A left-leaning grantmaking organization founded in 1996 as a nonprofit public benefit corporation chartered by the State of California. It bills itself as the largest private health foundation in California with three billion dollars in assets. The Endowment promotes a health care-based advocacy message and mission. However, many of its agenda items focus on left-leaning priorities related to immigration, racial justice, school suspensions, and abortion. The Endowment has received multiple awards for its video campaigns promoting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
In an August 2018 interview, Endowment vice president Tony Iton told the American Public Health Association that Building Healthy Communities had accomplished a number of its objectives. Among the objectives were helping one million low-level felons reclassify their crimes as misdemeanors; reducing school suspensions, especially among minority boys; reducing punishments for defying teachers; and using social media, television, and other media resources to promote illegal immigrants. Iton also favorably cited young anti-gun activists, Black Lives Matter protesters, and same-sex marriage advocates as inspirations for generating groundswell activism among younger people.
The California Endowment’s creation in 1996 came after Blue Cross of California purchased Wellpoint Health Networks. Its legal status means it is barred from engaging in political work and from advocating for specific policy prescriptions. However, it provides grants to governmental, non-profit, and religious entities which support a left-leaning agenda. For example, it does not fund groups which “discriminate on the basis of…gender identity and expression” and sexual orientation, which means that no Catholic group or other entity with traditionalist views on marriage and sexuality would be able to receive funding.
The Endowment funds a variety of California-based and national initiatives to support increased government intervention in health care and race and gender-based social changes. Initiatives the Endowment has funded include health care-related reporting at The Sacramento Bee; a 2019 report by the pro-abortion research group Guttmacher Institute which claimed pro-life laws restricting abortion are “not the main driver” of lower abortion rates; a pregnancy awareness and counseling event hosted by the Endowment which promoted abortion; a California-based national coalition of foundations which created a national activism network focused on race and gender, and alleged structural discrimination against minorities who are gender-confused; and the California Urban Partnership, an advocacy coalition which promotes minority business ownership, denounces the War on Drugs as racist, and provides minority business owners special trainings and financial benefits.
The California Endowment raised $256 million in 2018, spending $242 million and ending the year with almost $3.3 billion in assets.
Its grants went to a variety of organizations, such as:
916 Ink, a Sacramento-based creative writing group. California Endowment provided the group $25,000 for youth writing about health-related issues facing student communities.
A New Way of Life Reentry Project received over $225,000 to help formerly incarcerated people get back on their feet, as well as to support a film festival and a gala to promote and support them.
$510,000 was given to three regional California American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapters.
$1.7 million went to the Action Council of Monterey, which funds efforts in Salinas Valley related to race-based activism and social change.
The California Endowment’s board and staff leadership are primarily left-leaning, ethnic-based researchers and activists.
Dr. Shawn Ginwright is the Endowment’s Board chair. He is a professor of Africana Studies at San Francisco State University, a co-founder of an education advocacy group, and a senior research associate at the Cesar Chavez Institute for Public Policy.
Vice-Chair Minerva Carcano is a bishop in the United Methodist Church. She primarily advocates for immigrants and people who identify as LGBT. She also backs companies changing their internal structures to match those preferred by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest and most powerful LGBT-interest advocacy organization.
Robert Ross has been president and CEO of the Endowment since 2000. He previously worked in senior health care roles for San Diego County and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Executive vice president and Endowment counsel Martha Jiminez has served in multiple senior counsel roles and in left-leaning social change organizations such as Fair Trade USA.
Dr. Tony Iton is senior vice president for health communities. He oversees the Building Healthy Communities initiative.
The founding fathers clearly secured the right of “We the People” to bear arms in defense of himself or the State, as an absolute right and that no law can “be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking.” The globalists who seek a tyrannous world government under their elite control have slowly eroded this platform and are trying to repeal the 2nd amendment using false flags, lies, and propaganda to brainwash the masses that it is a necessity to reduce gun violence. Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Center has the stats to prove that (1) more guns equals less crime and less guns equals more crime; (2) expanding background checks doesn’t cut down on gun violence; (3) how gun free zones leave innocent Americans vulnerable, thus making them prime targets for mass shooters; (4) how the federal government and the institutional left are funding bogus health studies to undercut our Second Amendment rights; (5) why women concealed carry holders are surging; and (6) how the media is a total disaster when it comes to gun laws and the lexicon within the firearms industry that could prevent egregious mistakes in reporting gun crimes.
“Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. -Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” -Noah Webster, 1787
Liberal propaganda aside, it’s very clear what the authors of the Second Amendment meant by “well regulated” They meant all those who could carry arms, organized when needed, to fight a corrupt federal government. So…who needs a select fire M-4 carbine? Every citizen who’s able to bear arms. That was the intent.”
Pay close attention to the last paragraph which shows that the intent was to ensure that the PEOPLE have a right to arm themselves with any weapon they had a right to buy. This includes the semi-automatic arms. It should be noted that before the government ruled that machine guns had to have a special license to obtain, machine guns were legal. It is the government that has made the decision that the Second Amendment does not mean what the Founding Fathers meant it to be. Why does the government want to remove guns from the citizens? We only have to go back in time to see just what happens when government removes all the weapons from the people.
“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking.” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859)
We see a case that makes the statement about rights that are showing without a doubt that, “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in a lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government.”
This clearly shows that the right to bear arms is above the Second Amendment and cannot be violated. Yet, our government has slowly destroyed this platform and one has to wonder just what the government is doing. One also has to wonder just what is the end platform the government is looking for by attempting to destroy all the Second Amendment rights “WE THE PEOPLE” have?
We have seen the government in some instances go after our First Amendment rights so now they are viciously attacking our Second Amendment rights. “WE THE PEOPLE” have to pay attention to what is going on because if the Second Amendment is removed, “WE THE PEOPLE” have no way to keep the government removing other freedoms and beginning to control every facet of our lives. At that point, the term “WE THE PEOPLE” will lose all meaning due to the fact that the government will have control over nearly everything we do, think, or say. Let that sink in.
Let us look at some more of the ideas of the Second Amendment.
In 1867, Judge Timothy Farrar published his Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was written when the Fourteenth Amendment was “in the process of adoption by the State legislatures.”
The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to “life, liberty, and property,” to “keep and bear arms,” to the “writ of habeas corpus” to “trial by jury,” and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.
Farrar, Timothy (1872). Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America. Little, Brown. Retrieved July 6,2013. § 34. The people of the United States, in making their Constitution, do not create or confer on themselves any new rights, but they expressly reserve all the rights they then held, except what were delegated for their own benefit; and they particularly and expressly recognize and perpetuate many natural and civil common-law rights, which, of course, are placed beyond the reach of any subordinate government, and even of their own. Among these are the following : 1. The right to be, what they call themselves, ‘the people of the United States,’ citizens, and component members of the body politic, – the nation; and to participate in all the privileges, immunities, and benefits the Constitution was designed to obtain or secure for all the American people, especially the right to be protected and governed according to the provisions of the Constitution. 2. A right to the privileges and immunities of citizens in any of the several States. Among these is the fundamental and elementary right of suffrage. The Representatives to the national and State legislatures must be chosen by the people, the citizens (Section 2). Consequently, the citizens must choose them, and have a right to choose them. Am. 14, § 2. 3. A right to the common-law writ of habeas corpus, to protect the other common-law right, as well as natural and constitutional right, of personal liberty. 4. A right to trial by jury in any criminal case. 5. A right to keep and bear arms. 6. A right to life, liberty, and property, unless deprived by due process of law. 7. A right to just compensation for private property legally taken for public use. 8. A right to participate in all rights retained by, or reserved to, the people. Most of these rights, with many others, belong by the Constitution not only to the citizens, – the people of the United States, strictly so called, by reason of the franchise of natural birth or otherwise, – but also to all persons who may be allowed to be and remain under the jurisdiction and protection of our government. These are a part only of the rights held by every member of the nation, under and by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, independent of any other earthly power, and which, of course, ‘cannot be destroyed or abridged by the laws of any particular State.’ Who, then, in the United States is destitute of rights?…The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to ‘life, liberty, and property,’ to ‘keep and bear arms,’ to the ‘writ of habeas corpus’ to ‘trial by jury,’ and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.
We could show all sorts of rulings for and against the Second Amendment. What has to be understood is the simple idea of self-protection and whether or not that self-protection should include whatever weapon can best be used for self-protection.
The great debate today is against what some mistakenly call “assault weapons.” The name makes it sound very bad but in reality the description itself first described a weapon that could fire fully automatic or in short 3 round bursts. Today the term “assault weapon” could mean nearly any sort of semi-automatic weapon, handguns, shotguns and rifles.
Questions are asked why a semi-auto rifle is needed for hunting. That question is asked by people who have no idea of what lurks in the woods and what is needed to defend oneself from predators that may well attack. Many have gone in the woods and found themselves face to face with wild boars which could easily tear into a person’s leg, knock them down and kill them. There are also coyotes and, in certain sections, wolves, but many other wild animils could attack an individual while they are in the woods and without a semi-automatic weapon, they could be badly injured or even killed.
Hunters have been very glad to have a semi-auto weapon with them when faced with wild animals. Just days ago, this author was shadowed by a pack of coyotes and had he not had a semi-auto, he would have been attacked by them. Instead, he shot several times to disperse the animals which then went into the woods, giving him time to leave the area.
Also, sometimes a hunter misses his first shot and with a bolt action rifle, he may not have time to get a second shot off at the game where with a semi-automatic, he can place at least a second and maybe a third shot to bring his prey down. It is not the weapon that makes the Socialists/Communists, which the Progressive, Liberal Democratic Party has become, cower down in fear, it is the fact that should they attempt to force a dictatorship on the people, they will be able to fight for their freedom.
We need only to look at what our founding fathers stated about the Second Amendment to understand that they meant any sort of weapon no matter when. These quotes seem to show that is the idea.
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. – James Madison
The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. – Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982)
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. – Alexander Hamilton
When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor… – George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention
A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercise I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks. – Thomas Jefferson
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee 1788
To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Mason
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. – Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
…arms…discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. …Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them. — Thomas Paine
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” –Thomas Jefferson
We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. – Patrick Henry
“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. [Misattributed]” ― Thomas Jefferson
“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” ― Thomas Jefferson
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Complete Jefferson
“The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” ― Alexander Hamilton
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington
Given all the words from those who designed and wrote our Second Amendment, it would indicate that the idea to ensure the “People” have a right to own any arm that they wish was their intention.
Tom Clancy may well have stated it best about gun ownership.
“Switzerland is a land where crime is virtually unknown, yet most Swiss males are required by law to keep in their homes what amounts to a portable, personal machine gun.” –Tom Clancy
We need to look at what a patriot of the United States said to realize that the men who wrote the Constitution knew some bad people would try to take the guns.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” – Noah Webster
So, given the idea of the Democrats (or globalists) who wish to disarm “WE THE PEOPLE,” are the Democrats about to create a standing army? We have to ask this because to disarm the citizens is to make the government the one to enslave us all because we have no way to defend ourselves from any criminal which would have guns no matter how illegal it would be.
False Flags, Lies and Propaganda
A study of the numerous mass shootings that have taken place at schools and elsewhere will show that the official stories of these mass shootings don’t add up. Many point to involvement by the FBI or other agencies full of rogue agents and corrupt directors. The globalists are trying to manufacture reasons to regulate and confiscate guns, and along with the propaganda news networks like CNN, Americans are falsely being convinced that gun control is the answer.
Gun control propaganda worked in the UK after a mind-controlled individual killed 16 small children and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland on March 13, 1996. About 10 months later, parliamentary laws were passed that said that possessing a gun in the UK meant 10 years in prison. Legislation was passed even faster in Australia when a gunman armed with an assault rifle killed 35 and wounded 19 in a massacre in Tasmania, Australia on March 28, 1996-just two weeks after the Dunblane shootings. (Coincidence that these two massacres occurred in quick succession of each other? Hardly.)
Dr. John Lott is the go-to expert when it comes to crime data and Second Amendment rights. His studies from the Crime Prevention Center have been cited in numerous pieces, including ones published on Townhall, about the Left’s incessant, and often ridiculous, efforts to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights. His studies have proven that contrary to what the anti-gun Left says about concealed carry holders, they’re actually more law-abiding than law enforcement. It proved to be useful data when the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun outfit, decided to push the narrative that concealed carry holders were killers by fudging the data between convictions and trials pending. The VPC combined the two to cook the books. As any lawyer would know, there’s an explicit difference between a conviction and a pending trial. He’s also taken a stab at the whole myth about background checks, which isn’t the magic bullet to creating safer communities.
“I would ask gun control advocates one question: name a single place in the entire world where murder rates fell after gun control laws were passed.”
Two decades have passed since More Guns, Less Crime was released in 1998, immediately remaking the gun rights debate landscape. Not a single antagonist has refuted his empirical conclusion that more firearms result in reduced crime. Lott, who brought an economist’s empiricism to a debate saturated in passion but short on probative data, proposed “a critical review of the existing evidence on gun control and crime.” Accordingly, he asked: “Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime, or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other?” Lott’s objective conclusion was controversial in 1998, less so today.
Based upon broad data sources and examination of FBI annual crime figures for all 3,054 American counties spanning sixteen years, he found that waiting periods, gun buybacks and background checks “yield virtually no benefits in crime reduction.” In contrast, Lott observed that “of all the methods studied so far by economists, the carrying of concealed handguns appears to be the most cost-effective method for reducing crime.”
Addressed by the third edition was the federal “assault weapons” legislation, which took effect in 1994 but terminated in 2004. Gun control advocates predicted an explosion in murder and violent crime when the ban expired, but rates actually declined substantively. As Lott noted, “rarely do we get a chance to look at the impact of gun laws when they are first passed and then when they are eliminated.”
As noted above, Dr. Lott has not encountered a single jurisdiction in the entire world where imposing gun control laws triggered a decline in murder rates. The bottom line today, just as was true in 1998, is that “the very rules that seek to save lives can result in more deaths.” Dr. Lott has thus provided an invaluable service to America and the world audience generally. Years of experience and mountains of data confirm the empirical truth – more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens mean less crime.
In Oregon, Christopher Harper-Mercer was able to kill nine people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg. Oregon has a universal background check law for all gun purchases. Yet, Lott took this talking point to task in 2013, when Congress was mulling a universal background check bill by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) post-Newtown. For starters, the media was blitzing the scene, rehashing the 40 percent myth—the false claim that 40 percent of all gun sales are performed without a background check—and delved into the realm of private purchases. Lott noted that the 40 percent myth is based on very old data, with a sample size that isn’t worth considering for any serious academic review. Also, the sales in the 251-person survey from which the 40 percent myth is derived were based on sales before the Brady bill mandated background checks on gun sales. Second, most private sales where background checks aren’t performed are mostly relegated to family purchases and fall within the low single digits overall. Other than that, there’s really no hard data on private sales.
When it comes to the gun control debate, there are two kinds of data: data that’s accurate, and data that left-wing billionaires, politicians, and media want you to believe is accurate. In The War on Guns, economist and gun rights advocate John Lott turns a skeptical eye to well-funded anti-gun studies and stories that perpetuate false statistics to frighten Americans into giving up their guns.
Yet, for everything that Dr. Lott has done in various publications and studies over the years, he’s now compiled in one simple book: The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies. It’s one massive triggering event for any pro-gun control liberal. It details how expanding background checks doesn’t cut down on gun violence; how gun free zones leave innocent Americans vulnerable, thus making them prime targets for mass shooters; how the federal government and the institutional left are funding bogus health studies to undercut our Second Amendment rights; why women concealed carry holders are surging; and how the media is a total disaster when it comes to gun laws and the lexicon within the firearms industry that could prevent egregious mistakes in reporting gun crimes. For example, how many times have you heard a news organization demonize semiautomatic weapons, which are really quite readily available for civilian use? In fact, the vast majority of gun owners in America probably own a semiautomatic firearm.
Here are some excerpts from his book relating to the media spin and the failure of gun registries, which is one of the main courses served by anti-gun liberals as some way to help make communities safer. In actuality, it sends the message that gun owners are criminals in waiting, and that to exercise one’s right to own a gun requires them to submit their personal information to the government. It’s atrocious:
The Media Spin
The media not only ignores positive examples of defensive gun use; news reports about the scientific side of the gun control debate are just as unbalanced. Coverage generally focuses on interviewing pro-gun control academics and questioning a gun shop owner or an NRA spokesperson for the other side of the argument. Of course, the New York Times will never run a news article on studies that find that guns save lives. Even when they write about studies supporting gun control, newspapers choose only to present comments by academics who support gun control. These articles give the impression that objective, qualified scientists are concerned about using gun control to save lives, while those with a profit or some other ulterior motive are willing to say anything to keep selling these lethal weapons. One of my books, The Bias Against Guns (2003), went through example after example of these one-sided reports in the media.
Unfortunately, little has changed. In January 2016, CNN ran a lengthy news story on studies that found gun control to be effective in preventing suicides. It wasn’t just my academic research that reporters ignored on this topic; there was also no mention of the National Research Council’s research showing that suicidal individuals had merely “substituted other methods of suicide.” Nor did the studies mentioned by CNN give any consideration to research which found that firearm suicides are not so much the product of higher gun ownership as factors related to rural areas (e.g., older men in rural areas are more likely to commit suicide because of the large male-to-female imbalance). (Also see this article)
Consider a December 2015 Deseret News article on how to curb mass shootings. The only academics interviewed were gun control advocates, namely Garen Wintemute of the UC-Davis Violence Prevention Research Program and Mark Rosenberg of the Task for Global Health. The only opposing perspective came from National Rifle Association spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen. Likewise, a January 2016 story in the New York Times on Obama’s new proposed gun control regulations balanced discussions with a pro-gun control professor and Bloomberg’s Everytown with some federally licensed gun dealers and gun owners.
Whether in Canada, Hawaii, Chicago, or Washington, D.C., police are unable to point to a single instance of gun registration aiding the investigation of a violent crime. In a 2013 deposition, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said that the department could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”
The idea behind a registry is that guns left at a crime scene can be used to trace back to the criminals. Unfortunately, guns are very rarely left at the scene of the crime. Those that are left behind are virtually never registered—criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind guns registered to them. In the few cases where registered guns were left at the scene, the criminal had usually been killed or seriously injured.
Canada keeps some of the most thorough data on gun registration. From 2003 to 2009, a weapon was identified in fewer than a third of the country’s 1,314 firearm homicides. Of these identified weapons, only about a quarter were registered. Roughly half of these registered guns were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide. In just sixty-two cases—4.7 percent of all firearm homicides—was the gun identified as being registered to the accused. Since most Canadian homicides are not committed with a gun, these sixty-two cases correspond to only about 1 percent of all homicides. [End excerpt]
We must always be vigilant. Hawaii became the first state to require its gun-owning residents to be entered into a federal database. California keeps adding more anti-gun measures on its books as well. Lott’s book serves as a how-to guide in fighting these pernicious narratives that seek to undercut one of our most vital civil liberties. At the same time, liberal Democrats, especially Obama, have been the best sales team for guns over the past eight years, with over 100 million sold since 2009. We’ve seen gun sales break records consistently for months, as talk of new gun control measures from the Hill send law-abiding Americans flocking to their local FFL. Now, everyone has the ultimate guide to knowing facts about guns, the laws, the studies, and the politics to fight these left wing narratives about firearms wherever they may appear. Support for gun rights is at its highest point in 25 years, but you can never let your guard down against those who keep pushing these lies about the Second Amendment—looking at you Hillary Clinton.
James O’Keefe released Part 1 of his undercover videos on senate candidate Mark Kelly (D) and claimed Kelly “deceives AZ voters” as to the true nature of his gun control intentions. O’Keefe spoke with Angelica Carpio, a field organizer for Mission for Arizona. O’Keefe describes Mission for Arizona as “basically Arizona’s Democrat Party and an extension of the Mark Kelly campaign.” Carpio told O’Keefe, “[Kelly] just ... Read More
As the Virginia State Legislature — now firmly in the hands of Democrats — prepares to push for what Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Jack Wilson calls “a disarmed, vulnerable, and subservient citizenry,” freedom-loving citizens of the Old Dominion planned a rally for Monday (the 20th of January) to voice their concerns and demand that their right to keep and bear arms is not infringed. In ... Read More
Folks, pay attention because this is how you win against the tyrannical left. You show up. Thanks to thousands of NRA members storming the Senate, Virginia Democrats have withdrawn their AR-15 confiscation bill. See how easy that was? Of course, there’s still a long, long road to go but this is the winning “recipe” to defeating these monsters. The NRA called on their members to flood ... Read More
A stunning 44 percent of women in the Netherlands regularly feel unsafe in public spaces, according to findings of a large survey conducted by De Telegraaf. Over 1,000 female readers were polled on a series of questions pertaining to personal safety and security, and the results indicate a sizable portion of the country's female population is unable to comfortably move about in public on a consistent basis. "Avoid ... Read More
As reported by Cassandra Fairbanks, two people were killed and one person is in critical condition after a shooting at the West Freeway Church of Christ in northwest Texas. The shooter was prevented from creating more carnage by armed members of the church, several of whom drew their own weapons in response to his attack, as well as a security guard. It has now been confirmed ... Read More
The United States’ Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a “public mass shooting” as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition of mass murder. While mass killers generally have guns in their hands, another commonality is that they often have psychiatric drugs in their blood. The difference, though, is that it isn’t guns that have the side effect of “homicidal ideation.” If you develop digestive problems after a change in diet, do you look for the cause in foods you always ate or the new ones you started eating? While the answer is obvious, this common sense is painfully uncommon when analyzing the new phenomenon of continual mass shootings: Many blame the long-present “foods” — guns in this case — and ignore the new diet whose embrace coincided with the problem. And part of what’s new is the widespread use of psychiatric drugs.
As a case in point, the Parkland, Florida, shooter (I won’t use his name and help provide the fame he craved), who murdered 17 on Valentine’s Day, was on medication for emotional issues, his aunt related. This is now a familiar story, too. As WND.com’s David Kupelian put it, the following is par for the course: As information about a “perpetrator emerges, a relative confides to a newspaper that the ‘troubled youth’ who committed the mass murder was on psychiatric medications — you know, those powerful, little understood, mind-altering drugs with fearsome side effects including ‘suicidal ideation’ and even ‘homicidal ideation.’”
Yet, Kupelian laments, the media have little appetite for exploring this issue. Politicians don’t, either. Unlike with guns, legal drugs aren’t a sexy issue that can be used to scare people and win votes. Moreover, as The Guardianreported last year, “Pharmaceutical companies spend far more than any other industry to influence politicians,” having poured “close to $2.5bn into lobbying and funding members of Congress over the past decade.” This dwarfs the “gun lobby’s” political contributions, mind you.
But what about pharmaceuticals’ contributions to mass shootings? Of course, correlation doesn’t mean causation, but it can provide clues as to where causation may lie — and the correlation between mass shooters and psychiatric drug use certainly exists.
Consider Newtown, Connecticut, killer Adam Lanza (I will provide the names of perpetrators of older incidents), who killed 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2013. He also was on medication, according to family friend Louise Tambascio. That’s all we heard about it, however; as Kupelian points out, there “was little journalistic curiosity or follow-up.”
But there should be. As Kupelian also informs, “Fact: A disturbing number of perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on — or just recently coming off of — psychiatric medications.” He then provides some examples (all quotations are Kupelian’s):
“Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox — like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.” Along with fellow student Dylan Klebold, Harris shot 13 to death and wounded 24 in a headline-grabbing 1999 rampage. “Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox — that’s one in 25 — developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.”
Twenty-five-year-old Patrick Purdy murdered five children and wounded 30 in a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, California, in 1989. He’d been taking “Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.”
“Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Oregon, and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.”
WND’s Leo Hohmann adds to the picture, having reported in 2015 (all quotations are his):
“Aaron Ray Ybarra, 26, of Mountlake Terrace, Washington, allegedly opened fire with a shotgun at Seattle Pacific University in June 2014, killing one student and wounding two others.” Ybarra “said he’d been prescribed with Prozac and Risperdal to help him with his problems.”
“Jose Reyes, the Nevada seventh-grader who went on a shooting rampage at his school in October 2013 was taking a prescription antidepressant [Prozac] at the time….”
“Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis sprayed bullets at office workers and in a cafeteria on Sept. 16, 2013, killing 13 people including himself. Alexis had been prescribed [generic antidepressant] Trazodone by his Veterans Affairs doctor.”
“In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill., killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.”
“In Paducah, Kentucky, in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.”
“In 2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.”
“47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Kentucky, killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.”
And there are many, many more examples.
Of course, also relating to correlation, there’s a chicken-or-egg question here: Is it that taking psychiatric drugs makes a person more likely to go crazy and commit murderous rampages, or is it that crazy people who are candidates for committing murderous rampages are more likely to be prescribed psychiatric drugs? In reality, most likely it’s both.
The truth is that because the human mind is complex and not wholly understood, taking mind-altering drugs is a risky proposition. Drug companies acknowledge this, too, mind you — just not very publicly. As Kupelian writes after relating the case of Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children in 2001 while on the antidepressant Effexor:
In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added “homicidal ideation” to the drug’s list of “rare adverse events.” The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexor’s “homicidal ideation” risk wasn’t well publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change. And what exactly does “rare” mean in the phrase “rare adverse events”? The FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since that same year 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S., statistically that means thousands of Americans might experience “homicidal ideation” — murderous thoughts — as a result of taking just this one brand of antidepressant drug. Effexor is Wyeth’s best-selling drug, by the way, which in one recent year brought in over $3 billion in sales, accounting for almost a fifth of the company’s annual revenues.
Then, after mentioning the case of 12-year-old Paxil user Christopher Pittman’s murder of his grandparents, Kupelian informs that “Paxil’s known ‘adverse drug reactions’ — according to the drug’s FDA-approved label — include ‘mania,’ ‘insomnia,’ ‘anxiety,’ ‘agitation,’ ‘confusion,’ ‘amnesia,’ ‘depression,’ ‘paranoid reaction,’ ‘psychosis,’ ‘hostility,’ ‘delirium,’ ‘hallucinations,’ ‘abnormal thinking,’ ‘depersonalization’ and ‘lack of emotion,’ among others.”
In fact, as Ch 2 WCGH reported in 2009, “One study shows a quarter of all children on drugs such as Paxil and Zoloft become dangerously violent and/or suicidal.” Below is a 2011 news report on the subject by WCNC.COM 6 News; it includes the story of Christopher Pittman.
Of course, if these drugs pose such a threat, there should be a stream of high-profile lawsuits, right? Wrong. To avoid the bad exposure this would bring, drug companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars settling claims out of court and often cloak them with confidentiality agreements.
Having said this, it’s unlikely that psychiatric drugs are entirely to blame for mass shootings, for much has changed during the last many decades. We’ve seen a decline in faith and rise in moral relativism/nihilism, which relates the notion that right and wrong are mere “perspective”; entertainment has become increasingly decadent and mindlessly violent (note that the Internet’s rise fairly closely coincided with the start of continual mass shootings); the family has continued to break down, and Americans today, immersed in electronics, are often more connected to things than people; and the fame committing a massacre brings can be alluring to lonely, disturbed people, thus breeding copycat crimes, to name just a few factors. It’s a systemic problem.
Nonetheless, adding mind-altering drugs to this equation adds up to nothing good, and this brings me to my story. I knew a good-natured man who was the epitome of even-temperedness, who had some problems and was prescribed an antidepressant by a psychiatrist (who’d never treated him before). Well, he swallowed one pill — and only one, ever. In his case, that was all it took. Fifteen minutes later, he flew into a rage and was never the same again. Mental instability, irrationality, and some violent episodes — in a word, insanity — would define the rest of his life.
Famed psychiatrist Sigmund Freud once believed that cocaine, legal during his younger days, was the best cure for depression there’d ever been. “Bayer Heroin” was once advertised as a remedy for all sorts of ailments. Today, with one out of six Americans on some psychiatric medication, we ought to perhaps bear in mind that just because a drug is on the right side of the law doesn’t mean it won’t bring you to the wrong side of sanity’s line.
For two years (2017-2019), The Violence Project has been studying the life histories of mass shooters in the United States for a project funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. They’ve built a database dating back to 1966 of every mass shooter who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces, and places of worship since 1999. They’ve interviewed incarcerated perpetrators and their families, shooting survivors and first responders. They’ve read media and social media, manifestos, suicide notes, trial transcripts and medical records.
Their goal has been to find new, data-driven pathways for preventing such shootings. Although they haven’t found that mass shooters are all alike, their data does reveal four commonalities among the perpetrators of nearly all the mass shootings they studied.
First, the vast majority of mass shooters in the study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying. The trauma was often a precursor to mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, thought disorders or suicidality.
Second, practically every mass shooter they studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. These shooters often had become angry and despondent because of a specific grievance. For workplace shooters, a change in job status was frequently the trigger. For shooters in other contexts, relationship rejection or loss often played a role. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence.
Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. People in crisis have always existed. But in the age of 24-hour rolling news and social media, there are scripts to follow that promise notoriety in death. Societal fear and fascination with mass shootings partly drives the motivation to commit them. Hence, as seen in the recent Dayton and El Paso incidents, mass shootings tend to come in clusters. They are socially contagious. Perpetrators study other perpetrators and model their acts after previous shootings. Many are radicalized online in their search for validation from others that their will to murder is justified.
Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. Once someone decides life is no longer worth living and that murdering others would be a proper revenge, only means and opportunity stand in the way of another mass shooting. Is an appropriate shooting site accessible? Can the would-be shooter obtain firearms? In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members, according to our data. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.
NOTE: Of course they can obtain firearms. It’s our 2nd amendment right! Like psychiatric drugs, taking away their 2nd amendment right or that of those around them is a symptom fix that does little to solve the problem. The root of the problem is NOT the right to own or obtain a gun. It’s the pushing of psychiatric drugs by big pharma and psychiatrists for profit. It’s the evils of the social engineers of cultural Marxism who control the music industry and Hollywood that continuously bombard us with violence, hate, and immoral behavior. It’s the deep state controlled MSM and leftist politicians that continuously promote hate and violence while projecting it onto their political opponents. This study went back to 1966 because that’s when mass shootings began in America. Is it a coincidence that prayer was removed from public schools in 1962, Bible reading was removed from schools in 1963, and that mass shootings started soon after? Kids are falsely taught in schools evolution and other false theories that teaches we are here by chance and not the product of a creator? They are taught that killing babies is okay, abstinence is for religious fanatics and fornication is cool, as well as many other backwards erroneous teachings that have led us away from God and morality. Only a turn back to moral character in our homes, schools, and political figures will return us to safer communities and a safer world, but Satan and his minions work hard to prevent it.
Atheist Mass Shooters
Recent increases in tragic mass murders perpetrated by young individuals have prompted questions about their rationale for doing so. Conservapedia provides evidence that their motives have been overwhelmingly from deteriorating social conditions in their personal lives. For example, they are increasingly atheistic or liberal, or driven by hatred of God. Virtually all of these killers are the product of public schools and most were big video game players. Many of these murders fit the observation by the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner about the Connecticut massacre: “This was a crime that was more than a mass shooting. He killed these people like an arcade game.” Many were recreational marijuana users also.
John Stott in his 2018 Daily Caller article entitled What Is The Religion Of Mass Public Shooters? wrote:
Just 16 percent have any type of religious affiliation at the time of their attacks, with a slight majority of those being Muslims.
Over just over 20 years from the beginning of January 1998 through today, there have been 69 killers committing 66 mass public shootings in the United States where at least four people have been killed. Of those attacks, just four have been identified as Christians, with just three clearly regular churchgoers. With 70 percent of Americans identifying themselves as Christians and over 33 percent going to church at least once a week, those numbers are a long way away from the 48 or 23 we would respectively expect.
Everyone else was either explicitly identified as no religious affiliation or that family and friends could not identify them as religious.
The globalist think tanks have determined fear is the most effective motive for the people to yield over their constitutional rights and liberty, so they plan and execute events that not only terrorize us but also are also intended to remove our rights… especially gun rights. The globalists cannot seize power in the US until they confiscate the more than 350,000,000 guns held by the American Republic.
There’s no better way to distract the people than to terrorize them. Random, senseless violent terror attacks such as mass shootings are perhaps the most effective way to pull the populace into a space of fear and anxiety. Many 2nd amendment advocates begin to support the becon call of the controlled mainstream media in a collaborated 1-2 punch effort to ban assault rifles.
All false flag shooting events are planned in gun free zones where they cannot be prevented by legally armed citizens. These events typically take place simultaneously with a scheduled drill as do most large scale false flags such as 9/11 where nearly 50 known drills were planned to confuse, displace, and distract government and military officials from reacting.
Every year, mass shootings are prevented by armed citizens, and these stories go with very little reporting, or completely unreported altogether, with media bias being one of the reasons why. According to an analysis of FBI data by Jacob Paulsen in 2018, 94% of all mass shootings were thwarted by law-abiding armed citizens.Also in 2018, the Crime Prevention Research Center, reported that nearly 98% of all mass public shootings in the U.S. since 1950 occurred in a gun-free zone. Additionally, “[o]f the 97 countries where we identified mass public shootings, the U.S. ranks 64th per capita in its rate of attacks and 65th in fatalities. Major European countries, such as Norway, Finland, France, Switzerland and Russia, all have at least 25 percent higher per capita murder rates from mass public shootings.” Student deaths by active-shooters are about 10 times more likely in gun-free zones.
As reported by Cassandra Fairbanks, two people were killed and one person is in critical condition after a shooting at the West Freeway Church of Christ in northwest Texas. The shooter was prevented from creating more carnage by armed members of the church, several of whom drew their own weapons in response to his attack, as well as a security guard. It has now been confirmed ... Read More
U.S. Attorney General William Barr issued a memorandum to all U.S. attorneys, law enforcement agencies and top ranking Justice Department officials announcing the imminent implementation of a new “national disruption and early engagement program” aimed at detecting potential mass shooters before they commit any crime. Per the memorandum, Barr has “directed the Department [of Justice] and the FBI to lead an effort to refine our ability ... Read More
Increasingly theatrical and frightening active shooter drills are surprisingly common, even though school shootings are not. Police officers outside of Dayton, Ohio, unsheathed their weapons and fired blanks in Franklin High School on Tuesday as part of a misguided effort to prepare students for a possible active shooter. The planned drill unnecessarily ratcheted up the intensity of school lockdown procedures, which routinely require students and teachers ... Read More
The mass shooter in Dayton, Ohio was identified by police as Connor Betts, who was shot dead by police within seconds, but not before he killed nine innocent people including his own younger sister. The brother and sister drove together to Dayton's Oregon District, an entertainment area with bars and restaurants, sometime Saturday night. Once there, they went their separate ways, police said. The shooting started ... Read More
Prosecutors in El Paso, Texas, will seek the death penalty for the man suspected of killing 20 people and injuring more than two dozen others. U.S. Attorney John Bash said they will pursue a criminal investigation, a civil rights hate crime investigation and "domestic terrorism" charges against the suspect, who was identified as 21-year-old Patrick Crusius. According to The Associated Press, Crusius is from Allen, Texas, ... Read More
The ATF was formerly part of the United States Department of the Treasury, having been formed in 1886 as the “Revenue Laboratory” within the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Internal Revenue. The history of ATF can be subsequently traced to the time of the revenuers or “revenoors”and the Bureau of Prohibition, which was formed as a unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1920. It was made an independent agency within the Treasury Department in 1927, was transferred to the Justice Department in 1930, and became, briefly, a division of the FBI in 1933. When the Volstead Act, which established Prohibition in the United States, was repealed in December 1933, the Unit was transferred from the Department of Justice back to the Department of the Treasury, where it became the Alcohol Tax Unit (ATU) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Special Agent Eliot Ness and several members of The “Untouchables”, who had worked for the Prohibition Bureau while the Volstead Act was still in force, were transferred to the ATU. In 1942, responsibility for enforcing federal firearms laws was given to the ATU.
In the early 1950s, the Bureau of Internal Revenue was renamed “Internal Revenue Service” (IRS), and the ATU was given the additional responsibility of enforcing federal tobacco tax laws. At this time, the name of the ATU was changed to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD).
In 1968, with the passage of the Gun Control Act, the agency changed its name again, this time to the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division of the IRS and first began to be referred to by the initials “ATF”. In Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Congress enacted the Explosives Control Act, 18 U.S.C.A. Chapter 40, which provided for close regulation of the explosives industry and designated certain arsons and bombings as federal crimes. The Secretary of the Treasury was made responsible for administering the regulatory aspects of the new law, and was given jurisdiction over criminal violations relating to the regulatory controls. These responsibilities were delegated to the ATF division of the IRS. The Secretary and the Attorney General were given concurrent jurisdiction over arson and bombing offenses. Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, October 15, 1970.
In 1972 ATF was officially established as an independent bureau within the Treasury Department on July 1, 1972, this transferred the responsibilities of the ATF division of the IRS to the new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Rex D. Davis oversaw the transition, becoming the bureau’s first director, having headed the division since 1970. During his tenure, Davis shepherded the organization into a new era where federal firearms and explosives laws addressing violent crime became the primary mission of the agency. However, taxation and other alcohol issues remained priorities as ATF collected billions of dollars in alcohol and tobacco taxes, and undertook major revisions of the federal wine labeling regulations relating to use of appellations of origin and varietal designations on wine labels.
The BATF was tasked with the regulation of machine guns under the National Firearms Act, or NFA, and overseeing licensed firearm manufacturers, importers and dealers under the Gun Control Act, or GCA. The agency’s mission was to make sure proper paperwork was maintained, taxes and fees were paid, and violations were investigated and served up for prosecution.
By the mid-1970s, the BATF had earned a reputation for being excessively aggressive, nit-picky, vindictive and often unscrupulous. Dozens of stories emerged of ATF abuses, and analysis of their arrest and prosecution records showed that a majority of their cases didn’t involve malevolent criminal activity, but instead targeted ordinary gun owners who were tripped up by confusing regulations and federal red tape
When Neal Knox, head of NRA’s lobbying arm, began waging war on the BATF, he exposed the horror stories, published the records and showed the ruined lives of regular citizens that littered BATF’s wake. In 1979, he convinced Sens. Jim McClure, R-Idaho, and Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., to hold hearings on the BATF’s enforcement practices and abuses. In the hearings, Knox made it clear that, while the BATF’s actions were atrocious, the real culprit in the sad saga was the GCA. As he said in his Senate testimony, any agency tasked with enforcing such poorly written laws would be hard pressed not to fall into a similar pattern of abuse.
As a direct result of this process of sanitation through sunlight, the ATF received harsh rebukes from Congress and had millions of dollars pulled from its annual budget. President Reagan was actually on the verge of dissolving the agency entirely and turning its enforcement responsibilities over to the FBI. Knox actually opposed that move on the grounds that the real problem was the laws, not who was enforcing them, and that a crippled and scrutinized BATF would be easier to keep in check than the more powerful and respected FBI.
There has been a lot of second-guessing and criticism over that call, but by keeping the focus on BATF as a symptom resulting from bad laws, rather than allowing the agency to be used as a scapegoat, Knox was able to more effectively treat the symptoms, while still going after the underlying disease – the Gun Control Act of 1968.
His primary objective in accepting the leadership position at NRA-ILA was to reform the GCA, removing from the law as many booby-traps and nonsensical restrictions as he could. With this in mind, he and the ILA staff worked closely with the staffs of McClure and Rep. Harold Volkmer, D-Mo., on a sweeping “gun de-control” bill. The bill became known as the Firearm Owner Protection Act, and a somewhat watered-down version of it was finally passed in 1986.
Now, more than 30 years since passage of the McClure-Volkmer Bill, the BATF remains plagued with scandals and accusations of abuse of authority. In 2002, as part of a broad restructuring of federal agencies after the attacks of 9/11, BATF’s enforcement branch was taken out from under the Treasury Department and placed under the Department of Justice alongside the FBI and DEA. The move, which was supposed to help restore the BATF’s sullied reputation, did nothing to slow the chronic mismanagement and abuse. What it has done, however, is highlight the role of the Department of Justice in BATF’s misdeeds.
Like any law enforcement agency, BATF relies on two things to justify its budget requests: threats and results. While it’s easy to paint all sorts of pictures of imminent threats with which to scare Congress into throwing more money at them, BATF must rely on federal prosecutors from the DOJ to validate their results. Elaborate operations and large arrest numbers fall flat when accompanied by very low conviction rates, and that’s exactly what BATF has been producing for decades. But during this time, they have been working with prosecutors to try and turn that around, asking them what types of cases they wanted pursued and what types of evidence they needed to move forward with prosecutions and gain convictions.
In a number of cases, it’s clear that prosecutors
encouraged the ATF to “bend” evidence,
cooperated in misrepresenting laws and regulations, and
conspired with BATF to suppress evidence that could be harmful to the prosecution.
The latest, most blatant case of this involves a lawsuit from one of their own, in which a former agent, who was a principal in an undercover operation to infiltrate the Hells Angels motorcycle club, sued the agency for defamation of character and breach of contract. The judge barred 17 DOJ lawyers from his court and suggested that, along with BATF acting in a vindictive and “Kafkaesque” manner toward its own agent, prosecutors and BATF might have engaged in perjury and fraud upon the court.
Under the Obama administration, the ATF attempted to ban common M855 ball ammunition for the AR-15 claiming that the bullet is “armor-piercing.” Factually that was a lie, according to the clear definition of what constitutes an “armor-piercing” bullet as defined in the Law Enforcement Officer’s Protection Act of 1986 (LEOPA). LEOPA’s definition requires the bullet’s core to be made of one of a number of specified hardened metals, and the core of the M855 ball round is soft lead that makes up 80-percent of the bullet’s total weight. The specific goal of the law was to prevent the use of hardened metal bullets with penetrator cores in common handguns, for what was then called “cop killer bullets.” Had the ban not been defeated, the ATF would have had free reign to ban any ammunition, as the actual law seems to matter little to a rogue agency that ignores and redefines laws on a whim.
The pattern is symptomatic of government spiraling out of control with bad laws being enforced and prosecuted by rogue agencies operating without adequate supervision or accountability. And the problem just seems to keep getting worse.
A report from the NRA-ILA suggests the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is already working with former Vice President Joe Biden to go after AR-15 pistol braces. On October 7, 2020, Breitbart News reported that the ATF reclassified a small sliver of AR-15 pistols with stabilizer braces as Short Barrel Rifles (SBRs), thereby placing them under the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA). The ... Read More
Attorney General William P. Barr announced the launch of Operation Legend, a sustained, systematic and coordinated law enforcement initiative across all federal law enforcement agencies working in conjunction with state and local law enforcement officials to fight the sudden surge of violent crime, beginning in Kansas City, MO. Operation Legend was created as a result of President Trump’s promise to assist America’s cities that are plagued ... Read More
Official story from Wikipedia (11/1/17): On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise, Nevada, leaving 58 people dead and 546 injured. Between 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada, fired hundreds of rifle rounds from his suite on the 32nd floor ... Read More
While nearly everyone is familiar with Operation Fast & Furious, the failed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) scheme to create facts that would lead to gun control laws in the United States, fewer are familiar with a similar program run in Milwaukee, WI called Operation Fearless. Where Fast & Furious was a combination of maliciousness and epic incompetence that has led to the ... Read More
According to an article in the New York Times that first revealed the DEA money-laundering scheme to the public, U.S. drug agents supervised by the Justice Department likely laundered hundreds of millions in illegal profits — maybe more. The DEA and other agencies also helped send the illicit cash back across the border to Mexico in operations “orchestrated to get around sovereignty restrictions,” the Times reported ... Read More
As any student of history knows, gun control figures prominently in the designs of totalitarian states. These features recur: (1) Centralization of the police force with a vast network of surveillance and informants to spy on citizens; (2) National identification cards for all citizens; and (3) Civilian disarmament via gun registration, and licensing, followed by banning and confiscation of firearms. Once this mechanism of oppression is firmly in place, persecution and elimination of political opponents follow, and every social, political, and economic policy the Total State desires can be implemented. This has happened in National Socialist states like Nazi Germany, fascist states like Italy under Mussolini, and communist powers such as the former Soviet Union (and its satellites behind the Iron Curtain) and Red China. It is therefore astonishing and disturbing that Americans have been assailed in the last several years by dangerous political proposals that threaten the individual liberties our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us.
Unbeknownst to many Americans, who have seen and experienced mostly the goodness of America, gun registration is the gateway to civilian disarmament, which often precedes genocide. In the monumental book Lethal Laws* we learn that authoritarian governments that conducted genocide and mass killings of their own populations first disarmed their citizens. The recipe for accomplishing this goal was: demonizing of guns, registration, banning and confiscation, and finally total civilian disarmament. Enslavement of the people then followed with limited resistance, as in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, and other totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.
* Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice (Milwaukee: Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, 1994); www.jpfo.org.
When presented with these deadly chronicles and the perilous historic sequence, Americans often opine that it cannot happen here. As to the dangers of licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, they frequently retort, “If you don’t have anything to hide, then you don’t have anything to fear!” Followed by, “I see nothing wrong with gun registration because we have to do something; there are just too many guns out there that fall into the wrong hands.” These naive attitudes ignore the penchant of governments to accrue power at the expense of the liberties of individuals.
A brief glance at history will tell you that emperors and tyrants have been trying to expand their power and influence over greater and greater areas for centuries. It just happens that today it can be done on a global scale like never before today and a brief glance through this site will prove that tyrants have agents throughout America working to take away our God-given liberty and remove power from the people and place it into the hands of the elite. They are few, but wealthy and powerful, so gun control is a necessity in order to create a new world order.
Civilian disarmament is not only harmful to one’s freedom but also counterproductive in achieving safety. That has been further attested by University of Hawaii Professor R. J. Rummel’s Death by Government (1994) and Stéphane Courtois’s edited volume, The Black Book of Communism (1999). These books make it clear that authoritarianism and totalitarianism are dangerous to the health of humanity. During the twentieth century, more than 100 million people were killed by their own governments bent on destroying liberty and building socialism and collectivism.
When Cubans lost their guns in 1959 they also lost their ability to regain freedom. Thus today, Cubans on the other side of the Florida Strait remain enslaved in what was supposed to have been the dream of a socialist utopia, the ultimate Caribbean Worker’s Paradise. What they ended up with was the nightmare of a police state in a communist island prison.
Americans must vigilantly protect their sacred liberties, which are threatened, for example, by the closing of gun shows with burdensome regulations, rationing lawful gun purchases, and banning the importation of certain firearm accessories. Laws should be directed against criminals and felons, and should be referred to as crime control rather than gun control.
In the wake of New York’s 2013 gun control law, the New York Police Department sent out notices to registered gun owners demanding that they give up their firearms, clear proof that gun registration leads to outright confiscations. The notice provided gun owners, who possessed firearms newly prohibited under New York’s unconstitutional SAFE Act, the “options” to either surrender their firearms to the police, remove them from the city limits or otherwise render them inoperable. The NYPD knew exactly who to send the notices to by using a centralized firearms registry which lists the city’s gun owners and what firearms they have in their possession.
Registration and the Law
Another fact Americans need to understand is that registration is directed at law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Not only do convicted criminals by definition fail to obey the law, but they are also constitutionally protected against any registration requirement. In Haynes v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled that requiring registration by those who unlawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s proscription against forced self-incrimination. The court said that if someone “realistically can expect that registration will substantially increase the likelihood of his prosecution,” the registration requirement is unconstitutional.
In short, with the historically crucial and potentially fatal issue of progressive civilian disarmament, perhaps, we should once again summon the words of the “Federal Farmer” (1788): “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
A new scientific study that stunningly suggests the human race sprang from a single adult couple, as the Bible records, also suggests animals appeared at the same time, also as the Bible suggests. It was a major shock to evolutionary science when a sweeping survey of the genetic code showed the human race sprang from a single adult couple, such as an Adam and Eve. The research was led by the Rockefeller University and the University of Basel, Switzerland, and shocked all involved. “This conclusion is very surprising,” … Read More
Back in 2008, a news publication called Phoenix Times News published a story mocking people who believe in so-called “chemtrails,” calling the concept of geoengineering a “strong competitor for dumbest conspiracy theory ever.” There’s simply no such thing as chemical aerosols that are blasted from airplanes, and that remain suspended in the atmosphere, we were all continually told – with a constant emphasis on the alleged “ridiculousness” of such a notion. Well, all of that mockery came to a screeching halt ten years later, as mainstream media outlets … Read More
Referring to bank cards and visa for migrants, Prime Minister Viktor Orban said in a public radio interview on Friday that pro-migration forces consider European institutions as a “transport agency,” because they believe migration is in Europe’s interest. Orban said this was to Hungary’s detriment. Only after the European parliamentary election will the situation change, he added. He said that whereas the European Union justified repressive measures against European citizens by citing the fight against money laundering, the European Commission “is giving anonymous bank cards to people we … Read More
A former Clinton Foundation official who is now an independent director at a company which operates private schools in China has found himself embroiled in a bizarre child abuse scandal involving needles, pills, “brown syrup,” nudity, and sexual molestation, according to parents. The head of a Beijing kindergarten has been fired after China launched a nationwide investigation into a chain of private schools operated by RYB Education Inc. ($RYB) following claims of abuse at multiple locations. Parents report at least 8 toddlers with mysterious needle marks, while others … Read More
Abstract OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of laptop computers connected to local area networks wirelessly (Wi-Fi) on human spermatozoa. DESIGN: Prospective in vitro study. SETTING: Center for reproductive medicine. PATIENT(S): Semen samples from 29 healthy donors. INTERVENTION(S): Motile sperm were selected by swim up. Each sperm suspension was divided into two aliquots. One sperm aliquot (experimental) from each patient was exposed to an internet-connected laptop by Wi-Fi for 4 hours, whereas the second aliquot (unexposed) was used as control, incubated under identical conditions without being exposed to the laptop … Read More
To Silence Wikileaks, #HillaryClinton Proposed Drone Strike on Julian Assange — report https://t.co/S7tPrl2QCZ — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 3, 2016 Julian Assange and his free-speech brainchild Wikileaks were once lauded as global heroes of public service among United States politicians and policy makers. But by 2010, four years after its inception during the President George W. Bush administration, Assange and his organization were no longer considered lovable troublemakers and mavericks. A year into President Barack Obama’s first term, Wikileaks was suddenly considered an out-of-control free-speech Frankenstein wreaking havoc on … Read More
The Millennium hotel is an unusual spot for a murder. It overlooks Grosvenor Square, and is practically next door to the heavily guarded US embassy, where, it is rumoured, the CIA has its station on the fourth floor. A statue of Franklin D Roosevelt – wearing a large cape and holding a stick – dominates the north side of the square. In 2011 another statue would appear: that of the late US president Ronald Reagan. An inscription hails Reagan’s contribution to world history and his “determined intervention to end … Read More