn Harley LeBon

Washington, DC – Jesse Jackson’s false claim that a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision made the 1965 Voting Rights Act “null and void” is being refuted by legal and civil rights experts with the Project 21 black leadership network.

Project 21 members are demanding Jackson tell the truth about the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

“Jesse Jackson is certainly entitled to criticize how the U.S. Supreme Court reformed the Voting Rights Act in 2013, but he also has a duty to be truthful about what the justices did instead of resorting to hyperbole that unnecessarily divides people,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a talk show host with the USA Radio Network and former senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “The Voting Rights Act was not made ‘essentially null and void’ in 2013. The law still exists and it still protects us. For Jackson to throw such allegations out there like that is reckless and wrong.”

In comments at the Bethel Missionary Baptist Church in Pratt City, Alabama February 7, Jesse Jackson grossly mischaracterized the outcome of the 2013 Shelby County case when he said: “What was earned in blood in Selma was taken away by the pen in Shelby, so the Voting Rights Act of ’65 was essentially null and void. So in effect what we won on the battlefield in 1965 was taken away June 25th, 2013.”

In Shelby County, the Court found that Section 4(b) of the 19-section Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional because it is based on a formula last updated in 1975. Congress is free to update the formula, which places certain states and localities under special scrutiny because of discrimination that took place over 40 years ago.

Project 21 submitted a legal brief in the case, arguing that the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance standards are “not consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution,” and that there is a danger that parts of the Act are “now a central tool for institutionalized racial discrimination at the command of the [Obama Justice Department] itself.”

“Jesse Jackson has it absolutely backwards. The purpose of the Voting Rights Act was not to give a preference to any group because of their race, but instead end the practice of preferring one race over another. Over time, Eric Holder and people such as Jesse Jackson transformed that consensus into becoming the very thing that America came together to resolve,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, who taught constitutional law at George Mason University and served on the leadership staff at the U.S. House of Representatives. “It is no better to prefer blacks in redistricting than it is to prefer whites. I’m proud of the role that Project 21 played in creating the race-neutral vision that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated.”

“Once again, it appears Jesse Jackson is playing on America’s emotions in order to continue his agenda of pimping black Americans out to advance his perceived role as a leader and celebrity,” added Project 21’s Shelby Emmett , a lawyer and former congressional staff member. “The changes to the Voting Rights Act that Jackson complains about do nothing of the sort to limit voting rights for black Americans — or any American. The reforms instituted by the U.S. Supreme Court removed the assumed racist assumptions of specific states and districts. Any actual violations can still be prosecuted. Suits can still be filed, and damages can still be awarded. The level of scrutiny is still high. My voting rights are as secure today as they were before 2013. In fact, I feel they are more secure with these changes because, instead of profiling a few select states, the changes require the same standards nationwide.”

Jesse Jackson also alleged blacks in Alabama and elsewhere are maliciously “packed and stacked” in majority-minority legislative districts, falsely claiming this practice is only possible because the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

In fact, the Voting Rights Act triggers special federal scrutiny when redistricting may result in fewer minorities being elected to office, so the truth is the opposite of Jackson’s claim: the Voting Rights Act remains in force and itself promotes the existence of majority-minority districts.

The U.S. Supreme Court is in the process of deciding a case involving Alabama’s recent legislative redistricting in which members of the state’s black and Democrat lawmaker caucuses sued over the accusation that the redistricting unfairly concentrates black voters.

Leaders of the Alabama legislature, the defendants in the case, cite pre-Shelby County Section 5 enforcement as the impetus for the disputed mapping decisions. Project 21 also submitted a brief in the combined cases of Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama, arguing: “In these cases, Alabama was prohibited by [the Voting Rights Act] from acting in a race-neutral manner. Redistricting was done under the preclearance regime in place before Shelby County… [S]tates will continue to be placed in the impossible position of being required to comply with racial balancing statutes and the Equal Protection Clause simultaneously [without stricter scrutiny regarding race].”

“Comments from the Reverend Jesse Jackson illuminate the irrelevancy of today’s racial leaders,” said Project 21’s Joe R. Hicks, a former executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. “Rather than a backwards step, the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County ruling actually represents a victory for civil rights. The majority ruling by the justices only struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act and its preclearance formula, leaving the remainder alive and intact to protect the voting rights of all Americans. Reverend Jackson should know that Section 5 enforced racial gerrymandering which created voting districts drawn on racial or ethnic lines.”

Hicks added: “While it is clear that facts to leftists and liberals are like Kryptonite to Superman, only a few states in the union had a total voter turnout rate – for whites or minorities – under 50 percent since 2012. In fact, the turnout in six of the states covered by Section 5 was well above the national average. Mississippi, a state the voting formula for Section 5 was intended for, had the highest total turnout rate in the nation. If so-called leaders such as the Reverend Jackson were truly interested in actual racial progress he would be celebrating along with me that the Court made Section 5 a relic instead of perpetuating meaningless racial mythology.”

Project 21 participated in the cases of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and Shelby County v. Holder over the past two terms of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama and Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. during the Court’s current term. Over the years, Project 21 has been involved over a dozen legal briefs and its members have discussed these cases in hundreds of media interviews and citations.

Project 21 members were interviewed or cited by the media over 2,000 times in 2014, and over 200 times so far in 2015, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, the Orlando Sentinel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch , SiriusXM satellite radio as well as 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WHO-Des Moines, KOA-Denver, WGN-Chicago, WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh. Topics discussed by Project 21 members included civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, voter ID, race preferences, education, illegal immigration and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 members also provided substantial commentary regarding the Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner judicial proceedings. Project 21 has also defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

If the EPA Wants My Old Woodstove, Beware the Bullets When They Come to Get It

*Editor’s Comment* – When the EPA bans the use of inefficient (by their fascist standards) wood-burning stoves, the bastards can come and get mine. Caution to EPA: Beware of multiple gunshots flying in your direction upon entry.

“The EPA has finalized a 344-page rule to make wood stoves more environmentally friendly, meaning that millions of Americans will soon be forced to buy more expensive wood-fired stoves.”<<<Read More>>>

The Source of American Individualism

In my opinion, the Judeo-Christian concepts of Galatians 5:1, 13, 14, 15 are magic in that these verses are consistent with the assertion that the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution comes from the concept of Judeo-Christian God-given rights.

Gal. 5:1 “Freedom is what we have – Christ has set us free! Stand, then, as free people, and do not allow yourselves to become slaves again.”
13″But do not let this freedom become as excuse for letting your physical desires control you. Instead, let love make you serve one another.”
14 “For the whole Law [think the Bill of Rights] is summed up in one commandment: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
[The American principle of “Mind your own business” comes to mind.]
15 “But if you act like wild animals, hurting and harming each other, then watch out, or you will completely destroy one another.”
[Don’t behead people for the common intellectual curiosity of exploring other faiths or even atheism.]

Galatians 5 shows us that arguments for marriages based on physical desires such as sexual preferences actually pushes Godless hedonistic sin cleverly masquerading as sacred Judeo-Christian God-given individuals’ freedoms protected under the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Such deception is only possible through a systematic corruption of the national education system in particular law schools. And it may take beginning the discussion of yanking accreditation of law schools that bury, for example, US v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875) [right of individuals to assembly and to bear arms predates US Constitution and are rights not dependent on the Constitution] before systemic changes can be made.

American Judeo-Christian God-given human rights for individuals address critically important freedoms from the brutality and barbarism of the King’s and of Roman Law’s absolutism (that Prof Hamburger discusses in legal treatise “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” 2014). Somehow the Godless would have us believe that American individualism, that is, the Bill of Rights, should include marriages based on physical desires contrary to our Founders’ Judeo-Christian views of freedom. Trials without jury, baseless warrants, seizure of private property, beheadings and other cruel and unusual punishments and more are the true forms of slavery and oppression.

Consider also these sources:

Our individual rights are sacred.
A legislative assembly has an inherent right to alter the common law, and to abolish any of its principles, which are not particularly guarded in the constitution. Any system therefore which appoints a legislature, without any reservation of the rights of individuals, surrenders all power in every branch of legislation to the government. The universal practice of every government proves the justness of this remark; for in every doubtful case it is an established rule to decide in the favor of authority. The new system is, there, in one respect at least, essentially inferior to our state constitutions. There is no bill of rights, and consequently a continental law may controul any of those principles, which we consider at present as sacred.” Id, Agrippa, Tuesday January 14, 1788, p. 538 Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902. [Spelling and capitalization in the original.]

Purpose and importance of the Constitution and its relationship to Government.
[Note that our Founders reference a Judeo-Christian God here as the Maker.]
If it be considered separately, a constitution is the organization of the contributed rights in society. Government is the exercise of them. It is intended for the benefit of the governed; of course can have no just powers but what conduce to that end: and the awfulness of the trust is demonstrated in this – that it is founded on the nature of man, that is, on the will of his Maker, and is therefore sacred. It is then an offence against Heaven, to violate that trust.” Letter 4 by John Dickinson as Fabius, Pamphlets on the Constitution, p. 794 Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902. [Emphasis in the original.]

Livy, sharing thoughts from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Should Workers Be Fired for Legal Political Activity Outside of Work?

Leading Free Market Group Asks Dozens of Major American Companies to Protect Workers’ Right to Freely Engage in Political and Civic Activities

National Center for Public Policy Research’s Employee Conscience Protection Project Warns: Millions of Americans Potentially Subject to Workplace Discipline for Private Political Actions and Beliefs

In Response, Credit Card Leader Visa Takes Steps to Protect Its Workforce From Political Discrimination While Wholesale Giant Costco Resists Employee Protections

Washington, DC – Revealing the first results of nine months of behind-the-scenes corporate activism to protect American workers from political discrimination in the workplace, on back-to-back days last week the National Center for Public Policy Research spoke at the shareholder meetings of Visa Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corporation, praising the former for amending its corporate documents to protect its employees from potential workplace discrimination over political actions and beliefs while criticizing the latter for refusing to do the same.

Visa and Costco’s divergent actions came as the result of shareholder resolutions the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project submitted to each company late last year.

“Visa very quickly realized the merits in our proposal and changed its corporate policies to ensure its workforce that its private political actions would have no bearing on their employment with the company. It is a tribute to superb management that realizes hiring and retaining the best workers involves protecting those workers’ First Amendment rights,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “Unfortunately, Costco, which employs more than 195,000 people worldwide, does not share those same values.”

Costco went so far as to petition the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the right to omit the National Center’s shareholder proposal from its proxy statement.

At Visa’s shareholder meeting last Wednesday in Foster City, California, Danhof stated, “When we asked Visa if it would consider protecting its employees’ private political and civic activities, the company did not hesitate to amend its corporate policies to do just that. Many major American corporations have resisted such a protection, but Visa employees should feel proud to work at a company whose leadership realizes the importance of employee freedoms.”

Conversely, at the annual meeting of Costco shareholders that took place in Bellevue, Washington last Thursday, Danhof asked, in part, “America was founded on the ideal of a representative government that derives its power from the consent of the governed. In a nation with anemic civic activity participation and low voter turnout, it is disappointing that one of the country’s largest retailers would fight to maintain the ability to terminate its employees for private political activity. My question is this: why did Costco’s leadership fight to maintain “managerial discretion” over the private political and civic activities of the company’s employees?”

In his question, Danhof also quoted directly from the arguments that Costco made in front of the S.E.C. as to why it should have been permitted to exclude the National Center’s shareholder resolution. Specifically, Danhof noted, “Costco fought to exclude our proposal in front of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Costco’s legal team argued that ‘[t]he company must have the ability to exercise managerial discretion over its workforce with respect to these issues” and that the “considerations that arise under these policies… are most appropriately handled by management, not by shareholders as a group.'”

To read the full legal exchanges between the National Center and Costco regarding exclusion of the shareholder proposal, click here and here.

“The company’s answer to my question at the shareholder meeting was almost as disappointing as the extreme lengths that it took in order to deprive Costco’s shareholders of the ability to vote on our proposal,” said Danhof. “Costco Chairman Jeffrey H. Brotman became indignant when I asked my question. He told me that ‘we’ (which I took to mean the company’s leaders) would protect Costco’s workers and that the company’s employees were free to do whatever they want on their own time. He said that Costco fought our proposal to protect the company employees from people like me. Then he backtracked and said, not exactly people like me but rather the company fought our proposal to protect the company from outsiders. From that I understood Brotman to mean that management should have ultimate control of Costco’s workforce and that the shareholders were the outsiders. That is backwards thinking.”

“Costco’s shareholders – who are the true owners of the company – should have been given the right to vote on whether the company will act as a partisan purity shop in which the staff must follow the dictates of management in their private political thoughts and endeavors,” said Danhof. “Brotman’s assertions that management should control these personal aspects and would protect its workers are vapid. The company employs more than 195,000 individuals. The chairman of the board and the CEO can’t possibly oversee and ‘protect’ each individual employee from this type of discrimination. But guess what could? The policy that we urged in our shareholder proposal, that’s what.”

“If I were a Costco employee, I would be very concerned that my management team, which is directed by some well-known extreme liberal partisans, refused to add policy protections for private political activities. Conservative employees should especially be concerned,” added Danhof.

For the better part of a year, the National Center has been asking corporations to implement policy protections shielding workers from adverse employment action for engaging in private political and civic pursuits. Through its Employee Conscience Projection Project, the National Center has helped protect hundreds of thousands of workers from potential workplace discipline or termination.

The genesis for the Employee Conscience Protection Project occurred in April 2014 when the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced out of his job simply because he had donated to a 2008 California referendum that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Unfortunately, Mr. Eich is not uniquely situated. Only about half of American workers live in a jurisdiction that provides statutory protection against employer retaliation for engaging in First Amendment activities. And some of these laws are weaker than others. Furthermore, many corporations do not offer this protection as a condition of employment.

“In researching workplace protections, one company that stood out was Coca-Cola,” said Danhof. “The soft drink giant’s Code of Business Conduct explicitly makes clear to its employees that ‘[y]our job will not be affected by your personal political views or your choice in political contributions.’ This simple measure speaks volumes in light of the fact that many American corporations refuse to offer this type of policy.”

Often using Coca-Cola’s policy as a model, last spring and into the summer, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project spoke directly with over a dozen CEOs about adding this commonsense employment protection. In addition to protecting employees from retribution for their outside-of-work legal political actions, National Center staffers suggested that corporations also protect civic and public policy engagement. Aside from Google, where CEO Eric Schmidt was steadfast in his assurance that Google employees would receive this full protection, no other company explicitly vowed to enact these measures.

To confront this void, the National Center submitted shareholder proposals to more than two dozen corporations for inclusion in their respective 2015 proxy statements. Some companies, such as Visa, realized the wisdom of these protections and agreed to adopt the proposal. Others, such as Costco, spent significant time and company resources petitioning the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the right to omit our proposal from their proxy statements.

In the coming weeks and months, the National Center will reveal which companies protect their employees from political discrimination and which companies fought to retain the right to discipline its workforce for private First Amendment activities. Stay tuned.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market corporate activist group. In 2014, Free Enterprise Project representatives participated in 52 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers rights and many other important public policy issues.

The Visa and Costco meetings mark the first and second shareholder meetings for the National Center in 2015.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non- partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Hey Judge Napolitano! The Tyrants Are Here!

WHAT NOW?

NapolitanoSecondAmd

Interpol: allowing citizens to carry guns in public is most effective way to prevent terror attacks

How long would the jihadis at Charlie Hebdo, Westgate, Mumbai – and many other terror attacks to come – be able to continue killing if they were surrounded by armed citizens? Interpol states that the only way to stop such attacks is to allow citizens to carry arms (the only alternative to an armed citizenry is “extraordinary security” surrounding every area where many people meet – train stations, super markets, schools, etc. – which is of course completely unrealistic). If guns are illegal, only violent criminals, fanatic jihadis and our over-worked, understaffed police will have them.

In case you are unsure whether it is a good idea that citizens legally own firearms: Switzerland has very liberal gun laws and one of the lowest percentages of homicide in the world. Interesting statistics on guns, homicides and firearm related accidents in the US here.<<<Read More>>>

Obama Won’t Be Satisfied Until He’s Destroyed Everything

Right after the fake Sony hack blamed on North Korea, then Russia, then someone in the United States and then the kindergarten kid playing with his mother’s I phone (not really), I told my wife this was all an orchestrated false flag to instill greater fears in Americans so that this freak of nature residing in the Whitehouse could have a good excuse to take further control over the Internet.

Getting not much more than a cursory scowl, this morning my wife made a comment about someone hacking into CENTCOM, to which I replied that this, another fake incident, is just another example of what will propel this freedom snatching criminal to begin to demand more control and restrictions over the Internet.

I really don’t know what it’s going to take before people begin to see that this ass clown, and all of them in Congress, think all of us are really stupid. Most are but not all. But I guess that no longer matters.

I hope you all love your slavery as much as I hate it and everybody who lies, cheats and steals to create it.

I’m glad I’m only a visitor on this condemned planet.

“Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama said Tuesday the cyber attacks against Sony and the Pentagon’s Central Command highlight the need for toughened laws on cybersecurity.”<<<Read More>>>