July 16, 2018

Letter to Montana Governor: What Happens With “Reasonable” Restrictions on First Amendment

From Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association:

Governor Steve Bullock
Helena, Montana
Dear Governor Bullock,
Just like you “support” the Second Amendment, we support the First Amendment, but as with you and the Second, we support the First Amendment with reasonable and commonsense restrictions.
Because of these commonsense restrictions, you are no longer allowed to speak on government property, including within 1,000 feet of schools and buildings occupied by any level of government.  That would be just too dangerous.  You are also not allowed to speak in any other public place unless you have a government permit to do so.  Such a permit will only be granted if you have satisfactorily completed an approved training course about how to comply with writing and speech restrictions – how to use your rights safely.
You are no longer allowed to use amplification to enhance your speech, as such amplification is considered to be “high capacity” or “assault speech.”  No microphones.  You are no longer allowed to use any electronic means to write, record, or transmit your speech, since those mechanisms were not yet invented when the First Amendment was ratified.  Being a smart and capable guy, we’re sure you can get by with a pen made from a turkey feather and the volume and reach of your natural voice.
Another commonsense restriction will be what you may write or talk about.  We will have a committee available to review any proposed writing or proposed speech from you, in advance.  This committee will research your past writings and speech, and the proposed writing or speech, looking for any abuse or history of abuse.  If there is any such abuse or history, the committee will not approve your writing or speech.  If you attempt to write or speak without this advanced approval, you may be prosecuted for a federal crime, bankrupted with legal costs, put in a federal prison, and lose all of your rights.  Oh, by the way, Republicans will appoint this review committee.
Oh, and there will be a ten-day waiting period after your writing or speech has been approved by the committee before you will be allowed to share the writing with others or deliver the speech.  You may have composed the writing or speech in a moment of passion, and you may reconsider your intent or language after you’ve had a few days to cool down.
You will be allowed to speak to one person at a time, in a private setting, as long as you do not disturb others and the content of your speech is approved in advance.  And, you will be allowed to write as much as you want, as long as the writing is with a quill pen, is approved in advance by the committee, is reproduced only manually, and is carried only by foot or horse power, all following the ten-day cooling down period.  We will allow so much, for now, because we fully support your First Amendment rights and because we do not wish to be unduly restrictive.
We hope you understand that these commonsense restrictions are best for everyone, for the public good.  You aren’t opposed to the public good and everyone, are you?
If these commonsense restrictions don’t solve whatever problems may be apparent or imagined, we will need to look at other possible restrictions.  We don’t really want to take away your First Amendment, but everyone demands that we solve the terrible problem of First Amendment abuse and solve it now.  Surely we must all bow to the majority of public opinion in this, don’t you agree?
Sincerely yours,
The Public
Share

DHS Making List, Checking Twice. Are You One It? Do You Even Care?

While millions of insane Americans can’t get through one day without obsessing about whether or not it is a crime for the President or Congress for that matter, to “mislead” the Media or the Public the fascist bastards in Washington, including Donald Trump and HIS Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have decided that they “need,” in order “to protect and enhance the resilience of the nation’s physical and cyberinfrastructure,” to compile a list of “journalists, editors, correspondents, social media influencers, bloggers etc.” and to “monitor” it 24/7.

And there are only crickets to be heard!

As there were crickets in 2013 when Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act repealed the prohibition on the president and Congress to intentionally lie and mislead anyone they so chose including the American people. And now some want death to Trump because he “misleads” the Media and the Public. If they only knew!

Necessary and Proper!

Not only does the administration, including Congress, of this private corporation, the United States, mislead, propagandize, and outright lie to the American servitude, but their henchmen, those lying bastard lawyers and advisors who know the laws and they know what Government can and can’t do, intentionally lie to all of us telling us something different…and we believe it because we know no better.

Recall, the Patriot Act was a “necessary” thing in order to enhance our national security. BULLSHIT! But millions of misled, lied-to, blinded, ignorant “CONservatives” took the bait, hook, line, and sinker, and did the bidding for the fascist government.

Here we are today, at a time when blinded, propagandized, ignorant millions of American’s who think Donald Trump is just the cat’s meow, along with his eager and cryptic chiseling away of what is left of any such thing as a Second Amendment right, now aims to completely violate our basic right to privacy under the false guise of the need to enhance and protect something wordsmiths have coined as “public and cyberinfrastructure.”

I’ll take a dozen, thank you.

For years I have heard comments from people whenever I mention that this fascist government and their enablers like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. has been and continues to archive and monitor everything we do, including Online and with our cell phones, GPS, in-car computers, appliances, electronics, laptops, tablets, “eye” pads, say, “I got nothing to hide.”

Is that reason enough to be complacent which in turns causes you to be an enabler? Do you love your servitude? Do you hate having rights and freedom? Evidently, but let’s impeach Trump because he’s a lying bastard…YEAH! Let’s enact some more of those “reasonable” restrictions on our basic, inalienable rights because it’s necessary. YEAH!

You may think you have nothing to hide, but that is completely your perspective. The Government’s perspective is always different…and you trust your Government? I don’t…in case you haven’t been paying attention.

Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge says this fact is “extremely creepy.” It is much more than that. Whether you THINK you have nothing to hide or not, this is a violation of one of life’s most basic rights. How much farther are we willing to allow this tyrannical government to destroy us? Evidently a lot further.

Hang on.

And while you continue to obsess on all the lies we are being told of what Trump has done that he promised and whether or not he should be impeached because he “misleads,”

DON’T GO LOOK!!

It’s just too difficult a thing to do to find the truth. Show me the money!

Share

Freedom To Say Whatever We Want In America is Dead

Ain’t America a great place? The consequences of freedom of speech or say an artful form of expression in America means if any of us try it out we’d better be ready to accept the consequences of speaking up speaking out or using some other talent to openly express ourselves… So in the land of freedom of speech be very wary… As that “philosophy” comes with everyone’s freedom to destroy you for expressing yourself, especially when it’s anti leftist or rightist from that political paradigms narrow minded perspectives.. Oops.. So remember before you open up and shout it out even if it’s true you’d better be ready to accept your obligation to accept the consequences… Thus there is no freedom of speech.. It’s a myth.. Oh you said that, so you don’t work here anymore… Especially if what you said is true.. You’re fired! Go starve in the gutter… GRIN.. Yep, ain’t America a great place… Don’t worry about Rosanne she has what the wealthy call Fk you money…

Share

What If The Second Amendment Was Repealed?

“What would that be like, the repeal of the Second Amendment? Would it markedly transform our way of life? Would acts of unspeakable violence cease? Would civility and compassion return in our deeply divided country and troubled culture? Would discipline of children return to homes? Would there cease to be drug use and mentally troubled individuals? Would there be a return to moral values in a country that is so adrift? Would sex and violence stop being promoted in television, movies and video games? Would our citizenry be held accountable for its own behavior? Would there truly be consequences for lawlessness and would the rule of law mean something?”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Springfield Armory Severs Ties With Dick’s Sporting Goods and Field and Stream

Sometimes the exercise of one right against another right can become quite costly. I also wasn’t aware that Dick’s and Field and Stream were affiliated. Too bad for Field and Stream.

“Springfield Armory is severing ties with Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, in response to their hiring a group for anti-Second Amendment lobbying.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Historic Perspective on the Second Amendment Does Little to Stop Mincemeat Making of It

I found Mark Alexander’s piece published at the Patriot Post to be one of the better attempts at explaining the historical background of the founding of the Second Amendment. This piece also includes information from what is described as an expert on linguistics who, it is claimed, understands the use of words and the structure of the Second Amendment at its birth to deliver an unquestioning description of what it meant.

What does this historical perspective actually do that is going to stop what is being described as  “Deconstruction and Repeal of the Second Amendment?” My short answer would be, nothing really.

Whether it is believed or not that the Second Amendment or any other amendment cannot be “amended” matters little when you give what’s been happening an honest assessment. Alexander writes, “Given the preeminent status of the Second Amendment and the growing chorus of leftists calling to amend it until they can rally enough populist support to fully repeal it, we should be clear that our Founders never intended for this right to be infringed.”

Well, what does that mean precisely – to never be infringed?

A dictionary defines the word infringe as: “actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).” and “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.”

In referencing the Online Etymology Dictionary for the word infringe, we find this: “mid-15c., enfrangen, “to violate,” from Latin infringere “to damage, break off, break, bruise,” from in-“in” (from PIE root *en “in”) + frangere “to break” (from PIE root *bhreg- “to break”). Meaning “encroach” first recorded c. 1760. Related: Infringedinfringing.”

The American Language expert says that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted to the people by this Amendment to the Constitution – that it reaffirms the assumption that there is no question of a person’s God-given right. He is directly quoted as saying: “The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional..”

When the expert was asked to present the Second Amendment as it might appear if it were written today, he writes: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”

It is interesting that he chose to replace the word “infringed” with “abridged.”

A dictionary defines abridged as: “shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.” and “curtail (rights or privileges).”

The Online Etymology Dictionary tackles abridged in this manner: “c. 1300, abreggen, “make shorter, shorten, condense,” from Old French abregierabrigier “abridge, diminish, shorten” (12c., Modern French abréger), from Late Latin abbreviare “make short,” from Latin ad “to” (see ad-) + breviare “shorten,” from brevis “short, low, little, shallow” (from PIE root *mregh-u- “short”).

Abbreviate is the same word directly from Latin. The sound development that turned Latin -vi- to French -dg- is paralleled in assuage (from assuavidare) and deluge (from diluvium). Of writing, “shorten by omission,” late 14c. Related: Abridgedabridging.”

Puzzling to me, after this author goes to such lengths to substantiate the exact meaning of the 27 words of the Second Amendment, he would write that there have been no successful attempts to “infringe” on the Second Amendment. He writes: “Historically, there have been no successful attempts to modify the Second Amendment’s assurance of the innate rights of the people to defend their Liberty, but there are now threats to do so.” This was followed by: “That notwithstanding, Second Amendment rights have most certainly been subject to much alteration by judicial misinterpretation and outright activism.”

Is this author suggesting that he is willing to accept those “reasonable” limits on a right he just finished defending as one that is clear-cut, unamendable and shall NEVER be infringed, disregarding all these actions as not infringements? I don’t get it! Isn’t this a direct contribution in and of itself toward the “Deconstruction and Repeal of the Second Amendment?” Many of the same people all aghast at the brazen attempts of late to destroy the Second Amendment fully support putting more and more restrictions on a right this author just described as one that was intended to never be changed. Isn’t this contradictory and perhaps even insane behavior? I’ll say it again, I don’t get it!

Upon examination of the word “infringe” and the American Language expert who might change that word to “abridge” if he was attempting to rewrite what the Second Amendment said in 1789 and how it might be worded today, how can any real supporter of the Second Amendment be willing then, with a God-given right that the Founding Fathers stated as unalienable and “shall never be infringed” see every hurdle in place in order for a lawful citizen to keep and bear arms, as “no successful attempts to modify the Second Amendment?”

What then is the purpose of having the Second Amendment or any other amendment if it can be amended without amending it and infringed upon without infringing upon it?

I understand that probably the author is attempting to delineate between court rulings and other legislative actions that place limits on the Second Amendment as being different than actually changing the wording of the Second Amendment or a complete tossing of the Amendment into the garbage.

Offering all this glamorous historical perspective on what the Founding Fathers meant and what the words and phrases at the time meant is certainly interesting, but so long as the Congress and the Courts can simply ignore any and all of the Amendments and make them into what they damn well please, while Americans applaud their efforts, what good is understanding what any of the Founders meant?

Isn’t this just more of the same of Congress exercising their powers of Article I, Section 8 “To make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

This is easily interpreted to mean Congress will do just as they damned well please. You lose!

Paper documents worthy of nothing I’d say!

Share

Credit Card Companies “EXPLORE” Ways to Track Gun Purchases

*Editor’s Note* – Don’t be an idiot! “Tracking” gun and ammo purchases are already being done. It has been ongoing for a long time. The only difference here MIGHT be that they just want to make it more overt by using codes to get your name and information, along with what you purchased with your credit card, on a list that is easily accessed.

Purchasing guns with cash can get you around this intrusion, but then what happens when there is no more cash and all transactions are digital?

BIG BROTHER – to put it mildly. Mark of the Beast to be more specific.

Banks and credit-card companies are exploring methods to identify gun purchases in a possible prelude to restricting those transactions, according to a Monday report in the Wall Street Journal.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Bank of America’s Decision to Sever Ties with Certain Gun Manufacturers Blasted by Free-Market Leader

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan Refuses to Say How Much Money Investors Will Lose Because of His Decision to Join Those Who Oppose Second Amendment

Charlotte, NC/Washington, DC – At today’s annual meeting of Bank of America investors, held in Charlotte, North Carolina, a representative of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) – the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism – confronted notoriously liberal banking CEO Brian Moynihan over the company’s financially irresponsible decision to sever ties with certain gun manufacturers.

“Moynihan and Bank of America’s leadership team have decided to place liberal virtue signaling ahead of the company’s investors,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who attended today’s meeting and confronted Moynihan. “This is a gross violation of the company’s fiduciary duty to its investors. If Moynihan wants to lobby against gun rights on his own time, that’s one thing. But he instead put Bank of America’s significant financial and institutional weight behind a policy movement aimed at harming or abolishing the Second Amendment. By using his position as CEO in such an overtly political manner, he is abdicating his responsibility to act in his company’s best interests. He doesn’t accurately speak for all of the company’s investors and customers – which surely include millions of Second Amendment supporters.”

At the meeting, Danhof noted:

[T]he company is joining a list of corporations following the liberal whim of the moment and not looking out for the best interests of long-term shareholders. The company is also lending its voice to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment.

Let’s take a look at how another famous investor addressed this issue. CNBC asked Warren Buffett about corporations distancing themselves from the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers and how Berkshire Hathaway would respond. Buffett replied: “I don’t believe in imposing my views on [our] employees and a million shareholders. I’m not their nanny on that… I don’t think that Berkshire should say we’re not going to do business with [gun folks]. I think that would be ridiculous.”

Danhof then asked:

Can you tell us – your investors – exactly how much money we stand to lose because of this decision, and explain why you have this right while Warren Buffett has this wrong?

To read Danhof’s full question, as prepared for delivery, click here. (Note that Danhof shortened the question at today’s meeting due to a strict time limit that was imposed on investors – except for Jesse Jackson, who was allowed to ramble well past the time allowed.)

“Today Bank of America made it clear that it is proud to lend its voice to the anti-Second Amendment community. If you are a gun owner, a member of the National Rifle Association, in the gun or ammunition business, or simply a supporter of the Constitution, it’s my impression that Bank of America doesn’t want your business,” said Danhof. “And perhaps those constituencies ought to take the company up on that score.”

Audio of Danhof’s exchange with Moynihan is available with this link.

“I think most folks in the financial press would be interested to know why Bank of America’s Moynihan thinks he is right on this issue and Warren Buffett is wrong,” noted Danhof. “Maybe a financial journalist can follow up with the company and get an answer to that question – because it’s clear he doesn’t have enough respect for his investors to give us a straight answer.”

Following the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and the ensuing corporate backlash against the National Rifle Association, Danhof wrote a commentary describing corporate America’s repeated pattern of joining with the liberal cause of the day. As published in The Federalist, Danhof noted:

It’s an all too common pattern. Liberal politicians and the media take up a cause. Left-wing activist groups mobilize to pressure corporations. Corporate America joins the fray, and their support is used to bolster and justify the cause. It’s a circular echo chamber, but it’s effective…

By and large, conservative Americans leave business alone because they realize private enterprise drives the economic engine that keeps America thriving. However, as corporate America continues to join with the left to erode constitutional protections and traditional beliefs that conservatives hold dear, silence is no longer an option.

Click here to read Danhof’s entire commentary.

This meeting marks the 12th shareholder meeting of 2018 in which FEP has participated.

To book an interview with Danhof or another National Center representative, contact Judy Kent at (703) 759-0269 or (703) 477-7476.

Launched in 2007, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project focuses on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Over the past four years alone, FEP representatives have participated in over 100 shareholder meetings – advancing free-market ideals about health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and other important public policy issues. As the leading voice for conservative-minded investors, FEP annually files more than 90 percent of all right-of-center shareholder resolutions. Dozens of liberal organizations, however, annually file more than 95 percent of all policy-oriented shareholder resolutions and continue to exert undue influence over corporate America.

FEP activity has been covered by media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Variety, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Drudge Report, Business Insider, National Public Radio and SiriusXM. FEP’s work was prominently featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel’s 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).

Danhof’s latest commentary, on the recent Walt Disney shareholder meeting where his actions resulted in Joy Behar’s public apology for suggesting Christianity is a mental illness, is available here.

Share

Acknowledging a Cultural Crisis, Seeking The Wrong Solution

I’ve been involved with media platforms as tools of promoting thought, propaganda, news, subjective discussions, etc. for long enough to have an understanding of how it can and does work. One method of flooding the airwaves is a daily routine but something not everyone is even aware of.

Most “news” agencies are not independent creators of news and information. They collect it from one source and then the Media, as a whole, becomes a giant echo chamber. The question might then become is this a planned event or is it happenstance? It might be both but be assured that if someone wants to rapidly spread something, all systems are in place to carry out a massive and rapidly spreading propaganda machine.

It seems on several occasions of late writers are talking about America’s “Cultural Crisis.” Let’s not kid ourselves. If you or I perceive that America’s Culture is in crisis, is that not our opinion – a subjective determination based on our own lifestyle and moral compass, if we have one at all?

But let’s not debate whether America’s Culture is in crisis. It is being discussed and therefore there must be a reason.

One of the reasons I suspect that the Parkland, Florida school shooting was a planned out event is because of what transpired after the shooting. It is virtually impossible to have put together all of the events that transpired after the school shooting unless at least some or many of those plans were in place beforehand. No other shooting event caused such a seemingly united attempt at addressing the destruction of the Second Amendment with proportionately little attention given to a “Cultural Crisis” up until now.

The point of all this is to draw attention to what the Media is doing in its plans to promote and perpetuate what it intends to or are told to do.

So we have articles and opinion pieces showing up attempting to address a “Cultural Crisis.” Why?

Maybe someday we will understand all the ins and outs as to who and what is behind the mass Media but for now we must deal with it and hope and pray that our knowledge base is strong enough and accurate enough to recognize when we are being bamboozled and when we are not, and/or we can divide truth from fiction.

As I see it, one of the problems with any of the discussions I have read about a cultural crisis isn’t about what constitutes this crisis but the solutions offered to counter the crisis. It seems that whether you are a progressive/liberal or a conservative, because of our indoctrination we tend to always assume the high ground and that we have the answers. It only becomes necessary to take the high ground when solutions offered are only presented as being from the Right or the Left as though those are the only two places where answers are found.

For regular readers, recall that I have often said that one of the more serious issues Americans face in this country is that we have all become programmed to see everything as either Right or Left- problems are right or left, solutions are right or left.

With all this in mind, two recent articles were sent to me that attempt to address America’s cultural crisis and the threats driving this nation toward civil war.

In John Hawkings piece published at Townhall, he lists “7 Forces Driving America Toward Civil War,” he mentions as two items, “Lack of a Shared Culture” and “Moral Decline.” While the acknowledgment of these two items is presented, both are given as problems caused by the false paradigm of Left vs. Right, and thus any proposals for solutions are therefore given within that same context.

Hawkins doesn’t necessarily present his discussion on culture as being in crisis, I would suppose that if he deems it worthy of an ingredient that may ultimately lead to civil war, then one might conclude he considers the issues confronting the American culture are in crisis.

The author’s idea of a moral decline isn’t that much in line with what I would describe as a moral decline. Hawkins sees the moral decline as “A large number of Americans HAVE LOST their principles, manners and virtue and it shows through from the sort of politicians they elect, to their rudeness online, to the sort of shallow hedonism and fame whoring they find appealing.”

No solutions are offered.

It should be said that a moral decline and a cultural crisis go hand in hand and cannot be separated.

The second article is a Lee Edwards piece published in the National Review. His work goes quite a bit deeper into history and offering quotes and the work of many conservatives from the past up until the present. Edwards offers existing past performances, mostly including those of Russell Kirk, as the solution to America’s Cultural Crisis.

Again, there is little argument about those things in our society that are listed as being a problem. He quotes Judge Robert Bork when he warned: “We are on the road to cultural disaster.” Bork blames Liberalism: “radical egalitarianism becomes tyranny and radical individualism descends into hedonism.”

I’m not fond of these kinds of statements because in describing egalitarianism and individualism, both are qualified with the subjective adjective “radical.” It makes it more difficult to completely understand what the owner of those words really meant. I work very hard at my individualism but I see none of that as even approaching hedonism. Does that mean my support of individualism is not radical? Where is the line drawn? Not to get off topic.

It’s difficult to argue with Edwards’ assessment of the results of a progressive lifestyle which basically views all things in what some of us would call a post-normal society – wrong is right, black is white, bad is good, etc.

He also lists C. Northcote Parkinson’s 6 Stages of Decadence – political over-centralization, excessive taxes and government interference, top-heavy intrusive government, crooks and criminals in government, debt, liberal sentimentality.

Edwards uses Kirk’s words describing those issues that need to be addressed to expose the liberal agenda that is driving America’s culture into crisis: militant secularism, soft socialism, legalistic internationalism, rabid egalitarianism, arrogant relativism, and radical societal change.

All of this and a few words about the water that Donald Trump must walk on and the solution is to begin a systematic approach to rebuild our culture on conservative principles. Many so-called conservative principles I see as far better, at least from the perspective that those principles include a certain degree of liberty and individualism. But these are still man’s values and solutions.

Included in the suggested solutions is a call to look to a higher existence in order to make us into a “good” society. This is typical of Catholicism’s call to their gOD and not our Creator. Until the American Society individually and as a whole can seek Yahweh for guidance and direction, man’s solutions will fail. That is the reason we are where we are at now.

It is mostly a cop-out to claim the high ground when Americans say we are an “exceptional” nation, basically good, who gives a lot of money to charity, etc. etc. but isn’t this really a lot about easing our guilt phobias?

Not all givers are this way but to live the lifestyles so prevalent in American Culture, which is decadent, selfish, hedonistic, and perverse, then pop into the church, give a few bucks, somehow makes us a good society?

It’s a daily event now that we read about some display of our radical Godless society – mass murders, random killings, terrorism, evil bloody attacks, etc. and we want to blame liberalism for them, believing that conservativism wouldn’t do those things.

Our culture continues to move further and further away from Yahweh. The Scriptures told us this would happen and here it is. Commend those who want to expose the realities of our culture and offer their solutions. Real solutions can come from only one place. It must begin with the individual. Isn’t this why a Godless society strives to destroy individualism?

If we all get on the right track, all the rest will no longer be a problem.

Share

Wolves Impacting Humans

Share