05/8/18

THE COUP IS STILL UNDERWAY: Every American Must Watch This Episode of Life, Liberty & Levin

Doug Ross @ Journal

Former U.S. attorney and special counsel Joe DiGenova and ex-Secret Service agent Dan Bongino were both masterfully interviewed by Mark Levin last night. The result was stunning. As many of you know, I follow the dual scandals of the DOJ’s exoneration of Hillary Clinton and persecution of Donald Trump, eh, rather closely.

This interview revealed new information for me, including how Robert Mueller is protecting certain Russian oligarchs from exposure by redacting or concealing their names. I simply cannot state this strongly enough: every American should watch this surgical deconstruction of, for lack of a better term, Obamagate. Please watch it and please pass it along. I am not overstating things when I say that this information is vital to saving our Republic.

For a historical view of this scandal, the greatest in American history, please refer to the timeline and cast of characters here: http://tinyurl.com/timelineoftreason. Say a prayer for our country tonight.

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.

05/8/18

Was Our Stoner President Mentally Impaired?

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

Mental health expert J.D. Mitschke discusses the charge that President Trump is crazy as a template for what will follow against conservatives who believe in traditional values, including the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. Mitschke says his observation is that Trump is not mentally impaired bur rather motivated by love of country. By contrast, our stoner president, Barack Hussein Obama, was impaired by previous drug use, including marijuana and cocaine, and seemingly motivated by hatred of the U.S.A. How do we define mental illness and what role do drugs, legal and illegal, play in some of the violence we see in society?

05/8/18

Eric Schneiderman/Harvey Weinstein and Sexual Abuse?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Eric Schneiderman is the current Attorney General of New York. And already Governor Cuomo is calling for his resignation (as of the end of today, Schneiderman has resigned). Schneiderman has joined 8 other AG’s against Scott Pruitt at the EPA over applying limited science on decisions made on public health and the environment. Schneiderman has also made it a personal and professional challenge to take down Donald Trump as the leader of the resistance. Hillary is sitting on the sidelines at the moment.

Schneiderman also worked diligently of the case involving Trump University where it appears a settlement was reached.

Okay so hold on for this story, breaking all over this Monday night.

The New Yorker: Eric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, has long been a liberal Democratic champion of women’s rights, and recently he has become an outspoken figure in the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment. As New York State’s highest-ranking law-enforcement officer, Schneiderman, who is sixty-three, has used his authority to take legal action against the disgraced film mogul Harvey Weinstein, and to demand greater compensation for the victims of Weinstein’s alleged sexual crimes. Last month, when the Timesand this magazine were awarded a joint Pulitzer Prize for coverage of sexual harassment, Schneiderman issued a congratulatory tweet, praising “the brave women and men who spoke up about the sexual harassment they had endured at the hands of powerful men.” Without these women, he noted, “there would not be the critical national reckoning under way.”

Now Schneiderman is facing a reckoning of his own. As his prominence as a voice against sexual misconduct has risen, so, too, has the distress of four women with whom he has had romantic relationships or encounters. They accuse Schneiderman of having subjected them to nonconsensual physical violence. All have been reluctant to speak out, fearing reprisal. But two of the women, Michelle Manning Barish and Tanya Selvaratnam, have talked to The New Yorker on the record, because they feel that doing so could protect other women. They allege that he repeatedly hit them, often after drinking, frequently in bed and never with their consent. Manning Barish and Selvaratnam categorize the abuse he inflicted on them as “assault.” They did not report their allegations to the police at the time, but both say that they eventually sought medical attention after having been slapped hard across the ear and face, and also choked. Selvaratnam says that Schneiderman warned her he could have her followed and her phones tapped, and both say that he threatened to kill them if they broke up with him. (Schneiderman’s spokesperson said that he “never made any of these threats.”)

A third former romantic partner of Schneiderman’s told Manning Barish and Selvaratnam that he also repeatedly subjected her to nonconsensual physical violence, but she told them that she is too frightened of him to come forward. (The New Yorker has independently vetted the accounts that they gave of her allegations.) A fourth woman, an attorney who has held prominent positions in the New York legal community, says that Schneiderman made an advance toward her; when she rebuffed him, he slapped her across the face with such force that it left a mark that lingered the next day. She recalls screaming in surprise and pain, and beginning to cry, and says that she felt frightened. She has asked to remain unidentified, but shared a photograph of the injury with The New Yorker.

Continue reading