April 30, 2017

The Purpose of Welfare

I had a brief but interesting exchange of emails from a close friend the other day. The foundation of the original email was concern over a growing trend in Maine of home invasions – something rarely found in the Pine Tree State, and as a result more people are taking to arming themselves for protection.

Found within the text of the email was this statement: “Many years ago a state government official told me that Welfare was not designed to make people happier and healthier. The purpose was to keep them from attacking you.” I suppose this can be compared, at least somewhat, to keeping the lion fed so he doesn’t have reason to attack, kill and eat you. As an aside, this statement was made over 30 years ago by a Leftist. My how things have changed.

The point being that with a new administration in Washington, at least the perception is that there is a crack down on drug offenders, and criminals in general, and that free handouts will be reeled in, causing the effect of more home invasions, i.e. the lion not getting what he has become accustomed to receiving without having to work for it.

Arm up and stop the freeloading!

Allyne Caan: Children and Cartoon Violence

Guns, as we know, have been around and accessible for centuries. Guns aren’t the variable. And for decades, countless children have been exposed to video games yet have not grown up to be violent killers. Video games aren’t the variable, either.

Instead, we have to look beyond the video games and guns —a blasphemous thought for those who want to disarm Americans — and to the utter instability of the American family and the moral worldview now prevalent in our society.

Source: Allyne Caan: Children and Cartoon Violence — The Patriot Post

TaughtDependency

Exemplification of Planned Chaos

Richard Fernandez’s article pertaining to the Dallas “shooting” of five police officers is a perfect example of how the ruling establishment’s (that establishment that nobody wants to know and learn about) plan is working quite well. Some of us think that the plan involves civil war, if not uncontrolled civil violence – real or theater. Media’s job is to perpetuate the Hollywood-style blood scenes and “gin up” the masses for more violence.

Violence has arrived. Our ignorance will fall for the ruse. The outcome has yet to be determined.

Good luck!

How deep is our ignorance? Extremely! Fernandez reports that in the last year there is a shooting of another man in Chicago every 2 1/2 hours. Chicago: Where guns are banned! America and the world are unable to make any cognitive connection between the two.

There is no hope. We believe what we see to be real and are incapable of recognizing anything real anymore.

Massacre At The NRA?

Professor

Some Selected Comments from the original post online:

Comment1

Comment2

Comment3

Map

What really happened at the Chicago rally

A single white Trump supporter who held up a sign and stood quietly as three dozen people surrounded him, smiling and screaming, snatching and pushing at him until he had to run for police cover. Someone grabbed his American flag and threw it on the ground and he fought to recover it. The police escorted him away.

Two young men, perhaps 17-19, standing quietly as they waited for a ride home. They were wearing their MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN hats, looking terrified as people cursed and swore at them, and occasionally threw furious challenges for debate. The two young men held their ground. Only once did one of those hats come down, and it quickly went back on again.

A general atmosphere of pleasure and happiness from the protesters. A common chant was “WE WON!” and “WE STOPPED* TRUMP!” It honestly felt like a social event for the protesters. There was plenty of mingling

Source: What really happened at the Chicago rally – My Firsthand Account

Sheriff’s Deputies Shot to Death in Panera Bread Where Guns are Banned

In 2014 Panera bread announced a new policy of asking customers to not bring guns into their stores. They very guns that could easily have saved the lives of these two officers.

Source: Sheriff’s Deputies Shot to Death in Panera Bread Where Guns are Banned – Liberal Logic 101

Five Things You Need to Know About the Gunman

Muslims Don’t Kill People – Bars Do…Or Something

MuslimWalksBar

“Justly” Infringing on Rights

*Editor’s Note* – The Editorial Board of the Portland Press Herald is a shining example of many years of misinformation, disinformation, brainwashing and psychological operations by sinister power brokers aiming at the destruction of the United States, at least what we thought it used to be.

A right is a right, or it should be. It’s not a right when governments and nongovernmental organizations and individuals are allowed to destroy those rights, “without infringing unjustly” on them. If the Second Amendment were truly a right, then how can an editorial board of a newspaper, or anybody else, claim that infringing on a right can be done “justly?”

“Infringe” means to actively break the terms of a law – in this case the Second Amendment. Once a right is infringed upon, it is no longer a right. We should never break the terms of a right.

What I also find amazing is that people, like this editorial board, will waste words in their own newspaper lamenting the failures, corruption, hypocrisy, double standards, etc. of Government, but call upon Government to solve what they deem a problem.

You see, the problem is that this editorial board and millions of people just like them, demand things like new studies and data that supports their misguided ideology. Because of all the things I mentioned above, i.e. misinformation, disinformation, brainwashing and PSYOPs, these people cannot and will not see that what they have been told to do and say is not an answer to anything.

The brainwashing really shows off well when someone, like the editorial board, thinks Government can solve this problem. Government can’t solve anything. Examine the major “wars on” failures, by the public’s standards, on such things as drugs, terror, poverty, etc. For countless years these programs, that taxpayers continue to pay for, have failed miserably. We have nothing to show for it except higher taxes.

The editorial board believes that if people like the NRA would leave the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) alone, they could come up with some data that would surely point the way to end gun violence. Have they forgotten that the CDC is the Government?

We know that science has been bastardized at all levels for profit and agenda promotion. No “scientific” study can be trusted anymore. None! To call upon perhaps the most corrupt government and those that control it, to solve the violence problem in this country, is insanity.

The one constant that keeps this nation from falling 100% into the throes of tyranny, is the Second Amendment. The Founders, we are told, devised the Second Amendment for the protection FROM government tyranny. Please understand that. They new over 250 years ago that without a deterrent, like the Second Amendment, government tyranny would prevail. Today, we find ourselves asking Government to take away our guns. Mad!

About all that is left is the preservation of the Second Amendment. When that is gone, so are we as a free nation…or at least what is left of it.

It is ignorant to claim that infringing on the Second Amendment can be done justly. It is the result of brainwashing to think that crooked government can solve anything.

What the editorial board is really asking for here is for those of us who understand the actual value of the Second Amendment to stand down and let those opposed to liberty and freedom FROM tyranny, cook up the science to support their claims – claims that have never been able to be substantiated.

Ignoring the existing facts and refusing to accept the history of guns and their effect on society, will not reduce gun violence.

Perhaps a nation that turns its attention to God and away from man/government worship, would do more to curb violence, drugs, terror, etc. than demanding one’s own way, rooted in ignorance and mind control.

It is possible that through good public policy, the United States can reduce the number of firearm-related deaths and injuries without infringing unjustly on Second Amendment rights.But to do that, just as has been done in other public health crises, policymakers need good data. And to get good data, agencies like the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be allowed to work without interference or fear of reprisal.

Source: Our View: U.S. should fund studies of causes of gun violence – The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

The Push for a Population Reduction Civil War

ProtestViolenceIs there something in the air that might be causing a shift in how many “peaceful” American citizens view their constitutional rights? I know, and a few other people know, that there are continuous psychological warfare operations designed to influence the way people think and react to specific issues. The media plays the biggest role in this effort.

I believe that people who seriously cherish their liberty are the true liberals, not the Leftists who co opted the label for political gain. True liberals and most libertarians want and enjoy their rights and want to be left alone in doing so. They also do not attempt to force their ideals onto others.

The Left understands this and so, often turn to violence to push their agendas, knowing any push back will be only verbal.

Readers should understand I’m not supporting one side over the other necessarily, instead pointing out the differences and to say that these differences exist for reasons very few people understand. As the Left/Right paradigm is a contrived hoax, I’m sure leftist violence and libertarian passivity are also man-created for political purposes.

I’ve been watching the goings on in Oregon after the shooting and see some things that I find a bit troubling and also is causing me to ask myself a few questions.

We know that President Obama immediately politicized the shootings, pretending to be angry at a press conference and saying he was going to politicize the event for personal gain…sorry, I think he said to protect the American people. How noble. I guess that’s why he won the Noble Peace Prize.

We are in the throes of a presidential campaign – throes because it is a painful beginning to coming change. We heard candidate Ben Carson tell the world that if he were in a situation where someone put a gun to his head and asked him if he was a Christian, he wouldn’t give them an answer and instead would confront the shooter and fight back, all the while calling upon others present to join him in that attack.

Immediately much of the media jumped all over that comment accusing Carson of promoting violence while at the same time blaming the victims for being dead or wounded because they didn’t fight back. On the other side, even from law enforcement, we began to hear support for Carson’s point of confronting and imminent shooter.

What’s ironic here – if that’s actually the word I want to use – is the “left” pretended or ignorantly stood in opposition to Carson’s call for fighting back, i.e. violence, and yet the left is notorious for violence and killing to promote agendas. The “right,” historically passive in such matters, is supporting the action to stand up to mass shooters and fight back, i.e. violence.

But this debate is limited to gun issues…isn’t it? Do these same people react the same way when it comes to other issues?

First we must understand that anytime that there is a killing, with a gun, it’s a Second Amendment issue, nothing else, except of late there seems to be a movement of some kind to place the blame on mental illness. More than likely just another psychological warfare operation. Is there the same outward, emotional debate, when you or your neighbor are victims of Fourth Amendment violations? What about First Amendment, etc.?

This morning I was reading an Andrew McCarthy article published at Pajamas Media. In addressing the Oregon school shooting, he places the present time as a “post-constitutional republic.” He does a good job of explaining how people see things, but comes up a bit short as to why people see things the way they do. However, I don’t want to miss the point.

The author questions why there is debate over a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and yet states:

“Why are we debating policy? After all, gun rights are explicit in the Second Amendment. In general, there is not supposed to be much policy debate where our fundamental rights are concerned. We would not, for example, abide a suggestion that we reconsider whether the government may break into your home and poke around for evidence without a warrant. That is not to say there may not be logical reasons to allow a police officer to act unilaterally on a strong hunch; it is to say that a constitutional right is supposed to be a guarantee – something the government has to respect, not something the citizen has to justify.

Reading that I was reminded of the events surrounding the Boston Marathon bombing. I sat in front of my television in utter disbelief as I watched law enforcement march down a street, with armored vehicles, pointing weapons of all sizes into the faces of anybody inside a house daring to look outside. While this was going on, police went door to door, busting down doors if necessary, intruding into the homes of innocent people looking for someone they had labeled a terrorist bomber. But what totally disgusted me was later in the evening, after the police claimed to have captured one of the alleged bombers, as they drove out the street, hoards of onlookers stood and applauded the efforts to the police. Why? They trampled all over the Fourth Amendment. But, as the writer above says, “we would not abide a suggest that we reconsider whether the government may break into you home…” We would NOT reconsider that but only because we have been brainwashed to think under circumstances, even fake ones, it’s for our safety that government suspends the constitution.

I guess McCarthy was right when he said there isn’t “supposed to be much policy debate.” As he also points out later, Americans tend to lack conviction in their belief of constitutional rights. And that, my friends, is all about design. Something this magnanimous could not happen by chance.

Not to get lost from my point, the author doesn’t come right out and say it, but he is suggesting that those who do believe in the constitutional rights, should be willing to be more assertive and proud and stand up for those rights and not apologize for them. Is the author also suggesting that perhaps it might even become necessary to resort to violent push backs, only if necessary (wink, wink) against those wishing to destroy those rights? And if someone, the government, the media, a friend, a candidate tells you your rights are being taken away and you need to fight back, will you? Blindly?

Consider again what Ben Carson said about the Oregon shooting. He said he wouldn’t just stand or sit there and let some person blow his brains out without fighting back. And then consider the aftermath while keeping in perspective my assertion above that historically liberty-loving people seldom resort to violence, at least not in what might be deemed illegal ways.

The actions in the aftermath are the fruit of the gun control PSYOP. There may actually be overlapping PSYOPs taking place. The gun control actions are about stealing rights and instilling fear in people that guns kill people. It’s always the gun that kills, never the person pulling the trigger. Attack the guns. People are programmed to attack the gun and take away the right.

In Boston the people have been programmed to believe that suspending the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment, was necessary for their safety. They welcomed it. After all, this has been drummed into the heads for how long? The Patriot Act is necessary for our safety – the Government said so and we believe it.

As Andrew McCarthy pointed out the reason the Founders wrote the Second Amendment was to ensure that government would not become too powerful and resort to tyranny. And today, the people cry out for government. They cry out for government to take away the guns that were meant to protect them FROM government. None of this makes sense. The more we give government power the less liberty we have. Why don’t we understand that?

Is the current presidential campaign becoming another means of shifting the way the peaceful right goes about their business? Enter Donald Trump. Trump, the master salesman, television personality, and fake regular guy, says what pissed off people want to hear. Understand that people have become pissed off because the plan was crafted to make all those people angry. It is all mostly fake, sold to America through the media. Years and years of manipulation of the minds of people and the world is full of hatred, distrust and anger. People like Trump come along and feed on that. They empower the angry. Finally there is hope, some exclaim. And yet, with no lessons learned, voters have forgotten Trump is corporate America, Trump is Wall Street, Trump is banking.

Newly empowered, some are standing up for what they believe are their rights where they wouldn’t have before. With somebody who will say what angry people want to hear, even if he doesn’t believe any of it for himself, how far will they go? Are these people actually being programmed to rise up against each other.

If Ben Carson and others believe that the right thing to do when you believe you are going to be shot anyway is to fight back, does that mean that same approach should be taken to issues where your life might be at stake? What if you believe that the actions of someone or something, maybe the government, is going to ultimately threaten your life? Do you go down fighting?

Again I ask, are we being programmed further and further toward violence? What is the end game?

Consider a comment left at the above article. This type of comment is commonly found by leftists who hate rightist’s ideology. They always attack with violence or the threat of violence. It’s what they know. It’s what they have been taught. Not necessarily by the right.

“I’m not going to shoot at the Army or LEO’s if the liberals are able to order gun seizures.

No, if we get to a point where there are gun seizures, I’m plan to target liberal pundits, liberal politicians, their wives, their children, their campaign donors, etc. These are all nice soft targets that won’t shoot back. This is the logical action to take, since these are the people people who are really at fault for the encroachment upon my civil liberties.”

Before we act and react, especially to the lies we are fed continuously by the media, we should all take a moment to really think about from what source is all the hatred coming from. It isn’t what you think.

Leftist war on Christianity draws first blood: Oregon campus shooter demanded victims state their religion… Christians were then executed with a bullet to the head 

Over the last several years, the political left of America has waged a culture war against Christianity, leveraging the mainstream media as a platform of hate speech that vilified and denigrated Christians at every level. This war against Christianity has infused its way into pop culture, broadcasting messages of hate and violence against Christians through Hollywood movies, Netflix productions, news programming and daytime television.

Source: Leftist war on Christianity draws first blood: Oregon campus shooter demanded victims state their religion… Christians were then executed with a bullet to the head – NaturalNews.com