05/15/18

The “Corporate Campaign” Against Our Second Amendment

By: Thomas Wigand | New Zeal

Cross-posted from Bear Witness Central

“And there’s always a place for the angry young man with his fist in the air and his head in the sand. He’s never been able to learn from mistakes. He can’t understand why his heart always breaks. His honor is pure, and his courage as well. He’s fair and he’s true, and he’s boring as hell and he’ll go to his grave as an angry old man.” — Angry Young Man, Billy Joel

For years now union organizers have used a body of tactics to literally coerce targeted employers into submission – this body of tactics is collectively referred to as a “corporate campaign.”  As we’ll see, that “corporate campaign” methodology has recently been adopted by Progressives to (in effect) coerce our Second Amendment into a nullity, while insulating their efforts from any legal challenges asserting the unconstitutionality or violation of Constitutional rights.

Progressives Hate and Fear Our Second Amendment

Progressives aspire to herald-in a globalist secular utopia, and nation states and patriotism are roadblocks.  The United States of America, by virtue of its very existence premised upon our founding principles and governmental structure has, since WWI, stood as the global embodiment of a strong nation state and patriotic population – if the United States stands strong, the globalist Progressive vision remains an impossible dream.  So for over 100 years Progressives have been engaged in an undeclared war against our Constitution, and they well recognize that our Second Amendment rights is the rampart of liberty that must be overrun before they can secure ultimate victory.

It is with good reason that Progressives fear Americans remaining armed, and so by “whatever means necessary” intend to disarm us – for an armed population is one that is empowered to resist totalitarianism – whether the economic version imposed by Communists, or the secular dystopia that the Progressives envision for us. (They cling to delusional belief that they are on their way to realizing a global social justice utopia; that the “arc of history” is leading us there, notwithstanding the protestations of “bitter clingers.” Yet, historical experience and human nature inform those of us grounded in the real world that the opposite of a utopia will occur should the Progressives attain full power.)

The Progressives’ Plot

Those who are victorious plan effectively and change decisively. They are like a great river that maintains its course but adjusts its flow…they have form but are formless. They are skilled in both planning and adapting and need not fear the result of a thousand battles: for they win in advance, defeating those that have already lost. – Sun Tzu

The Parkland school shooting occurred on February 14, 2018.  The then blindingly fast rise of media darling David Hogg as “leader” of a “do gun control for the children movement,” the school “walkouts” and “March for Our Lives” in Washington, D.C. (March 24, 2018) had to be planned well in advance. The logistics for the Washington march alone could not have occurred post-Parkland – permit applications, review, approvals, publicity, transportation of “children” from around the country, food, PortaPotties, and so on. Not to mention arranging the funding.

Oh, and let us not forget that there were also “demonstrations” elsewhere in the country and the logistics required for those.  Though the “children’s movement” has been portrayed in the media as grassroots and organic, when one follows the money, it is indisputable that this is classic AstroTurf; the signs all point to the Progressive gun control movement having had a plan mapped-out, and that it was just waiting for the “right” incident to execute the plan.

Accompanying this, and still rolling out after the demonstrations, is what appears to be the heart of the plan (the “children” and their “movement” being props useful for media). That is, the simultaneous demonization of the NRA and efforts to hobble the firearms industry by cutting off its sources of its and its customers’ financing; by making anyone associated with the firearms industry subject to what is called “reputational risk.”

Since Parkland we’ve witnessed banking institutions such as Delta Air Lines and Citibank and Bank of America engage in high profile disassociation with the NRA and/or firearm manufacturers, and even threats to stop processing credit card payments for retail customers who seek to purchase firearms and related products.  And we’ve seen Governor Cuomo of New York weaponize that state’s regulatory apparatus to (in effect) blackmail financial firms into divest themselves from doing business with the firearms industry (against which the NRA has recently filed suit).

While for those not familiar with labor organizing this may all appear to be new and unique to Second Amendment issues, it is nothing new, but is actually a classic Leftist tactic – one adopted first by the Marxist Left, then labor union organizers, and now being employed by the Progressive movement generally.  This strategy and the body of tactics accompanying it are called “corporate campaigns.”

“Corporate Campaigns”

Though “corporate campaigns” have generally flown below the radar (at least outside of labor circles), they have been subjected to academic study.  Circa 2000, Professor Jarol Manheim of George Washington University published a fascinating book titled “The Death of a Thousand Cuts: Corporate Campaigns and the Attack on the Corporation”.  Over the intervening years, he has testified before Congress on the subject and, in 2005, discussed “corporate campaigns” for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  [Henceforth, when quoting from these, I’ll refer to them as “Congress” or “Chamber” as shorthand to identify the source document.]

Keep in mind that Leftists carry an affinity for Marxism, which in turn means that there is within them a visceral sense that all free-market (Capitalist) enterprises are inherently exploitive and their existence illegitimate, and so if “justice” were truly served they would be stricken from the face of the earth.  This attitude gives them psychic license to pursue any and all tactics against corporate targets – legal or illegal, ethical or not – traits all of which can be ascribed to “corporate campaigns.  In the Commerce document Professor Manheim tells us that:

Corporate campaigns trace their origins to several sources. Two of the most important include the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and long-time community activist Saul Alinsky. In its defining 1962 manifesto, The Port Huron Statement, drafted by then-president Tom Hayden …

Before we proceed further, we should recall that history informs us that genocides are a repeated occurrence, particularly since the beginning of the twentieth century – and that a disarmed population is far more susceptible to massacre because, by definition, it lacks viable means to resist or defend itself.   As regards the United States, many will dismiss such talk as merely academic “since something like that could never happen here.” Ah, but it nearly did, and within living memory.

Plotting the Genocide of 25 Million Americans – For Real

The SDS, cited by Professor Manheim as a primary source of “corporate campaigns,” begat the even more radical “Weathermen” / “Weather Underground.” The Weather Underground terrorist group was established by none other than Bill Ayers, who later became the political mentor of one Barack Hussein Obama, even hosting Obama’s very first political event in his living room!  Ayers’ Weather Underground was planning for the genocide of 25 million Americans, right here in the good old US of A.  Yes you read that right; see for yourself: FBI informant – Weather Underground plan to kill 25 million Americans.

Thank God for our Second Amendment!  With it intact, if necessary, we would have been able to disrupt their plans.  Mr. Ayers is, to this day, a respected and influential figure in Progressive circles. It is plausible that it “can’t happen here” – so long as we continue to enjoy our full Second Amendment rights. But if those rights are stripped from us, that “can’t happen here” quickly becomes “pray it never happens here.”

“Corporate Campaigns,” Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton

The other origin of “corporate campaigns” mentioned by Professor Manheim – Saul Alinsky – was the author of “Rules for Radicals,” and was a friend to one Hillary Rodham (as in recent Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton); so much so that he had offered her a job with his organization, and was the subject of her college thesis.

As we see with Ayers-Obama, and Alinsky-Clinton, the radical lineage of “corporate campaigns” extends directly into current Progressive leadership.  So what are the dynamics of “corporate campaigns?” How do they work?  In the Chamber piece Professor Manheim stated that:

Corporate campaigns employ “power structure analysis” to identify and exploit vulnerabilities in the critical stakeholder relationships on which all companies depend.

Progressive in Chief: Before he was President, Barack Hussein Obama in class teaching about (drum roll please) “Power Structure Analysis.”

So what does that “stakeholder relationships” mean?   In Congress Professor Manheim elaborated as follows:

A corporate campaign is an organized assault – involving economic, political, legal, regulatory and psychological warfare – on a company that has offended a labor union or some other group. The attack usually centers around the media, where the protagonists attempt to redefine the image – and tarnish the reputation – of the target company until it yields on whatever the issue in dispute might be.

The central idea is to undermine the company’s relationships with its key stakeholders: customers, employees, shareholders, bankers, insurers, regulators and the general public, among others. In effect, the goal of the campaign is to define the target company as a corporate outlaw – a pariah institution – that must be stopped before it does further damage to our society, and to make anyone who deals with the company feel a sense of personal embarrassment for having done so. I have identified and studied more than 200 such campaigns.

Hmmm, does that not sound like the reputational jihad now being waged against the NRA and the firearms industry?  And note that in his 2002 testimony Professor Manheim had already studied over 200 such campaigns; as stated above, though the reputational and financial assault against the entities affiliated with Second Amendment rights may appear to be new and unique, they’re just the latest targets of a now-classic Leftist battle plan.  Recall that we mentioned the (AstroTurf) “March for Our Lives?”  That’s straight out of the playbook too.  Again from Congress:

It is also important to understand that, in corporate campaigns, “communication” includes much more than simply issuing potentially persuasive messages. Identifying or creating events that highlight the campaign’s principal lines of attack or otherwise contribute to the general vulnerability of the target company are essential parts of the communication strategy. So in addition to carefully shaped messages, these campaigns rely heavily on litigation, legislative and regulatory activities, shareholder actions, boycotts and demonstrations, and the like.

Lawsuits (including every allegation, filing, hearing and decision), regulatory proceedings (inquiries, investigations, routine inspections or even non-actions), congressional or state legislative hearings, action requests from key legislators to regulatory agencies, policy and issue conferences, letters to corporate officials, third-party research reports – these and other “events” become the focal points of efforts by its antagonists to distract corporate management from its day-to-day responsibilities of running the company and, in the process, to generate an image of risk and uncertainty associated with the target company. Collectively, they are designed to keep the pressure on.

Some of these events are real and naturally occurring, but many of them are manufactured by or with the encouragement of those attacking the company. One early advocate of this technique, Robert Harbrant, at the time president of the AFL-CIO’s Food and Allied Service Trades Department, put it this way: “We think you can rewrite the rules of the game by creating circumstances and exploiting them.”

So what’s that “power analysis” stuff really all about?  Well, by analogy, let’s consider a military operation.  To formulate a battle plan the officers and military planners and intelligence assets are going to conduct an assessment of the adversary’s strengths, weaknesses and areas of potential vulnerability. Everything from the adversary’s reserves of troops and supplies to the logistics required for resupply, and so on. This is analyzed as a totality – to gain a complete picture of strengths, weaknesses, how they interact and how they may be exploited.  In “corporate campaigns” the Leftist – Progressive planners engage in a similar exercise.  Again, Professor Manheim from Chamber:

Power structure analysis is illustrated in Figure 1. In applying this technique, a prospective attacker locates the target company in the center of a diagram, and arrays around it all of the key stakeholder relationships upon which it depends for its success and well-being. These will vary, of course, from one company to the next, but will generally include some or all of the categories identified in the figure. Once this list is complete, the attacker then examines each relationship in detail looking for its principal strengths and vulnerabilities. The identification and assessment of these stakeholder relationships requires extensive research, and can take months or even years to accomplish.

Once the assessment of the stakeholder relationships is completed, the results—and primarily the vulnerabilities that have been identified—are set against the capabilities of the attacker. These might include supporters within the company, existing alliances with interested third parties, the availability of themes or data of particular potential value in attacking a given company, or the like. The juxtaposing of attacker capabilities with target vulnerabilities will produce a prioritized list of strategies and tactics to be deployed.

If Firearms and Ammunition Disappear from the Market, the Second Amendment is a Dead Letter

Does that not sound military-esque? Note how since Parkland the anti-Second Amendment “corporate campaign” has been simultaneously targeting (and/or encouraging desired action by) several “stakeholders” of the firearms industry and Second Amendment supporters: retailers (e.g., Dick’s Sporting Goods); financial sources (e.g., Citibank; Bank of America); political support (the NRA); and individual Second Amendment supports (e.g., Hogg calling them, in effect, accessories to murder). Right out of the playbook (again from Commerce):

When fully deployed, a corporate campaign will generate a rising crescendo of pressures on management, most of them coming from traditional allies, business partners and other supporters whose concerns cannot be ignored …attacks on the company will be designed to stigmatize those who continue to engage in business-as-usual with the target—whether that means selling it goods and services, remaining a customer or client, accepting its claims to be following extant regulations, or merely acknowledging its contributions as a corporate citizen.

In effect, the objective is to embarrass key groups into altering their behaviors with respect to the company, the operative assumption being that those behaviors in the pre-campaign period were central to the company’s success, and that changing them will prove disadvantageous to (generate pressure on) the company. If all of this works as intended, the net result will be to change the target company’s decision-making calculus …

Such as causing the management of a conglomerate to exit the firearms business completely, and thereafter concentrate on other lines of business.

Such as choking-off financing sources to companies intending to stay in the firearms industry by having banks refuse to loan them money or otherwise transact business with them – including the ability of retail customers to use those banks’ credit / debit cards to purchase firearms products.

Such as by driving up the cost of doing business, so that firearms products prices rise so fewer can afford them.

Such as by (if possible) forcing all firearms related businesses into other product lines, or out of business entirely – and so effecting a de facto “gun ban” and “ammunition ban” without the need for legislation and so, on paper, without risking a reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court for “violating” Constitutional rights.

At this point the a complimentary concept should be noted: while this piece has presented “corporate campaigns” in a more “classic” sense in that the discussion has focused on the tactics being deployed against the NRA and firearm-related commercial endeavors, it could well be said that actually what we’re seeing is the use of the “corporate campaign” strategy in an entirely new way: executed to accomplish a de facto Constitutional amendment by other means.

That is, the Second Amendment itself is the actual “target” of this “corporate campaign.” That under the Progressive “power structure analysis” the NRA and commercial entities are (in effect) “stakeholder relationships” that are being used as levers to achieve the ultimate goal (albeit they in turn are still having “corporate campaign” tactics deployed against them via their “stakeholders”).  The ultimate goal?  To deprive U.S. citizens of their Second Amendment rights by making unavailable to implements and supplies necessary for them to exercise those rights.

History has shown, over and over, that totalitarian regimes of all stripes, for self-preservation, work to disarm their populations.  Our Founding Fathers knew this, and so we are blessed that when all else fails, our Second Amendment rights are our final backstop, providing the most effective safeguard of liberty. Thus, so long as Progressivism (nee Liberalism) remains a viable political movement in our country, the battle for our Second Amendment rights, and thus our country, will remain an existential one.

The Left always targets youth, doesn’t it? Master David Hogg is just the latest in a long line of useful idiots … or perhaps we should say, “youthful idiots?”

Young Master Hogg, the foul-mouthed poster child for gun control, and the media activities seen post-Parkland, are but façades – “the children” and the public utterances are about “saving lives,” but those exist only to pave the way for accomplishing the actual goal: eliminating Second Amendment rights.

Which in turn would pave the way for “fundamentally transforming” the United States of America into something that would be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers – something along the lines of a “Democratic Socialist” or “Socialist state” (at least initially).

To understand the “corporate campaign” currently underway is to understand what is at stake – which is a necessary prerequisite to develop our counter-strategies for protecting and preserving out Second Amendment rights.

Mr. Wigand is the author of Communiqués From the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracywhich is available on Amazon in both print and Kindle versions.  Comments or questions for Mr. Wigand may be sent to: [email protected]— he will make every effort to personally respond to every email.

05/8/18

The Case for the AR-15

By: Peter Gunn | New Zeal

How many times have we heard from the Anti gun folks “Make the case for the AR-15”

Ok, so here it goes:

There isn’t one. Moreover, there doesn’t need to be. The idea that I need to explain why I “need” one to other people is patently ludicrous, dwarfed only by the notion that I need to defend my inalienable, creator-endowed rights to someone else’s satisfaction. THEY need to make the case to MY satisfaction why I need to surrender rights and property to a government THEY do not trust either?

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was put in place to ensure that Americans could protect home and hearth without interference (I.e. infringement) from their government. Police have no actual Constitutional authority, the people were once responsible for their own defence and protection and just because we created police agencies, does not mean that we abdicated our rights to protect ourselves.

The “militia’ of our founders is us. Whether we are we are investigating the breaking glass at three AM by ourselves, or banding with our neighbors to mutually defend against looters, terrorists, foreign invaders, space aliens, zombie hoards, or the forces of a tyrannical domestic government, WE are the well-regulated militia. Exactly as intended.

Many people in America throughout the world know a brief history of the 1775 Battle of Lexington and Concord, the first battle of the American Revolution. There is much to the story they don’t know because the truth is somewhat inconvenient. While Paul Revere would never have actually said “The British are coming” (everyone in America was still British at that point) , most folks do not understand WHY the Redcoats would be marching through the dark night in 1775. It was a weapons confiscation raid! They were timing the march to hit the weapons cache in Concord at dawn while the Colonists were still asleep. This was the warning Paul Revere was delivering on the midnight ride , and the reason for calling the militia to arms. The other part of the story that gets glossed over is what happened AFTER the battle. The Redcoats marched back to Boston and by this time, the word had spread throughout the area that the Army had engaged the Minutemen and blood had been spilled. From all over, Militiamen kissed their wives and children, grabbed powder and shot, and marched to Boston. This would not stand. The British Soldiers were besieged by armed citizens from all over New England for 11 months before evacuating Boston. For the rest of the American Revolution, British soldiers never set foot in New England again.

At the end of the war, the Founders recognized that Governments, while necessary, are inherently dangerous to liberty. Based on their experience, they assumed that we would no doubt find ourselves needing to “refresh the tree of Liberty with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants” in the future. To this end, they created the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments of the Constitution to insure that We the People would ALWAYS be stronger than the Government, in both Arms and numbers. The idea that they “could not have foreseen” how efficient rifles would become is false on its face. At the beginning of the war, the Minutemen and the British Army had THE SAME weapons, by the end of the war, the Continental Army had SUPERIOR Weapons in the form of the Long Rifle (sometimes called the Kentucky Rifle). Innovations in weapons technology were no stranger to The Founding Fathers. Since rifles, which use a different technology from muskets, existed during the War, it is simply not possible that the Second Amendment could only pertain to muskets. The AR-15 is a direct descendant of the long rifle, in the same way a 2018 Mustang is direct descendant of the 1964 ½ Mustang. Sure the tech and performance have improved, but they still share the familial DNA.

The Intent of the founders regarding the Second Amendment is crystal clear in their writings from the time; American Citizens were to be able to retain the ability to defeat the Government militarily if they were unable to maintain their freedom through legal and political means. There is an old American proverb that our Freedom is contained in three boxes; the Soapbox, the Ballet Box, and The Cartridge box. We are free to speak out (the Soapbox) Free to vote our conscience (the ballot box) and if those two should fail, we are free to arm ourselves to protect our liberty (the Cartridge box).

America as a nation is finding itself in the very danger our Founders were worried about. The Left/Progressive movement is trying everything it can to deny the Right/Conservatives “the Soapbox”. Burning down Berkeley to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking, calling for the Abolishing of the NRA, Facebook deciding Diamond & Silk’s conservative content is “dangerous to the community” and public schools harassing conservative students and causes, while sanctioning and supporting liberal ones. Protesting the Conservative message and counter arguments are as American as Apple Pie, but they are trying to silence the opposing viewpoint all together which is more Soviet Union.

The “Ballot box” is also under siege. There was the video of a white man being dragged from his car and beaten by several black people because he was suspected of supporting Trump for President. You have Hillary Clinton running around the world proclaiming that women who didn’t vote for her were being oppressed by their husbands, and that the people in the States she lost were less educated and productive than the people living in the states she carried, and let us not forget that conservative voters are a “basket of Deplorables”. Part of the reason Hillary and the left are so unhinged about the outcome of the election, is they probably rigged the election so it is impossible to them they could have lost. The only explanation has to be Russian interference. Anyone wearing a Trump MAGA hat can expect to be publicly Ridiculed and harassed on the streets. Masked thugs, laughably calling themselves “Anti fascists” will violently disrupt any Right/Conservative demonstration in support of the duly elected and sitting President of the United States.

Since the time may be drawing near when the only option left to the Conservative Right is the “Cartridge box”, the Left/Progressives have targeted what is arguably the best militia weapon on the market today, the AR-15. According to the FBI, rifles as a group account for less homicides than knives, blunt objects or even hands and feet. Rifle account for around 300 annually out of about 8,000 firearm homicides each year (not quite the 30,000 you hear about in the media). AR-15s are an even smaller subset of rifles in general, so small in fact that the FBI does not separate them in their uniform crime report. As they do with people, the Left /Progressives name call the rifle “assault weapon” to demonize it and drum up support to insure the “well-regulated militia” is unable to secure the free state from the Left/Progressive endgame.  This is a feature of gun control, not a bug

Gun Owners having to “make the case” to retain the EXACT weapons the Second Amendment protects is ludicrous. Its backwards and none of us should take the bait. The Left/Progressives attempting to ban them makes a crystal clear case that AR-15s and similar weapons should hang over the mantle of every freedom loving American household, as the musket and long rifle once did over two hundred years ago.

05/1/18

I Want The Cop’s Guns

By: Peter Gunn | New Zeal

The Gun Ban folk are forever railing against this kind of gun or that kind of gun. They already lost the war about my being able to own a gun for self defense in all 50 States and D.C. They have been forced to accept that the Second Amendment defines an individual right which cannot be infringed The fight now is to reduce the effectiveness of the tools at my disposal.

We have recently come back to magazine capacity, and the perpetual whine “you don’t NEED x number of rounds for self defense” The number of rounds is always less than the current standard size magazine. There is no logic or science behind whatever number they pick, so long as it creates a problem for Constitutional Gun Owners. Naturally there is always an exception for law enforcement, what I call “the magic police”.

Magic Police is not a slam on the hardworking OATH KEEPING members of American Law Enforcement, but a statement on how the Progressive Left hold police on some pedestal (Until The Narrative says other) being uber-skilled with firearms, proficient on a level the rest of us mere mortals could never attain. The reality is that they are people doing a job. There are good cops and bad cops, intelligent cops and dullard cops, virtuous cops and villainous cops and everything in between. Some Officers are Olympic quality shooters while some barely qualify. These same things are true of Constitutional Gun owners (CGO)they run the whole spectrum. The concept that all Police are perfect is disingenuous to the Police themselves if no one else.

One thing the gun controllers do not want you to consider is why the police carry weapons in the first place; for THEIR OWN PROTECTION. Sure, when you call them they will do their best and no doubt risk their lives to get you to safety while training their weapons on the threat, but the reality is that they carry for personal self defence just like I do.

To that end, through years of experience and testing Police Departments have settled on a selection of different weapons for the variety of situations that officers may be called upon to face. I live in a town of about 1500 people, and very little crime. Our police force consists of two cars and a handful of officers. Each car is outfitted with an AR-15 with additional magazines and a shotgun. Each officer is issued a semi auto side arm with additional magazines. All of the magazines are above 10 rounds. What this tells me, is that an appropriate arsenal for self defence of my person and property should include a side arm, a semi auto rifle, and a shotgun. Clearly, the standard size magazines and more than one are also the preferable solution. No armed confrontation ever ended better because the police carried LESS rounds

The natural argument back is that Police by virtue of their job respond to dangerous situations and it is not the job of Civilians to do that nor should they get involved. I agree wholeheartedly, HOWEVER this is another thing the Gun Banners don’t want you to consider; before the Police got called, some member of the public was already facing the problem which is why they called for help in the first place. If the situation is so dangerous that the police need to draw weapons when they get there, it was dangerous enough for the citizen to have needed to be armed.

So here is my “Compromise” to the Gun Banners. You want my support to pass a semi auto ban or a magazine size restriction? It has to apply to the Police. You want my support to pass smart gun legislation, then it has to apply to police. If your laws jeopardize the safety of police officers, then it jeopardizes mine.

When it comes to what kind of gun or how many rounds I can have? I want the Cop’s guns!

04/26/18

The Power of Narrative Politics

By: Peter Gunn | New Zeal

The other day I was speaking with a 19-year-old young lady who is a neo-gun control believer. As a High School Senior, she was naturally horrified by the events of Parkland high school and, and as one would expect, these events hit close to home for her. In this conversation, she invoked “Trayvon Martin” and “Michael Brown” and my heart just sank. I wanted to scream “They died in the commission of FELONIES! They are NOT VICTIMS!” Both of the investigations in those cases were heavily and unreasonably biased against the defenders from the get-go and STILL the evidence of self-defense was obvious and undeniable. Behold the power of The Narrative.

As folks on the opposite side from the Liberal/Progressive point of view, I think we absolutely fail to understand the true power of Narrative Politics. In order to influence a population using Narrative Politics, you must craft the story that will lead the audience to the conclusion you WANT them to draw, regardless of truth, by making them FEEL a certain way about the subject. Any information that does not agree with The Narrative must be squelched. This is a nearly daily occurrence in the American “Mainstream” Media.

Trayvon Martin is a prime example of how Narrative Politics works; Instead of starting with a crime and following the evidence to lead to the truth, whatever it would be, The Left/Progressives started by publicly creating the Narrative of the case and working backwards. The Narrative was that Trayvon Martin was an innocent teenager, who went out to buy some Skittles and encountered hateful armed white Racist George Zimmerman a self-appointed vigilante who murdered the poor child in cold blood solely because Trayvon was black and wearing a hoodie. I crossed out “white” above because when The Narrative first aired, no one knew what George Zimmerman looked like. If we were honest with ourselves, we would admit that that his name sounds like an older white man which is what happened at the time. When it was revealed that Zimmerman was Hispanic, there was a pause for about a day and half while The Narrative people regrouped. This was not going to be a “White on Black” murder….it was “minority on minority” which doesn’t serve The Narrative. Some clever soul in the Left/Progressive camp saved the day by claiming Zimmerman was a “White Hispanic”. While the term did exist before this use, it very effectively got The Narrative back up and running! The Villain was a WHITE (Hispanic), the emphasis on the former over the latter when said out loud. It worked like a charm. How many celebrities did we see wearing Hoodies and holding up “Justice for Trayvon” signs?

Continue reading

04/4/18

Perpetuating the Assault Weapon Lie

By: T.F. Stern | Self-Educated American

Image M-15 DEF Defensive Sporting Rifle courtesy of Armalite

For openers…the never-ending assault on the 2nd Amendment has been going on for a very long time.  It could be said that those pushing this agenda are beyond patient with their eyes open for any opportunity to move the individual’s right to own and bear arms into some dusty history book, a memory of things past.

If you haven’t been paying attention then perhaps a look at the newly revised definition of Assault Rifle as found in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary might be a bit troubling for some.

Assault Rifle: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire (bold type added for emphasis)

Does the word vague come to mind?  It should!  Keep in mind that sniper rifles used in the military are often blot action rather than fully automatic or even semi-automatic rifles.  So almost any rifle could be designated as looking like a military weapon later on down the road when the folks at Merriam-Webster alter the definition a little more to suit the communist agenda.

It wasn’t too long ago the New York Times came clean and admitted that 30 years ago the term Assault Weapon was a made-up term, created out of thin air so to speak to scare the average citizen into going along with a political movement to ban any weapon that looked scary.

Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)

Banning sales of military-style weapons resonated with both legislators and the public: Civilians did not need to own guns designed for use in war zones.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, folks on the left can’t stand the 2nd Amendment and want to take away an individual’s right to own and bear arms.  They are willing to go for a piece at a time if they can’t do it all at once.

The use of trigger words (sorry for the intended pun) … trigger words that categorized look-alike weapons available to the general public as if they were the same as military grade weapons along with the alarming use of the term ‘war zones’ was enough to get the bill passed, even if it expired under the sunset clause after 10 years; the propaganda had worked.

I mentioned that the term Assault Weapon was created out of thin air; but it happened long before the 1990s.  The first recorded use came from NAZI Germany of all places.

According to Wikipedia:

“The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler, who for propaganda purposes used the German word “Sturmgewehr” (which translates to “storm rifle” or “assault rifle”), as the new name for the MP43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44 or StG 44.”

For whatever reason the name stuck, perhaps because “Sturmgewehr” sounded threatening or more macho; but come to think of it, most words in German come off sounding threatening…never mind; it got signed off on and so that’s where we got the term assault rifle, at least that’s the story.

Jumping back to present day efforts to deprive average citizens from owning any assault rifle, a term which we now understand to be nothing more than a figment of the lefts very successful imagination and efforts; from the Chicago Tribune, suburban Deerfield, just north of Chicago, has given “owners of assault weapons living in north suburban Deerfield have until June 13 to remove the firearms from within village limits…”

“The new ordinance prohibits the possession, sale and manufacturing of certain types of assault weapons and large capacity magazines within the village, according to the ordinance.  One change from the law as it was originally discussed exempts retired police officers from the ban, according to Village Manager Kent Street.

Violations carry a fine of between $250 and $1,000 per day, according to Matthew Rose, the village attorney.  He said the fine is levied each day until there is compliance.”

Wasn’t it George Washington who explained that the general public should not only be armed; but be armed to the same extent as their government?  Why would a retired police officer’s 2nd Amendment rights be superior to any other citizen’s?

The 2nd Amendment is the target and once an item is placed on the communist agenda it never stops being a goal to achieve.  If it takes a year, ten years or several generations you can count on the folks on the left to seize any crisis and use that crisis to its advantage.

03/14/18

National School Walkout: Marxists Rally Thousands Of Students Against Guns And The Constitution

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Today, thousands of students walked out of their classrooms across America to protest against gun violence. They usually did so with the full blessing and encouragement of their teachers. This sprang up after the mass murder in Parkland, Florida last month at a high school by a disgruntled former student who is also a deranged psychopath. 14 students and three staff members were killed in the shooting.

The National School Walkout was organized by the same people who organized the Women’s Marches. Marxists who are against the Constitution and the Second Amendment and think this is the time to take it down. Wealthy leftists including George Soros are funding the movement along with celebrities who have deep, anti-American pockets, such as Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney. According to EMPOWER, the youth branch of the Women’s March, there are more than 3,130 school walkouts scheduled across the country, as NPR’s Adrienne St. Clair reports.

“I’m just mad there’s no action by our government representatives,” Daniel Rogov, a junior in Brooklyn, New York, said today. Which is not true. Many would like to train and arm teachers at schools. They would also like to employ former police and veterans to guard schools. But stripping people of the right to bear arms, simply gives more control to the bad guys and encourages violence. “It’s all thoughts and prayers; it’s all talk,” he told ABC News. “After a gun violence tragedy there’s a speech talking about how we need change but there never is change.” These are the talking points of the radicals and Marxists who have coached and trained these kids into being useful idiots for their political agenda.

The walkout began at 10 a.m. in each time zone across the nation. It was scheduled to last 17 minutes. One minute for each of the victims gunned down in the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Some schools are expelling kids who are walking out and I agree with them. This should not be allowed.

To the students at Stoneman Douglas, Daniel’s message is, “Keep making your voices heard. While the politicians might stop talking about this, we’re not done.” No, they aren’t and those like Daniel and David Hogg are being used as walking, talking propagandists to abridge our rights and destroy them forever. Over 3,000 walkout events were registered to take part in today’s call on Congress to pass tighter gun control laws, according to ENOUGH National School Walkout, the event organizers. They are taking place in virtually every state – the professional organizers did their job well. Some of the walkouts, especially in California, even turned violent today and this is just the beginning, not the end.

“Remember why we are walking out,” Stoneman Douglas survivor Lauren Hogg wrote on Twitter today. “We are walking out for my friends that passed, all children that have been taken because of gun violence. We are walking out for the empty desks in my classes, and the unsaid goodbyes. This epidemic of School shootings must stop.” No, they are walking out to further a radical anti-gun agenda by Marxists and are too stupid to see it. In Washington, DC, a huge crowd of chanting students gathered in front of the White House. Once the clock struck 10 a.m., the students silently sat down with their backs to the White House. There were also ‘die-ins’ that took place in various locations.

“We just want the White House to hear us,” Abby Silverman of Bethesda, Maryland, told ABC News outside the White House. Leftists are making progress in taking away gun rights from those under 21, even though they serve in the military and these kids are helping them. Kevin Butler told ABC News he came to the White House to “make sure there are stricter gun laws,” and even though the President wasn’t there during the sit-in, Kevin thinks their voices will be heard. Yes, they will… and mainstream America rejects them.

Outside Trump International Hotel in Manhattan, students chanted “Hey, hey, NRA, how many kids did you kill today?” None. They never have, but they do protect and lobby for Second Amendment rights. These kids are being taught that the NRA and anyone who owns a gun or supports gun rights is a murderer. It’s monstrous. Parents should speak with their kids about being used like this.

In Times Square, students protested silently. Women’s March Youth Coordinator Tabitha St. Bernard Jacobs, one of the adults coordinating students in the movement, told ABC News before the event that while the walkout was sparked by the Florida school shooting, the event is about pressuring Congress to act against gun violence overall. They were just waiting for an emergency to trigger them. She said the walkout was a way to shed light on the kind of gun violence that exists not just in schools but every day, like shootings that affect communities of color or devastate cities like Chicago. You know… the city that is led by liberal Marxists and has the strictest gun laws in the nation… that Chicago. It’s so bad there that Navy medics train for combat because it’s as bad or worse than being on the front-lines in Afghanistan.

While many school districts were supportive of the protests, some schools from Pennsylvania to Georgia had reportedly threatened to discipline students participating in walkouts, which I think is very appropriate. In Plainfield, Illinois, where some students had planned to walk out, doing so came with a guideline. Students who wanted to participate in the walkout also had to attend an after-school discussion with state legislators to discuss issues that relate to school violence, like the political process, school safety, gun control and what influences politicians, Plainfield School District Superintendent Lane Abrell told ABC News. A student who walked out but did not attend the discussion with state legislators would get a one-hour detention, Abrell said. At least it’s a start.

Abrell said the walkout “in my opinion … doesn’t really solve the issue,” and the meeting with local legislators is a way for students who are genuinely passionate about the cause to learn how school violence issues can be solved. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said schools could punish students for missing class for walkouts, but the punishment should only be because students missed school and not as a harsher punishment because the students participated in a protest. Dozens of colleges and universities have said they won’t penalize applicants who are peaceful student protesters.

This wasn’t just high schoolers and college students. Many elementary students took part in the walkout as well. The walkouts on Wednesday are among several protests planned for coming weeks. The March for Our Lives rally for school safety is expected to draw hundreds of thousands to the nation’s capital on March 24, its organizers said. And another round of school walkouts is planned for April 20, the 19th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting in Colorado.

Not all students support this and many are walking out under peer pressure. Parents should find out how their children are reacting to this so they don’t become radicalized.

02/26/18

Gun Confiscation and Speedy Due Process

By: T F Stern | Self-Educated American

There is a concerted effort pushing the gun grabbing agenda of late.  Each time a firearm has been used in a horrific crime the so-called grass roots movement surfaces, taking pot shots (forgive the term), pot shots at our individual inalienable God given right to own and bear arms.

In case you’re unfamiliar with how inalienable rights work, these rights existed prior to the formation of government and cannot be taken away except under very limited situations.  They have been identified and are protected FROM government which means that your neighbors cannot decide to vote them away since these rights didn’t come from government; these rights come from God.

Is it any wonder the left wants to get rid of any and all reference to God?  Without God there can be no God given rights.  Let that sink in and the larger picture becomes more defined.

Our Founders fought a war to establish and preserve inalienable rights risking their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.  Near the top of that list of God given rights that needed to be protected from government… the right of individuals to own and bear arms.  It didn’t specify hunting or sporting firearms; the use of these tools was left up to the discretion of the individual.

The hotly contested issue of firearm ownership was fresh on the Founders minds since King George had attempted to confiscate any and all firearms leading up to the Revolutionary War.  Subjects of the King couldn’t be trusted to submit to his will if they had the ability to object by force.

Jumping to our day, Becky Loggia writing for the Western Journal explains how Florida might have an answer to school violence and mass murders.  After reading it I had to wonder if  Governor Rick Scott of Florida might be a direct descendent of old King George as he seems to have doubts regarding the average citizen’s inalienable right to own and bear arms.

“We must take care of our kids,” Scott said, according to CNN. “Keeping guns away from dangerous people and people with mental issues is what we need to do.”

Who in their right mind would find fault with such a grand statement?  Certainly we must take care of our kids and keep guns away from dangerous people and people with mental issues; the trick is now, and always has been how to accomplish this in a constitutional republic.

There are already laws that cover protecting children and keeping guns out of the hands of specific dangerous individuals such as convicted felons and individuals found mentally incompetent.  Is this resourcefulness an extension of existing law or is this something else?

Governor Scott’s initiative is called the “Major Action Plan” and creates a “Violent Threat Restraining Order” which would speed up securing court orders so “firearms may be confiscated if a family member complains about the gun owner”.

Is this how the 2nd Amendment works or is this a way to ‘get around ’ equal protection of the law by denying rights selectively?

The article went on, “There would be speedy due process for the accused and any fraudulent or false statements would face criminal penalties,” the plan states.  That’s a catchy phrase, Speedy Due Process, modern and with a hint of legality; that might sell to the masses, let’s give it a go.

Would someone explain the difference between speedy due process and undue haste?  It seems the State of Florida has decided that Due Process is no longer fashionable and should be upgraded, or is this downgraded?

Undue : Excessive, disproportionate, exceeding propriety, ill-advised, improper, needless, objectionable…

Shall I continue?

Undeserved, unjustified, unmerited, unreasonable or unwarranted…

I could go on; however, Governor Scott and those who support such infringements on 2nd Amendment rights must be aware that what is being proposed stands in direct conflict with long established legal precedent.

There can be No Speedy Due Process; there is Due Process or there is usurpation of power that infringes on inalienable rights.

With emotions ruling the day rather than reasoned thought, this remains a golden opportunity in time for anti-2nd Amendment folks, those who can’t stand the idea that individuals control their own destiny rather than being subjects of government.  They are coming out of the shadows with eager anticipation, “Get those Guns!  Get those Guns!”.

I wonder how this will all play out.

02/22/18

NRA’s Wayne LaPierre: “European Socialists” Are Taking Over The Democratic Party

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre hit it out of the park at CPAC today. He bluntly warned conservatives that European socialists are smearing gun rights advocates and are trying to strip us of our Second Amendment rights. Bingo. “Socialism is a movement that loves a smear. Racists, misogynists, sexists, xenophobe and more. These are the weapons and vitriol these character assassinations permanently hang on their targets because socialism feeds off manipulated victims,” LaPierre told the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

LaPierre laid it out for Republicans today by boldly stating that “European socialists” are taking over the Democratic Party. That’s true, except they already have. He also named the “Occupy” movement, Black Lives Matter and Antifa as radical groups that are promoting “uncivil discourse” and aim to “eliminate due process.” That’s an understatement if I’ve ever heard one. They want to destroy the rule of law and shred the Constitution via chaos, violence and communist revolution. “The elimination of due process is the very gold standard of the socialist state,” he said. Again, correct and it’s refreshing to hear an American leader come out and say it.

LaPierre’s fiery remarks come just as the gun grabbers are descending once again on American society after a tragic shooting at a Florida high school that took 17 lives and wounded 15 others. Jumping on the gun control bandwagon are Democratic lawmakers and more than a few Republicans. Both President Trump and the NRA are pushing the banning of bump stocks. Trump is in favor of raising the legal age to purchase a gun and stiffer background checks “with an emphasis on mental health” that could lead to a gun registry. None of that will work… but arming teachers and placing armed security at schools would. Instead of looking to abridge our rights, why not address the real problem of safety? Banning guns just makes us more ‘unsafe’ and constitutionally weaker.

Some Republicans have cautioned against moving too quickly on legislation as a reaction to the incident. And they are right… chief among those is Ted Cruz who is against anything that takes Constitutional rights away from Americans. Earlier in his speech at CPAC, LaPierre called proposals to limit the amount of weapons available to Americans “completely ridiculous” and said more security would help prevent future school shootings. He’s right. But the Marxists on the left are ginning up lynch mobs to come after the NRA and anyone who supports gun rights. Their vehicle is the leftist media.

“As millions of Americans search for meaningful solutions, what do we find?” Wayne LaPierre asked. “(Sen.) Chris Murphy, (Rep.) Nancy Pelosi and more, cheered on by the national media, eager to blame the NRA and calling for even more government control. They hate the NRA. They hate the Second Amendment. They hate individual freedom.” Yep, LaPierre is telling it like it is.

LaPierre went on to say that the “elites,” better known as “European-style socialists,” don’t care about America’s school children. They never have. They only appear to care when it fits their political agenda: “If they truly cared, they would protect them. For them, it’s not a safety issue. It’s a political issue. They care more about control and more of it. Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms so they can eradicate all individual freedoms.” LaPierre said the liberal elites want more restrictions on law-abiding Americans, “Think about that. Their solution is to make all of you less free. They want to sweep right under the carpet the failure of school security, the failure of family, the failure of American’s mental health system, and even the unbelievable failure of the FBI. They fantasize about more laws stopping what other laws fail to stop.”

LaPierre went on to say that existing laws are being ignored, “Their laws don’t stop illegal criminals from crossing our borders every single day. Their laws don’t stop the scourge of gang violence and drug crime that savages Baltimore, Chicago and every major American community. Their laws haven’t stopped the plague of opioids, the Chinese fentanyl from Mexico that floods American streets and kills victims every single day in this country. No wonder law abiding Americans all over this country revere their Second Amendment freedom to protect themselves more than ever.”

Liberals “don’t care if their laws work or not,” LaPierre said. “They just want to get more laws to get more control over people. But the NRA– the NRA does care.” Very nicely put. He also said how the NRA mourns for everyone lost in last week’s shooting, but that we should talk about and implement real, practical security solutions to protect our children. He also noted that jewelry stores, banks, airports, NBA and NFL games, office buildings, and movie stars and politicians are “all more protected than our children at school.” Schools are soft targets that should be hardened immediately to protect all concerned, not softened additionally to leave them as even more enticing killing fields. The NRA advocates “effective, trained, armed security” inside schools to protect children. “Schools must be the most hardened targets in this country,” LaPierre said. “And evil must be confronted immediately with all necessary force to protect our kids.”

LaPierre’s best quote was this, “If they seize power, if these so-called European socialists take over the House and the Senate and God forbid they get the White House again, our American freedoms could be lost and our country will be changed forever,” he said. “And the first to go will be the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.” And he’s exactly right. I just hope and pray that the NRA and President Trump do not give ground on gun control. We need to strengthen our gun rights, not weaken them like the socialists are trying to do.

02/6/18

Schiff Claims Russian Ads Promoted The 2nd Amendment, “So We All Kill Each Other”

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Adam Schiff (D-CA) is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He’s also a leaker and a liar. He claimed last week that Russia used social media to promote the Second Amendment during the 2016 election with the hope that Americans would kill each other. I’m not kidding. He said it more than once too, during interviews with MSNBC and ABC News’ “This Week” and during a speech at the University of Pennsylvania over the past week. I have no way of knowing, but Schiff is just the kind of useful idiot that the Russians love to use.

Schiff claims that Russian intelligence pushed content that had “multiple aims” and was “designed to pit us against each other, to exploit our divisions.” His comments are primarily in response to the recently released Republican FISA memo, which he has called inaccurate. It’s not, but that doesn’t stop Schiff from lying about it. Schiff said the Russians used the Black Lives Matter movement to widen the racial divide in the US. Now, that part is true. But it’s his next claim that is a real whopper.

“Fascinatingly, they also trumpeted the Second Amendment,” Schiff said. “Apparently, the Russians are very big fans of our Second Amendment. They don’t particularly want a Second Amendment of their own, but they’re really glad that we have one. The Russians would be thrilled if we were doing nothing but killing each other every day, and sadly, we are.” Ah, there’s the dishonest asshat we all know and despise. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with any of this, but leftist propaganda mixed with half truths is all the rage on the left these days.

Schiff went on to blame Trump and Republicans and to say they have irreparably damaged the relationship between the Democrats and the intelligence community by releasing the FISA memo. First he said it was national security… that was a lie. Then he said the GOP would redact and skew the memo… that was a lie. Now, he claims that they’ve damaged the Dems special relationship with the FBI. Well, I bloody hope so! They weaponized the FBI and the DOJ to try and take President Trump out in a soft coup.

Republicans are “impeaching the FBI,” he told ABC News host George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” Sunday. “The real damage they have done is they have damaged the relationship between our committee and the intelligence committee,” Schiff said. “In the future, the Intelligence Committee is going to be very wary about sharing any information with us because they won’t trust us to be responsible stewards of it and sources of information are going to dry up.” Why should they trust someone like Schiff? He’s responsible for over 100 leaks. None of you can be trusted. You are corrupt, evil and despicable, so get over it already. People need to be fired and prosecuted over all of this and Schiff is on that list.

Schiff also said that people would also be afraid to report suspicious activities because they won’t trust that their names will be kept confidential. “If you have a neighbor next door who is buying a lot of fertilizer and it seems odd to you because they don’t have a yard,” Schiff said. “Are you going to think twice before calling the FBI? Because if they get a search warrant for your neighbor and something is politicized, and the political winds change your identity is going to be revealed.” First off, that’s sheer fear mongering. But even so, again who caused that? The left did by lying and attempting to destroy the right and by abusing their methods to get Trump. They used communist tactics and now they are getting burned for it. Amateurs.

Sources will dry up, he added. “There’s a reason why this process has never been used before,” Schiff went on. “But, even so, the process presumed that the President of the United States who has a veto over this would be a responsible person who would have the interest of the nation at heart.” The Democrats forced this with their cover-ups for Clinton and Obama. President Trump is not to blame on this in the least. The Democrats own all of this and there is much more coming down the pike. The State Department is next and by the time this is all said and done it is going to dwarf Watergate. I have said many times that the Obama administration would be the most corrupt in history and you are beginning to see all of that surface now.

Instead of Schiff uncovering a plan by Putin, he is most likely a part of one where he serves as a useful idiot to cause chaos in our government. Russia did indeed meddle in our election as they have done for decades. But they didn’t affect the outcome. In fact, the only thing they did affect was goading the Democrats into pushing propaganda and to make fools of themselves. Hillary Clinton has provable ties to Russia and she’s the one who should be investigated here along with Obama. Uranium One and Skulkovo are the true scandals here. That and the Marxists on the left like Schiff in our own government.


09/26/17

Freedom’s Safest Place | “We Stand”

ABOUT FREEDOM’S SAFEST PLACE

These spots alert Americans to the threats to their freedoms that their leaders distract from and ignore. If we are going to defend our freedom, we must speak clearly and openly about the dangers of terrorism … dishonest leadership … hatred toward our law enforcement … how our culture of political correctness destroys our freedom of speech and religion … and how all freedoms are connected.

Americans are worried about the future of the country, the opportunities left for their children and grandchildren, the lack of honest, moral leadership from the White House to the news media all the way down to many of our schools and businesses.

These are the most important issues facing America today. And no other organization in American history has done more to defend and advance freedom’s cause than the National Rifle Association of America: Freedom’s Safest Place.

Sincerely,

Patrick Kobler, NRATV