a-visitor-from-the-past

A VISITOR FROM THE PAST

A VISITOR FROM THE PAST is a poem by Thelen Paulk

I had a dream the other night, I didn’t understand.
A figure walking through the mist, with flintlock in his hand.
His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed.
He took off his three-cornered hat, and speaking low, he said:

“We fought a revolution, to secure our liberty.
We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny.
For future generations, this legacy we gave.
In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

“The freedom we secured for you, we hoped you’d always keep.
But tyrants labored endlessly while your parents were asleep.
Your freedom gone, your courage lost, you’re no more than a slave.
In this, the land of the free and home of the brave.

“You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun,
Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one.
On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent.
Although you have no voice in choosing, how the money’s spent.

“Your children must attend a school that doesn’t educate.
Your Christian values can’t be taught, according to the state.
You read about the current news, in a regulated press.
You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the I.R.S.

“Your money is no longer made of Silver or of Gold.
You trade your wealth for paper, so your life can be controlled.
You pay for crimes that make our Nation, turn from God in shame.
You’ve taken Satan’s number, as you’ve traded in your name.

“You’ve given government control, to those who do you harm,
So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm,
And keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail,
Harass your fellow countrymen, while corrupted courts prevail.

“Your public servants don’t uphold the solemn oath they’ve sworn.
Your daughters visit doctors, so their children won’t be born.
Your leaders ship artillery, and guns to foreign shores,
And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people’s wars.

“Can you regain the freedom for which we fought and died?
Or don’t you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride?
Are there no more values for which you’ll fight to save?
Or do you wish your children, to live in fear and be a slave?

“People of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
Preserve our Great Republic, and GOD-Given Right!
And pray to GOD, to keep the torch of Freedom burning bright!”

As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from whence he came.
His words were true, we are not Free, we have ourselves to blame.
For even now as tyrants, trample each GOD-Given Right,
We only watch and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight.

If he stood by your bedside, in a dream, while you’re asleep,
And wonders what remains of our Rights he fought to keep,
What would be your answer, if he called out from the grave:
“IS THIS STILL THE LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE???”

SJWs

Social Justice Warriors: Champions of Stupidity

Most people send their children off to college assuming their son or daughter will be influenced positively, by making new friends and learning necessary skills to benefit them in the work force. What they don’t expect is for their sons and daughters to be bullied for their political beliefs, and, even worse, they don’t expect their kids to become radical leftists out of touch with reality. However in recent years many universities have taken it upon themselves to “educate” students on the various discriminations found world wide. They do this by immediately putting down any white heterosexual students suggesting they’re are beneficiaries of the notorious “White Privilege”. Unfortunately, the students who take these far left lies to heart become what is commonly referred to as a “Social Justice Warrior”(SJWs), and attempt the shame and belittle anyone who disagrees with their opinion.

 

When speaking about SJWs, nothing strikes me more than feminism. If you buy into the SJW’s ideas of feminism, you more than likely believe in the “wage gap”, the abstract body known as the “patriarchy”, and the systematic oppression of women, and if you disagree you’re a misogynist pig and part of the problem. Firstly, there is no “wage gap”, as it’s illegal for anything of that nature to exist, and any women experiencing it could take their employer to court and walk away with heavy pockets. Why aren’t women taking their oppressive, sexist employers to court? Because there is no legal ground to stand on what doesn’t exist. What many have been mislead to believe is wage gap, is actually an earning gap. The difference being a wage is what one is paid hourly, and an earning is getting paid for the amount of time one works. In an article for Slate, Hanna Rosin explains how statistics have been twisted to purpose this pay gap, stating the Bureau of Labor’s statistics show women making 77% of the median income for full time employed men, not 77 cents per dollar. When looking at the incomes between young men and women, that 77% gap drops to a 93% gap. Why the gap at all? Eileen Patten of Pew Research, using data from their survey, suggests the gap occurs due to the fact women in the survey showed they were more likely to take career interruptions to do things, such as caring for family members, more than men were, and had the potential to do long term damage in terms of their careers. Besides the pay gap, feminists insist the Western world has been consumed by a culture supporting rape. This idea holds no credibility, due to the fact it’s illegal and is in no way condoned by mainstream America. Feminists argue that men aren’t being taught about consent enough, which has led to culture supporting rape. Murder, theft and rape have been illegal for a while now, with hundreds, if not thousands, groups and organizations condemning such actions, and yet they still happen. The portrayal of rapists by feminism obscures the fact that rapists are regular criminals who knowingly broke the law, hence the reason rapists are punished when found guilty. This then brings up the notion that society blames the victim and places all fault on them, when in reality society looks at every victim who puts themselves in the position to become a victim at fault. Rape is never justified, but if you’re in a bad neighborhood waving cash around, your odds of being robbed are more than likely higher than someone who keeps their cash out of sight, point being that criminals are everywhere, and while it would be amazing if all rapists disappeared, criminals will forever exist so it’s unfortunately necessary to take extra precautions, like not getting black out drunk around complete strangers or hanging out with the wrong crowd. Be triggered.

 

In an attempt to save students from hurt feelings, many universities have stamped “trigger warnings” on books that might contain offensive material to insure students are safe from emotional distress with some claiming to be suffering from symptoms as severe as PTSD(yes, like military veterans). Instances where students have asked professors to refrain from using the word “rape”, when the teacher is teaching laws concerning rape are not unheard of. The idea of trigger warnings actually stems from feminist websites suggesting that the trauma caused by rape requires everything and anything mentioning rape should be censored to protect the victim’s feelings. While I agree, making rape jokes or excessively talking about rape around a victim is not a good idea, many of those who study PTSD have stated that creating “safe spaces” does more harm than good to PTSD victims than good as denying small exposure to what harmed them reinforces and magnifies the fear. While rape is one thing, SJWs have applied safe spaces and trigger warnings to anyone with any variation from the standard heterosexual white male, who gets no safe space or trigger warnings despite constantly being shunned in debate for having “white privilege”. Conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos are constantly being banned or interrupted and shut down by SJWs who protect the ideas of those who they agree with, but are immediately “triggered” by even the presence anyone who disagrees with their ideas on on things like gender and racial equality.

 

SJWs are so adamantly against heterosexual white males due to the core SJW belief of systematic racism. It’s said that white men are privileged due to various reasons including income disparity, incarceration disparity, and, the greatest of all these lies, the disparity in the rate of men killed by police due to racism. What SJWs can’t grasp is that disparity in no way equates to racism, but does that even matter when their claims are blatantly wrong? A Harvard study showed no bias in shootings, completely destroying Black Lives Matter’s claim of police hunting African Americans, but did show bias in police use of force against African Americans, so it must be racism? Another statistic done in NYC shows cops much more likely charge African Americans with resisting arrest than white people. Clearly more evidence of systematic racism? The FBI statistics from 2013 show African Americans in the U.S commit 52% of murder, 31% of rape, 56% of robbery, and at least in the 30% range for almost every crime with the exception of intoxication/alcohol laws, prostitution, and unspecified sex crimes.This is alarming due to the fact that African Americans only make up 13% of the U.S population. Does this mean if you’re African American you’re inherently a criminal? No, and the fact the rate of crime from those under 18 and older than 18 stays almost the same suggests a very real problem affecting the youth in predominantly African American communities that needs to be addressed as soon as possible to prevent African American youth from becoming another statistic in a continuous cycle. However SJWs would rather blindly argue police and the “system” are against African Americans, while Black on Black crime is the leading killer among African American males. Black Lives Matter, a group supported by SJW’s, leads the front in ignoring these facts and accuses white people of causing every problem for African Americans while simultaneously doing nothing but damage minority communities, as seen in Baltimore and Ferguson, .  While the disparity between African American and Caucasian American crime is startling, there are plenty of other disparities nobody mentions, like Asian Americans having the highest median income of anyone, but nobody screams about Asian Privilege.

 

Outside of racial privilege, there is one more privilege many of us forgot, and that is the privilege of being cisgender. Crazy enough, having a penis between your legs and knowing you’re a male is privilege full numerous benefits you never knew about, such as being able to use the appropriate bathroom that corresponds with our genders. SJWs argue the transgender community is wrongfully oppressed by not being able to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, and if you agree with these bathroom rules, you’re a transphobic bigot, and if you think it’s a mental disorder to be transgender, heaven help you. Dr. Paul McHugh, former Psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins hospital says being transgender is a “mental disorder”,and that a legitimate sex change is “biologically impossible” while citing suicide rates being 20 times higher among those who receive the sex change surgery than those who didn’t get the surgery and citing the statistic that up to 80% of minors with transgender like feelings completely lose their feelings of misidentification over time. But even to those who point out the opinions of professionals without personal bias against the trans community are bigots by the SJWs who openly welcome everyone’s feelings except white people.

 

When it comes to racism SJWs have a crazy belief that no one can be racist against white people because minorities apparently hold no power, portraying the average white person as somewhat of a slave master to minorities. MTV even made videos to explain to us silly white people, that no one can actually be racist against us. Franchesca Ramsey, who serves as the lecturer, says(while wearing a wig and speaking in a way portraying a white women) the dictionary definition of “racism” is “simple” and that to truly understand racism, we need to understand sociologies definition of the term as it boils down to prejudice and power. She then goes on to claim, because it’s her opinion and she’s oppressed black woman tired of our racial ignorance, we should take sociologists definition. Coincidentally,Cambridge’s dictionary has a different definition more congruent with the dictionary’s. Unfortunately, SJWs continue to perpetuate the idea that due to one’s skin color, if they’re white, they lose all sense of empathy for minorities unless you agree with them. Due to the obvious hypocrisy in one man telling another man of the same race he can’t understand something that he can understand because of his skin color, this reveals itself as a tactic to do nothing more than cut down opposition to the SJW’s opinion and to eliminate free thought. In a discussion, how would one person’s race affect the topic of debate? It doesn’t.

 

Ultimately SJW’s are really just products of radical progressivism invading school systems from grade school to college filling kid’s heads with ideas of feelings, safe spaces, and a fictional pay gap, rather than factual information and reality. The millennial progressives insist the narrative that women are being oppressed in the U.S despite the fact there is not one law oppressing women and the fact women have full control over having an abortion, regardless of the father’s feelings, which seems pretty sexist against men to me. Because of this, older generations of feminists view current feminism as a shell of the movement it once was. Much like how feminism became null and void, SJWs rally behind Black Lives Matter, who have incited the deaths of multiple police officers, like a new Civil Rights Movement, except for the fact it lacks peace and credibility entirely. While pretending to be for civil rights, they target white males for their ethnicity so their ideas have less resistance, regardless of the means, but if you dare bring up statistical facts, you’re racist and lying. SJWs demand you agree with their opinion and life choices, regardless of the facts surrounding your opinions or you’re a bigot, efficiently creating more stupid people who exercise feelings rather than thought. But you can’t even entirely blame the school systems. Media of every type from Twitter to the new Ghostbusters film are constantly forcing their philosophy on the youth, and shunning any differing opinion under the guise of hate speech. SJWs are merely a new manifestation of fascism spreading like a plague in college universities that have prohibited free speech and free thought in favor of “safe spaces” that are used to cultivate mindless drones who scream and yell whatever they’re told to in the name of equality.

 

Author Rob Ash @RobAsh97

Editor Tom Marshall

From: http://robash97.blogspot.com/2016/08/social-justice-warriors-champions-of.html

student-4_3

Texas Professors Sue to Deny Students 2nd Amendment Right

Three professors working in the Liberal Arts department at The University of Texas at Austin are fighting a Texas law that allows students to carry concealed handguns in their college classrooms.

Senate Bill 11, allowing concealed handgun license holders 21 and older (or 18 if active military) to carry in campus buildings, was signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, on June 23rd of 2015. The law went into effect Aug. 1 this year.

The professors requested a preliminary injunction to block the new campus carry law and had filed suit on July 6 against the attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton; the president of the University of Texas at Austin, Gregory Fenves; and members of the University of Texas Board of Regents.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel made no ruling during the court hearing after lawyers for the professors and for the university struggled to agree on the university’s rules and policies on concealed weapons, the Austin American-Statesman reported. Instead, Yeakel requested more information to clarify university concealed weapon policies.

“Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom,” the lawsuit says.

Paxton, the Republican Texas attorney general, called the professors’ lawsuit “frivolous.”

“There is no legal justification to deny licensed, law-abiding citizens on campus the same measure of personal protection they are entitled to elsewhere in Texas,” Paxton said in statement.

Paxton filed a response with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division on Aug. 1 in opposition to the University of Texas professors’ request for preliminary injunction.

The professors “have no right under the First Amendment to violate the Second Amendment rights of students,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “And it is insulting to law-abiding gun owners—categorizing them as crazies who will kill someone over a debate in a classroom.”

A 1995 Texas law allows concealed handguns to be carried in public, including on the grounds of public college campuses, but previously excluded campus buildings, the Statesman reported.

Under the new law, public institutions of higher education cannot “generally” prohibit license holders from carrying concealed weapons, but are allowed to establish “rules, regulations, or other provisions” restricting guns from places like labs with dangerous chemicals and regarding the storage of handguns in residential dorm facilities.

Moore, one of the plaintiffs, who teaches English and gender studies, told NPR that “it’s impossible to do our jobs with this policy in place.” She continued:

We all teach subject matter that is quite sensitive, and we all use very participatory, you know, pedagogically sound methods of trying to teach students how to state their views on controversial subjects, challenge one another and stand up for what they believe in.

“I am genuinely not equipped to keep students safe from a firearm in my classroom,” Moore added.

Brian Bensimon, Students for Concealed Carry’s director for the state of Texas, told The Daily Signal that the professors’ lawsuit is “perplexing.”

“Concealed carry is allowed in our state capitol,” Bensimon said. “There’s plenty of open debate and lively discourse there.”

Allison Peregory, a 21-year-old University of Texas pre-law student, plans to get a state-issued concealed weapon license and carry on her campus, The Dallas Morning News reported.

“It’s important for people to have their right to self-defense be protected,” Peregory said, according to the Morning News.

Aug. 1, the date the bill went into effect, marked the 50th anniversary of a mass shooting that took place at the University of Texas at Austin.

“It is quite ironic; they [the professors] are apparently unaware that private citizens, including students, helped police in 1966 stop Charles Whitman, the University of Texas Tower sniper, when they grabbed their guns and started firing at the sniper in the tower,” Heritage’s von Spakovsky said. “One of those Texans, Allen Crum, even climbed to the top of the tower with a rifle to assist the policeman who eventually killed Whitman.”

Students for Concealed Carry is trying to block a University of Texas rule that allows professors to ban concealed weapons from their individual office space. The group filed a complaint with Paxton on Aug. 4.

“Gun control advocates think that gun bans will make people safer,” Dr. John R. Lott, a staunch gun rights advocate, former Professor at The University of Chicago, Yale University, and the University of Maryland, as well as founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center ( a non-profit formed to study the relationship between gun laws and crime ) and author of “The War on Guns,” wrote in an op-ed. “But banning guns only ensures that law-abiding good citizens are disarmed, not the killers. Instead of bans improving safety, these bans attract killers and make it easier for them to commit crimes.”  A study done by Harvard, a well-known and revered university by the left, concluded that, “The more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.”  The study looked at armed crime rates, including murder, in nations that have total bans on gun ownership compared to nations that have high rates of gun ownership among their citizens.

In the official policy written by Gregory Fenves, the President of the University of Texas at Austin, you will find some other strange policies that have been adopted, specifically, “A license holder who carries a semiautomatic handgun on campus must carry it without a chambered round of ammunition.”  While the school intends the rule to be yet another safety measure, it goes against what most Texas firearms instructors, police academies, and the military teach for self-defense.

It’s generally accepted that—in the context of self-defense shootings, which typically happen at close range—one’s ability to quickly and cleanly present from the holster is more important than even one’s aim. Being forced to draw one’s weapon and then load the first round (a procedure that typically takes both hands) is a serious impediment to being able to quickly and cleanly present to the target. Chambering a round in the heat of battle also denies the defensive shooter an opportunity to perform a chamber check—a safety check typically performed when loading a firearm. At close contact (any distance close enough for an assailant to grab the defender’s gun), having an empty chamber can essentially render the defender’s handgun useless.

This policy, also going in tandem with another rule to require that guns be kept in a holster that covers the trigger and trigger guard, goes further than any other university in prescribing how the guns should actually be carried.  When asked by gun rights advocates groups which experts the school relied upon to define these two policies, the school declined to do so.  If UT-Austin President Gregory Fenves wishes to act responsibly, he will modify these two policies. If he does not, the policies will almost certainly face legal challenges—challenges likely to succeed and likely to cost the university significant time and money.

2000px-Gadsden_flag.svg

Wearing Gadsden Flag “Workplace Harassment”

When I was young, a phrase I heard rather frequently was “Don’t make a federal case out of it.” These days, however, you don’t hear that so often, probably because it’s now ridiculously common and absurdly easy for people to “make a federal case” out of nothing more than a gripe – provided it’s a politically correct gripe.

As an example, consider the recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case involving a post office worker who complained of illegal “workplace harassment” because another worker persisted in wearing a cap with the Gadsden Flag and its “Don’t Tread on Me” motto.

For those who aren’t aware who Christopher Gadsden was, Christopher Gadsden was an American patriot if ever there was one. He led Sons of Liberty in South Carolina starting in 1765, and was later made a colonel in the Continental Army. In 1775 he was in Philadelphia representing his home state in the Continental Congress. He was also one of three members of the Marine Committee who decided to outfit and man the USS Alfred and its sister ships.  Gadsden and Congress chose a Rhode Island man, Esek Hopkins, as the commander-in-chief of the Navy. The flag that Hopkins used as his personal standard on the Alfred is the one we would now recognize. It’s likely that John Paul Jones, as the first lieutenant on the Alfred, ran it up the gaff.  It’s generally accepted that Hopkins’ flag was presented to him by Christopher Gadsden, who felt it was especially important for the commodore to have a distinctive personal standard. Gadsden also presented a copy of this flag to his state legislature in Charleston. This is recorded in the South Carolina congressional journals:

“Col. Gadsden presented to the Congress an elegant standard, such as is to be used by the commander in chief of the American navy; being a yellow field, with a lively representation of a rattle-snake in the middle, in the attitude of going to strike, and these words underneath, “Don’t Tread on Me!”

What should be a symbol of liberty, patriotic displays and military history is now a petty complaint that we must now pay federal bureaucrats to investigate and resolve.

Back in 2014, a maintenance mechanic working for the U.S. Postal Service in Denver filed a complaint stating that he found the cap “racially offensive to African Americans” because the flag on it was designed by Christopher Gadsden, who, back in the 18th century, was a slave owner and trader as almost half of the attendees of the Constitutional Convention were. USPS management tried to mollify the complainant (called “Shelton D.” in case documents) and said that the other worker would be told to stop wearing the offending cap. But that worker kept on wearing it and, making matters much worse, the USPS then dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a “cognizable claim of discrimination.”

So, not getting satisfaction from the Postal Service, Shelton D. did just what more and more Americans now do when annoyed – complain to a federal agency. The agency tasked with making all our places of work free from any actual or imagined discrimination of any sort is the EEOC.

Instead of siding with the USPS that this complaint was much ado about nothing, the EEOC decided that the matter needs further investigation. (The EEOC’s decision is not available online, but you can read its summary of the case here.)

Why?

The EEOC states that “After a thorough review of the record, it is clear that the Gadsden Flag originated in the Revolutionary War in a non-racial context. Moreover, it is clear that the flag and its slogan have been used to express various non-racial sentiments, such as when it is used in the modern Tea Party political movement, gun rights activism, patriotic displays, and by the military.”

Nevertheless, the EEOC also declares that the flag is “sometimes interpreted to convey racially-tinged messages in some contexts.” Therefore, the case can’t be dismissed. Rather, the Postal Service must investigate further “to determine the specific context in which (the worker) displayed the symbol in the workplace.” The EEOC insists on having “evidence that would illuminate the meaning conveyed” by the wearing of the cap.

So now the Postal Service must grill the worker to find out just what “meaning” the cap was intended to convey. He might say that he’s just fed up with high taxes and meddlesome government and wasn’t conveying any racially-tinged message to Shelton D. – but how can they be certain that’s all there is to it?

Maybe the Postal Service will again decide that the complaint is groundless and maybe the EEOC will decide that the evidence adduced is good enough for it to drop the case. But however this dispute is decided, the fact that caps, clothing, and other expressions of views in the workplace can lead to regulatory trouble will have an impact on employers.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh comments on the Washington Post, “Workplace harassment law has become a content-based, viewpoint-based speech restriction, including on core political speech. A pretty serious First Amendment problem, I think.”

Volokh explains that the case is about the rules that all employers “must follow on pain of massive legal liability.” Massive legal liability is the crucial point here; no employer (not even the USPS) wants to costs of having to defend against complaints lodged with the EEOC that it has allowed a “hostile work environment” by permitting workers to wear or display anything “insensitive” that could set another worker off.

For that reason, they are apt to adopt rules against any apparel or other means of expression that could possibly lead to complaints about “harassment” or permitting a “hostile work environment.” If employers want to have rules against Gadsden Flag caps, Che Guevara shirts, or anything else, they should be free to make them, but the federal government shouldn’t push them into such rules.

In this dispute, we again see how prescient Alexis de Tocqueville was when he wrote about the danger to liberty he saw back in 1830:

“Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complex rules through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate.”

We are well on our way back to servitude when companies tell workers what they cannot wear for fear of trouble with our vast regulatory state.

 

3 Percenter

Why the 3%er Movement is Relevant

The term 3%’ers (III%’ers or 3 Percenters) refers to the claimed 3% of colonists who fought in the American Revolutionary War against the British to achieve American independence. Today, another group has taken the statistic as a title with what they see as the same mission. Resisting authoritarianism, tyranny, and upholding the constitution. To the radical liberal plague enveloping the college scene of America, some of the 3% might appear as a bunch of redneck vigilantes fringing on the grounds of racism. Presumptuous feelings aside, to understand the movement you must review ancient history; the 90’s.

3_Percenters_flag The birth of the 3%’er movement was not an anomaly. In the wake of the Columbine shootings, people were gravitating heavily towards the idea of gun control. Every person had their opinion on the issue, and some were even in favor of the U.S implementing the same policies, ironically, as Britain. To one who follows the constitution strictly, this is was a nightmare, especially after 1994 which introduced the Federal Assault Weapon Ban which, whether you like the amendment or not, infringed on the right to bear arms. The main focus being that weapons with such stomping power should not be of easy access to those with the intent to cause harm to innocent people. However, the 3%ers and many other Americans, as well as many outside of the U.S, recognize this is not a weapons issue but a people issue.

The Obama administration, mostly Obama himself, consistently persuades(with major success)the public that he’s not trying to deny citizens their right to bear arms, but trying to stop criminals from attaining high power or even military grade firearms. This is bullshit. Obama has openly declared assault weapons being available to the public is immoral, and has attempted many times to eliminate guns held by legal carriers off the streets despite the new ‘Wild Wild West’ created by him in Chicago. Basically, Obama, and the rest of the left are saying “You can have guns, just none that can really do anything”, and that’s how the 3%ers perceive this. If the government ever began to enforce laws the citizens disapproved of, we would not be able to defend ourselves due to the fact our equipment could not combat the military’s in a fight to protect our freedom, which denies the purpose of the second amendment that’s already being infringed on, and the idea that a democratic country could turn on it’s own people isn’t abstract to the history books.

Last year in Colorado as many know, Freedom of religion was denied to a Christian bakery for stating it was against their religion to provide cake for a gay couple’s wedding. Now if it was me in that situation, I would say “fuck you” and leave because there’s other bakeries and I wouldn’t want to fund a place of such discrimination. The couple took another approach and brought it to court, and won denying a religious belief that is fundamental in every major monotheistic religion in the world(against homosexuality), and while I have nothing but support for the LBGTQ community, it seems that religious freedom is very dim flame in the Left’s agenda. Across America, cases like this are increasingly common, where religion is open to persecution(unless it’s Islam) and never defended(unless it’s Islam).

Islam, as some are aware, and many unwilling to accept, commits more theological based crime than any other religion worldwide, due to it’s inherently aggressive nature found within the Quran and the dedication of its many followers. This is made especially apparent by the rapid increase of crime in Europe due to the E.U allowing both innocent and dangerous people to flood in from predominantly Muslim countries with absolutely no information as to who any of these people were. The statistics are shocking, as within less than a year of the refugee invasion, the Dailymail reported migrant crime went up 79%. The statistics in Sweden make it clear that since the migration, the rate of rapes has increased. The 3%ers recognize that Islam is a massive potential threat to Western civilization that is both proven and somewhat hidden. The 3%ers have been seen protesting outside of Mosques in the U.S with guns, discouraging Muslims from coming to America and in general being here. And while I don’t support these actions, there is clear evidence to support the notion that the values of Americans, both conservative and especially liberal, heavily conflict with those of the Middle Eastern Islamic community, seeing as how we don’t make it a habit to throw gay people off of buildings or decapitate those with different beliefs. Actions like those mentioned are the inherit threat of allowing undocumented refugees into the U.S, which is why the 3%ers are so concerned with Islam in general.

Refugee-crime

The rise of 3%ers should not be a shock to anyone as some of us have allowed the government to convince us that we can’t responsibly carry weapons, but should trust said weapons in the hands of those who serve under our government who deny the enemy at home and abroad. Denying legal gun owners the right to military grade weapons makes it easy for tyrannical power to come, take control via military force, and push citizens around in the same way the British did to the early colonists(which is why the 2nd Amendment exists), and in the same way Hitler did to the Jewish. It’s also rather terrifying to see our president consistently deny the inherit threat of Islam on American soil and equally as terrifying when a presidential candidate can openly break the law that others have been punished for and be charged with nothing. While I don’t think the U.S army is about to march down the street to impose the will of Obama Christ, are we the people truly to be disarmed of our ability to combat possible government tyranny by a president with the potential to be succeeded by a woman who, despite clear evidence of guilt, walked away from a crime that could put you or I behind bars?

 

Author Rob Ash @RobAsh97

Editor Tom Marshall

From: http://robash97.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-3er-movement-is-relevant.html

Mike Pence

Mike Pence on the Second Amendment

Presumptive nominee Donald Trump’s campaign has indicated he’ll name the conservative governor of Indiana as his VP pick.  Anyone who supports religious freedom knows Pence’s name because of the legislation he’s signed into law during his term, but what are Mike Pence’s views on Second Amendment? He has earned “A” grade from the NRA for vetoing anti-Second Amendment legislation in his state protecting individual rights.

Throughout his 12 years in the House of Representatives before taking office as governor in 2013, Pence consistently displayed a pro-gun voting record. He has maintained his belief that allowing law-abiding Americans access to guns makes the country a safer place, not a more dangerous one. That’s ostensibly why he voted in favor of similar measures in 2003 and 2005 that would have banned liability lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers when firearms are used criminally — like the one families of the victims of the 2014 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have brought. In 2011 that conviction motivated him to co-sponsor the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act to relax restrictions on interstate gun purchases.

Pence has continued his pro-liberty stance since embarking on his governorship. In March 2014, he signed into law a bill that many anti-freedom school union thugs and administrators had urged him to veto, because they touted it would threaten the safety of students: to allow adults to store handguns and other firearms in their locked cars while in school parking lots.

“Young people, schools, guns and all of that is a mix for something inappropriate,” Indianapolis Public Schools Superintendent Lewis Ferebee told The Indianapolis Star before the governor approved the measure. Pence said that it would not affect the prevalence of school shootings because potential killers wouldn’t worry about following laws, and would bring weapons onto campuses regardless.

In a follow-up Real Clear Politics interview with Chris Wallace, Pence further defended his decision:

I have strongly supported the right to keep and bear arms. I truly believe that firearms in the hands of law abiding citizen’s makes our families and our communities more safe, not less safe. And the bill that we just signed here in Indiana really was a common sense reform. We actually have parents that had a permit to conceal and carry a weapon that we’re finding themselves guilty of a felony just by dropping their kids off to school. So we just — we made a modest change, a common sense change in Indiana law. And I strongly supported it.

Pence’s pro-liberty views are in line with his other conservative gun stances that may make him such an attractive VP pick for Trump in the first place. It could help the presidential candidate reel in social conservatives who approve of Pence’s signing into law of a religious freedom bill protecting the people’s right to practice their faith. They’re also likely fans of a measure he signed a year later protecting the rights of the unborn children in the state (it was later blocked by a federal judge).

While there’s no more speculation surrounding whom Trump will name as his running mate tomorrow, there is really no question about Mike Pence’s views on gun control: He doesn’t like it. In fact, his commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering and has led him to seek more freedoms to those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right, as well as those who manufacture firearms.

 

1-Dees-Obama

Unconstitutional Senate Intelligence Authorization Act

August 11, 2015 by Stephen Lendman

Freedom in America is being systematically destroyed one police state law at a time – with most people ignorant and/or indifferent about what happening.

Washington’s criminal class is bipartisan – in lockstep against government representing everyone equitably and fairly, serving privileged interests only.

  1. Res. 1705: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 compromises free expression and privacy rights already gravely eroded.

If enacted, Section 603 will require online companies to inform Washington of any “actual knowledge” of “facts and circumstances” related to undefined “terrorist activity” – meaning warrantless searches and seizures of personal electronic content will be authorized, potentially subjecting countless numbers of innocent people to unjustifiable scrutiny.

Vague language makes independent journalists, political, anti-war, and social justice activists, academics and students doing legitimate research, as well as others vulnerable to being called suspected terrorists.

The possibility could encourage self-censorship. Service providers may over-report to show compliance with the law. Online users could be flagged for using suspect words or phrases.

One definition of terrorist activity can be another’s way of describing freedom fighting. Legitimate government criticism could be misinterpreted and misused.

Anyone ideologically opposed to US policies could become vulnerable to arrest, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for expressing their views online. Police states operate this way.

Provisions like Section 603 violate fundamental constitutional and international law guaranteed rights. At stake is further erosion of First and Fourth Amendment freedoms.

Senate members overwhelmingly support S. 1705. Before recessing until September, they were set to pass it by voice vote until Senator Ron Wyden objected.

He wants normal debate procedure followed. He noted valid concerns raised by Internet companies about Section 603.

The Internet Association representing dozens of technology companies said vague language about what constitutes terrorism creates “an impossible compliance problem.”

It’ll result in “massive reporting of items that are not likely to be of material concern to public safety.” Wyden said “Internet companies should not be subject to broad requirements to police the speech of their users.”

He knows of no law enforcement or intelligence agencies suggesting Section 603 will help identify terrorists. He urges revision or elimination of this section altogether.

Thirty-one civil liberties organizations and trade associations expressed opposition to Section 603 in a letter sent Senate leaders.

They include Project Censored, the Media Freedom Foundation, the ACLU, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Consumer Federation of America, Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and American Library Association among others.

They warned of concerns raised above. Innocent people committing no crimes would be at risk. “Complying with Section 603 would create a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech and would impermissibly burden individuals’ First and Fourth Amendment rights,” they said.

“Whether a given comment is a true threat of violence, an expression of a sincerely held religious belief, or a simple joke among friends is a determination that providers are ill-suited to make, particularly when the consequence is reporting a person to the government under the suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities.”

Section 603 is unconstitutional. It way oversteps. Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Internet companies may report any content they believe relates to criminality.

“Section 603’s reporting requirement threatens individuals’ constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of expression and would burden US-based providers without providing a clear benefit to law enforcement. For these reasons, we urge you to reject this flawed provision and to remove it from the Intelligence Authorization Act,” the signatories said.

AS

The heart of Justice Scalia’s originalism

By John S. Baker – -April 14, 2015 (Washington Times)

John Strand’s fascinating play, the Originalist, manages to humanize Justice Scalia for those who view him, in the play’s words, as a heartless monster. Beneath the Justice’s combative brilliance, the play shows him to be quite compassionate towards his far-left, lesbian law clerk. But the playwright fails to find the heart of Originalism.

The lead actor, Edward Gero, nails the Justice’s walk, words, and mannerisms. Missing, however, is the Justice’s hearty laughter. But an actor can’t give us what’s not in the script. Actors in a play are textualists— interpreting, yes; but still sticking to the writer’s words. A play is not the place for Improv.

Originalists are textualists who interpret the words actually written in the Constitution – the script. They don’t do Improv.

The play puzzles over the question: how could someone so brilliant be so obtuse as not to realize that the Constitution must be updated to meet modern needs?

The answer provided by the play and some commentators: the Justice’s strict adherence to the words of the Constitution can only be explained in terms of his traditional (read “rigid”) Roman Catholicism.

Religious faith may explain the Justice’s genuine compassion, but certainly not his Originalism.

Originalism venerates neither the Bible nor Church teaching, but words written by Protestants and Deists. The Constitution has long been the scripture for our civic religion. On this point, it is instructive that in the 1830s Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (a Unitarian) and others borrowed the question-and-answer format of the Catholic catechism and created “Constitutional catechisms.”

America’s civic religion has been eroding for over 100 years under the intellectual influence of Progressivism, as articulated by Woodrow Wilson. Rejecting what he claimed was the Newtonian world view of the Founders and substituting social Darwinism, Wilson provided the political-philosophical basis for the “living” or “evolving” Constitution:

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All the progressives ask or desire is permission – in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word – to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle.”

Critics of Originalism may sound persuasive by observing that laws become outdated over time. Statutes certainly can become outdated. Matters likely to become outdated, however, do not belong in a constitution and were not included in our Constitution. Instead, the Constitution provides for changes through the system of Separation of Powers, with Congress making changes in law, as long as the President is willing to accept the changes, and the Supreme Court finds no violation of the Constitution.

Wilson rejected Separation of Powers because it slows down democracy. Indeed, the Framers wanted to make it difficult to pass federal laws. The Separation-of-Powers system necessitates law-making by consensus rather than simple majorities.

Contra Wilson, Justice Scalia both rejects “the living Constitution” and argues for restoring (and annually teaches a course on) the original, rigorous understanding of Separation of Powers.

For Progressives, Justice Scalia’s Constitution represents a throwback in terms of Darwinian progress. What matters for them is the expansion of rights, not the structure of the Constitution

Americans may be conflicted. They generally want the Court to follow the words of the Constitution, but they tend to equate the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. As Justice Scalia often says, however, the Bill of Rights is only “the icing on the cake.” Without Separation of Powers, including an independent judiciary, the Bill of Rights would mean nothing more than words on paper. The former Soviet Union and other despotic regimes have had wonderfully written, but meaningless, bills of rights.

Americans would do well to recall that the heart of the Constitution is its structure of Separation of Powers and Federalism. The structure and the powers it grants, limits, and divides among the branches of the federal government never become outdated. The powers to tax, to borrow money, to regulate commerce among the states, to raise and support armies, etc., will be essential as long as the country exists.
Originalism venerates neither the Bible nor Church teaching, but words written by Protestants and Deists. The Constitution has long been the scripture for our civic religion. On this point, it is instructive that in the 1830s Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (a Unitarian) and others borrowed the question-and-answer format of the Catholic catechism and created “Constitutional catechisms.”

America’s civic religion has been eroding for over 100 years under the intellectual influence of Progressivism, as articulated by Woodrow Wilson. Rejecting what he claimed was the Newtonian world view of the Founders and substituting social Darwinism, Wilson provided the political-philosophical basis for the “living” or “evolving” Constitution:

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All the progressives ask or desire is permission – in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word – to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle.”

Critics of Originalism may sound persuasive by observing that laws become outdated over time. Statutes certainly can become outdated. Matters likely to become outdated, however, do not belong in a constitution and were not included in our Constitution. Instead, the Constitution provides for changes through the system of Separation of Powers, with Congress making changes in law, as long as the President is willing to accept the changes, and the Supreme Court finds no violation of the Constitution.

Wilson rejected Separation of Powers because it slows down democracy. Indeed, the Framers wanted to make it difficult to pass federal laws. The Separation-of-Powers system necessitates law-making by consensus rather than simple majorities.

Contra Wilson, Justice Scalia both rejects “the living Constitution” and argues for restoring (and annually teaches a course on) the original, rigorous understanding of Separation of Powers.

For Progressives, Justice Scalia’s Constitution represents a throwback in terms of Darwinian progress. What matters for them is the expansion of rights, not the structure of the Constitution

Americans may be conflicted. They generally want the Court to follow the words of the Constitution, but they tend to equate the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. As Justice Scalia often says, however, the Bill of Rights is only “the icing on the cake.” Without Separation of Powers, including an independent judiciary, the Bill of Rights would mean nothing more than words on paper. The former Soviet Union and other despotic regimes have had wonderfully written, but meaningless, bills of rights.

Americans would do well to recall that the heart of the Constitution is its structure of Separation of Powers and Federalism. The structure and the powers it grants, limits, and divides among the branches of the federal government never become outdated. The powers to tax, to borrow money, to regulate commerce among the states, to raise and support armies, etc., will be essential as long as the country exists.

Like Justice Scalia, the framers focused on structure. They invented the novel doctrine of a federal judiciary having a power to declare laws unconstitutional. They did so to preserve the Constitution as written against the power-grabbing tendencies of the political branches in the federal and state governments.

At its heart, Originalism is grounded in the Framers’ understanding of human nature and power. It rejects the Progressive belief that human beings have so progressed that the Constitution’s structural restraints are no longer necessary to curb the self-interested behavior of those holding – and seeking more—power. As one observer once said, “Scalia does not have a sanguine view of human nature or much confidence in social progress.”  Nor did the Framers.

John S. Baker, Jr., Ph.D. is Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center and Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University Law Center.

SocialistDemocracy

Welcome To The Socialist Democracy Of America

Written by Jon DoubleTap Britton 25 March 2015 (Cold Dead Hands)

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

The constitutional republic once known as The United States of America was conquered long ago and very few people even noticed. The US of A today has devolved into a socialist democracy bent on self-destruction. Stop and think for a minute, when was the last time you heard a politician, media talking head or ANYONE in any “official capacity” refer to America or her form of government as a “constitutional republic?” On the other hand, I doubt any one of you could even begin to count the number of times you have heard it referred to as a “democracy.” Democracy, defending democracy, spreading democracy around the world, democracy, democracy, democracy… Do you know what our founders thought of democracy?

Well, to begin with you will NOT find the word democracy, democratic or any other variation of the word in either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution. Not even an honorable mention or a participation ribbon. What did they say about “democracy” outside of those founding documents? One of the most famous quotes is “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” ~ Benjamin Franklin. While old Ben had a colorful way of expressing it, others shared his distaste for the concept. “Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths… A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” James Madison [Federalist Papers No. 10 – 1787].

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams

“But government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.” Henry David Thoreau

Now, before you start throwing out phrases like “democratic republic” or “constitutional democracy” or “representative democracy” or some other concoction to cloud the issue, a CONSTITUTION and a DEMOCRACY are mutually exclusive. A constitution is a set “law of the land” with defined powers and rights. Our representatives are democratically elected to represent us WITHIN THE CONFINES of constitutional law, not mere public opinion. Changes to that “law of the land” can only be made by super-majorities of both the people AND the states. Even the Presidential election is not purely democratic, while the people do vote and the “popular vote” is counted, it is also balanced through the electoral college to insure that high population urban centers do not dominate the election while low population rural areas are left without representation. This insures that The President represents the WHOLE country and not just the few large cities of each state. Originally, US Senators were intended to be the voice of the STATES and the House of Representatives were the voice of THE PEOPLE. The passage of the 17th amendment was a MAJOR STEP AWAY from our constitutional republic and towards democracy by taking away the states’ voice and giving the people both houses of Congress based solely on popularity rather than states’ issues. Now there are those who call for the abolishment of the electoral college as well, which would for all intents and purposes complete that transformation. In a true DEMOCRACY there is no “law of the land” anymore, there is only the ever changing landscape of public opinion. Constant change and turmoil based on the hopes and whims of 50% + 1 of the population where RIGHTS no long exist for anyone, especially the minority, but privileges abound for the majority.

This really hit home for me as I was engaged in and following the debates regarding Open Carry in Texas. I heard over and over again that there was not sufficient “public support” for constitutional carry, so the best they could do is to expand the privileges of the very few CHL holders, who PAY to exercise their natural rights, to include the ability to open carry. It was, and still is, often argued that we lost the right a little at a time, incrementally, and that is the best or only way to get it back. That is a socialist-democratic thought process pure and simple. To think that we must restore natural rights a little at a time so as to build public support or avoid public outrage is, well outrageous. Our transition from republic to democracy has indeed happened incrementally over time in order to avoid detection of the destruction of our sovereign rights. To restore those rights that are already constitutionally protected does NOT require a democratic majority, public support or any other incarnation of democracy. Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman’s inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” WE HAVE NOT KEPT IT!

Democracy inevitably leads to socialism such as the socialist democracy that we now have in place. Don’t kid yourself, we do in fact live in a socialist democracy, just look around you. Welfare, food stamps, social “safety nets” and redistribution of wealth (ie. progressive income tax)… “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Although this phrase is most commonly attributed to Karl Marx, the slogan was common within the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1851. The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French utopianist Étienne-Gabriel Morelly, who proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature “Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society” including:

  1. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
  2. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
  3. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

While we do still cling to some of the trappings of free society and free markets, it is increasingly becoming more socialized. You do not “own” property, even if your house or land is paid off, you still lease it from the government through property taxes. Stop paying the taxes and see how long you “own” your property. Public schools and universities increasingly teach our children that they are “citizens of the world” and denounce individualism through group think such as political correctness. What was once embraced as self-evident truths have been dissolved in a sea of collectivist thought and propaganda. Life is no longer a sacred right, at least not if you are as yet unborn or a military veteran seeking the care that was promised them for serving their nation. Liberty has become an antiquated idea because people cannot be trusted to exercise it in a manner that is agreeable to all, or at least that is the subtext behind the socialization and reliance upon government regulation. The pursuit of happiness, which was meant be long term happiness as in property, opportunity and security has given way to instant gratification and hedonism.

The more socialized we become, the less civil society becomes. The more democratic we become, the more divided we become. We split up into groups battling each other for what we want and the majority wins, whether their position is good for the nation or even state, the city or the individual is irrelevant. Mob Rule, winner take all and since the “have nots” will always outnumber the more productive and industrious “haves” then “democracy” works in their favor. Everyone imagines that the bottom 99% will be raised to the level of the upper 1%, but the reality is that the upper 99% will be lowered to the level of the lowest 1%. True “equality can only be achieved mathematically and socially at the lowest common denominator. At first it looks great. take from the rich and give to the poor in true Robin Hood fashion, there is just one problem.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.” ~ Margaret Thatcher