Dems Want Social Platform Censorship by Blaming Russians – AGAIN


John R. Houk

© January 25, 2018

Yesterday I stumbled upon a Fox News story in which Dems Senator Feinstein and Rep. Schiff have publicly called for Twitter, Facebook and now I read – Google, to investigate Russian bots spreading the meme #ReleaseTheMemo. My least favorite Fox host Shepherd Smith seemed to move story to agree with the Dems. Here’s the 4:30 minute segment on Youtube:

 

VIDEO: Top Democrats claim Russian bots are pushing #ReleaseTheMemo

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Jan 24, 2018

 

Rep. Schiff and Sen. Feinstein say the classified memo prepared by staffers working for Devin Nunes is misleading and is being pushed online as part of a smear campaign against law enforcement officials investigating Team Trump; insight from Axios reporter Alayna Treene.

 

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as READ THE REST

 

In essence my first reaction the Dems were trying to get off the hook about corruption among Obama/Hillary cadres in the FBI and DOJ. Indeed, after Googling “Russian Bots,” I found MSM after MSM site pushing the Dem meme of Russian Bots. Just like loyal Leftist Pravda spreading Communist propaganda, the MSM pushed the Dem assertion Russia was involved in the American legal system to taint the FBI and the Mueller investigation purportedly investigating the Trump Campaign for President colluded with Russia to win said Campaign.

 

I felt the Dems were pulling the Russia-Russia-Russia load of crap to deflect from the real collusion story of Dems and Dem-favoring FBI and DOJ trying to discredit President Trump for an idiotic excuse to impeach him on FALSE evidence.

 

It turns out I am CORRECT! The Daily Caller picked up on a story from the Left-leaning Daily Beast which substantiates that an overwhelming majority of the viral message of “#ReleaseTheMail” was driven by red-blooded Americans rather than Russian Bots:

 

DC VIDEO: No Russian Bots …

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/23/no-russian-bots-note-behind-releasethememo/

 

 

According to The Beast:

 

A knowledgeable source says that Twitter’s internal analysis has thus far found that authentic American accounts, and not Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo. There are no preliminary indications that the Twitter activity either driving the hashtag or engaging with it is either predominantly Russian.

 

In short, according to this source, who would not speak to The Daily Beast for attribution, the retweets are coming from inside the country. (No, Russian Bots Weren’t Behind The #ReleaseTheMemo Hashtag; By Chuck Ross; Daily Caller; 1/23/18 6:27 PM)

 

Now you realize that Twitter management is not exactly a Right-leaning Social Platform, right? Ergo, you must understand that the Dems – particularly Senator Feinstein and Rep. Schiff – are calling for Twitter, Facebook and Google to censor Conservative dialog on the Social Platforms used by Americans.

 

The best details I have found pertaining to the Dem Fake News propaganda trying to Censor my fellow Conservatives is at The Federalist.

 

JRH 1/25/18

Please Support NCCR

**********************

The Russia ‘Fake News’ Scare Is All About Chilling Speech

 

By David Harsanyi

JANUARY25, 2018

The Federalist

UNITED STATES – JUNE 16: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference in the Capitol on Democratic on gun control measures, June 16, 2016. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

Last week Republicans began to call for the release of a memo authored by House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes that purports to lay out a series of abuses connected to the FBI surveillance of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. As often happens these days, a Twitter hashtag evolved around the effort, #ReleaseTheMemo, and was widely retweeted by Republicans and elected officials.

 

It didn’t take long for a report to emerge claiming that Russian-sponsored Twitter accounts and bots were the real driving force behind the viral call for the release of the memo. Without worrying about the veracity of this convenient claim, all the usual suspects giddily spread the story across social media — probably because they have such a deep reverence for truth in the Era of Trump.

 

The report also prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff, both Democrats, to pull out every fearmongering catchphrase available to demand that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg perform an “in-depth forensic examination” on the “ongoing attack by the Russian government through Kremlin-linked social media actors directly acting to intervene and influence our democratic process.”

 

It’s difficult, it seems, for some people to embrace neutral principles nowadays. But if you genuinely believe that Donald Trump’s distasteful tweets are attacks on the foundations of free expression, how can you not be alarmed by a pair of powerful elected officials demanding social media companies hand over information about their users? What would they say if the president had sent a letter to Google insisting they give the executive branch an “in-depth forensic examination” of his political opponent’s searches?

 

As it turns out, reports today say that Twitter’s internal analysis found that it was mostly Americans, not creepy Slavic mind-control robots, who were behind the hashtags. Not that it really matters, anyway. If a group of Americans have a legitimate issue to rally around, how are they supposed to control what outsiders do? It’s not as if #ReleaseTheMemo was a secret or illegal. Republican politicians were openly using it.

 

Yet, if Feinstein and Schiff had their way, Twitter and Facebook would have moved to quash the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag for what turned out to be apparently solely partisan reasons. Sounds like a power that can be abused. Even if the two had been genuinely troubled by Russian hashtags — yes, suspend your disbelief — the source of fake news is not always easily discernible. Sometimes it comes to you from an anonymous Russian bot, and sometimes it’s retweeted by a prominent journalist.

 

Democrats have manufactured panic over amateurish Russian propaganda to not only claim that Vlad Putin was “meddling” in the election, but also to argue that interference had the power to turn the election to Trump. With this risible idea in hand, they have created paranoia about social media interactions and rationalized infringements on expression.

 

Not long before demanding forensic investigations into hashtags, Feinstein was demanding Twitter, Facebook, and Google more tightly restrict its content, threatening, “Do something about it — or we will.” Democrats have attempted to control interactions through Fairness Doctrines or the IRS, and now the Russia scare. Part of living in a free country is dealing with messy, ugly misinformation.

 

 

Lots of people in the United States seem pretty impressed by how they do things in Europe. In Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May is launching “a rapid response unit” run by the state to “battle the proliferation of ‘fake news’ online.” A “National Security Communications Unit” will be tasked to combat misinformation — as if it has either the power or ability to do so. In France, President Emmanuel Macron is working on a plan to combat “fake news,” which includes the power to “emergency block” websites during elections. What could possibly go wrong.

 

Me? I’d rather we live with Russian troll bots feeding us nonsense than authoritarian senators dictating how we consume news. I mean, has anyone yet produced a single voter who lost his or her free will during the 2016 election because he had a Twitter interaction with an employee of a St. Petersburg troll farm? Or do voters tend to seek out the stories that back their own worldviews?

 

If your argument is that American are uninformed and easily misled, I’m with you. Just look at all the people who believe that a $46,000 buy on Facebook by the Russians was enough to destroy the pillars of our democracy. But if you want to live in a free and vibrant nation, you have to live with the externalities of that freedom.

 

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.

________________

Dems Want Social Platform Censorship by Blaming Russians – AGAIN

John R. Houk

© January 25, 2018

__________________

The Russia ‘Fake News’ Scare Is All About Chilling Speech

 

Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Unalienable Rights vs. Security


Decl of Independence

Understanding Justin Smith’s essay, you have to understand the nature of Unalienable Rights:

 

Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence:

 

“[A]ll men are created equal…[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these rights are “God-given.” If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God’s will. Rights that is subject to government restriction or license is called a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting, for the first time in history, a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God. … (Unalienable rights; Conservapedia; page was last modified on 5/27/2016, at 14:52.)

 

The Founding Fathers considered self-defense an Unalienable Right and NOT a government given privilege. In the Founding Fathers’ wisdom, the Second Amendment is recognition of a God-given Right.

 

JRH 6/18/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Unalienable Rights vs. Security

Weapons of War

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/18/2016 1:58 PM

 

President Obama and U.S. Senators such as Chris Murphy (D-CT) are intellectually challenged in ascertaining the limits of their authority, when in the face of the worst act of domestic terrorism in decades, on June 12th in Orlando, FL, they divert time and resources from the real threat of Islam inspired terrorism to advocate, filibuster and place legislation for a vote designed to infringe upon, limit and impede the “unalienable” right to “keep and bear arms” under the Second Amendment. And in the process, they have placed the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments on the chopping block too.

 

Barely a day had passed, and with 49 Americans lying dead in the morgue and many more in Orlando regional Medical Center’s critical care unit fighting to stay alive, President Obama stated: “We have to make it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on weapons of war that let them kill dozens of innocents.”

 

“Weapons of War”? Damn Straight. Any firearm is a weapon of war and it is good for only one thing — killing; killing the robber, crazed drug addict, rapist or murderer breaking into one’s house, as innocent Americans fight a war on crime; and killing anyone, including a Muslim terrorist, on the street in defense of one’s self or a group of innocent bystanders. Even a single-shot revolver or a single-shot bolt action 30.06 can be “a weapon of war”, but more than that, whether a semi-automatic Sig Sauer CMX or a single-shot muzzle-loader, these are weapons for self-defense.

 

Obama and company have taken this crisis — this tragic, horrific act of Islamic terrorism — and twisted it towards their oppressive goals to place every principle of the Bill of Rights and every invaluable and most sacred privilege of man at the mercy of government. Self-defense is our “unalienable” right as witnessed in Nature’s Law, which is God’s Creation, and thus, our unalienable rights are God-given.

 

Rather than focus on the Muslim Students Association, an arm of the terroristic Muslim Brotherhood, which is busy on all of America’s college campuses advocating “grand jihad” against America, and unindicted terrorists like Siraj Wahhaj — a black Muslim convert, and indicted terrorists such as Ramadan Shalah — still fleeing the FBI, the Democrats are assaulting the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Rather than focus on mosques that spread anti-American, violent propaganda, like the Darul Uloom Institute [DTN info on founder Maulana Shafayat Mohamed] and the Husseini Islamic Center [Gay-hating Sheikh Dr. Farrokh Sekaleshfar spoke there], Democrats and Hillary Clinton would destroy our right to self-defense, as they echo Obama’s words.

 

A few weeks prior to Omar Mateen committing mass murder at Pulse Night Club, the Husseini Islamic Center of Orlando hosted an imam who preached that “gays must die”, according to Michelle Malkin on June 15th, and that Muslims should not “be embarrased about this … let’s get rid of them now.”

 

With full knowledge that the Islamic State terrorists are using Muslim immigration to infiltrate America and European nations, Obama still insists on bringing more Muslim “refugees” into the country, and simultaneously, he and his “progressive” fascists seek to disarm us all in the face of the greatest threat America has faced in decades. Whether they are Muslim American citizens or foreign born islamofascists, Americans are not fooled, and the pattern is clear from 9/11 to Ft Hood, Boston to Chattanooga and San Bernadino to Orlando.

 

Todd Starnes, conservative journalist, asked on June 15th, “… does he [Obama] plan on confiscating our pressure cookers?”

 

It is also worth noting that in 1995, Timothy McVeigh committed the worse most heinous act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building, murdering 168 Americans and wounding over 650 more. His weapon of choice? — 350 pounds of “Tovex Blastrite Gel” and approximately 2000 pounds of fertilizer and diesel fuel.

 

Incredibly (by the time this piece is released) the Senate is poised to vote on June 20th on a bill that effectively abrogates much of the Bill of Rights. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) caved to pressure from Chris Murphy’s recent filibuster and other harangues and harassment from Democrats Diane Feinstein (CA), Harry Reid (NV) and Chuck Schumer (NY). Feinstein’s bill blocks gun purchases by anyone on the vague and subjective “no-fly-list” and if “a reasonable belief” exists that he “may” use the gun “in connection with terrorism.” And if passed, it becomes too easy to strip anyone of their 2nd Amendment rights — political opponents, Christian conservatives, Veterans — anyone; through their own reasoning, half the Democratic Party would be disqualified from owning a firearm.

 

Under Feinstein’s bill “probable cause” and the entire premise underlying the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, from one’s right to forcefully defend against any actual charge to facing one’s accuser and “due process” under the law is thrown out the window. This bill presumes one guilty without any crime having been committed, and it presents the same government officials who cannot protect America now as mind-readers seeking to prosecute “thought-crimes.” Feinstein’s bill rips the Bill of Rights asunder.

 

Howard Stern exclaimed on June 16th: “The sheepdogs are protecting you, but some of them can’t be with you all day. There’s not a sheepdog for every citizen, and a wolf is eating one of you every night. ‘Baaaaaaa, oh I know, let’s remove all the guns from the sheep.’ What?”

 

Less liberty is not the answer, but abolishing “gun-free zones” is certainly part of the solution. Stop giving cowards intent on murdering scores of Americans an easy access, free and open range of innocent Americans, who simply want to live their lives in freedom. Stop trying to illegally disarm U.S. citizens; otherwise, we will continue to witness one mass killing of defenseless innocents after another.

 

Even some in the LGBTQ community see the truth of the matter. Pink Pistols has 45 chapters across America. Their spokeswoman, Gwendolyn Patton recently stated: “… let us not reach for the low-hanging fruit of blaming the killer’s [Mateen’s] guns. Let us stay focused on the fact that someone hated gay people [and Americans] so much they were ready to kill. A human being did this [though this is debatable]. The human being’s tools are unimportant compared to the bleakness of that person’s soul. I say again, GUNS did not do this … [Don’t] demonize the man’s tools … condemn his acts and work to prevent such acts in the future.”

 

We saw Obama and the Democrats run roughshod over America concerning Obamacare, immigration and other laws, when they held the majority. Can you imagine what the Democrat “progressives” would do to the country if they could disarm all Americans?

 

The Framers of the Constitution would not ratify the Constitution until the Second Amendment was included. They knew that this one thing would always stand as a safeguard for all of our rights against any future government that might seek to once more impose tyranny on the people.

 

Our Second Amendment Rights, the rights of all Americans, are self-evident, inherent and inalienable, whether or not the disingenuous, uneducated and ill-informed idiots of the Far Left Democratic “Progressive” Party wish to acknowledge the fact, and whether or not those rights are written down in black and white on paper in a document anywhere, it does not make this fact any less true. And in this sense, any license, tax or regulation on the Second Amendment is unConstitutional, since Americans do not possess our natural rights by contract or grant from the federal government. Americans regained and secured their natural rights once upon a time by revolution, and we can do so again.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links as well text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Counterjihadists and Senator Feinstein


Islamorealism NOT Islamophobia

John R. Houk

© January 18, 2014

 

Senator Diane Feinstein is the consummate Left Wing Democrat in the transforming America utopian pipedream that closet Marxists and Socialists dream is on high speed to fruition. To supporters of the U.S. Constitution Feinstein fired-up 2nd Amendment proponents by suggesting legal rules that would make the 2nd Amendment irrelevant without a Constitutional Amendment to make any such change.

 

That being said, if you don’t know by now, I am among other Conservative projects a Counterjihad Blogger. Essentially that means I believe Islam, Quran, Hadith, Sira or whatever; are designed to transform humanity into the Muslim view of deity, theology and way of living. That Muslim agenda must be accomplished by any means necessary. Muslims try peace first, subjugation, oppressive submission and if all else fails – a brutal form of Capital Punishment undoubtedly to set an example to those who would dare oppose Mohammed’s deity they call Allah.

 

Muslim Apologists and Leftist Multiculturalist literally hate people like me. AND so those two groups usually embark a path in the West where Free Speech still exists (but more and more diluted) to discredit Counterjihadists with outright lies about a peaceful Islam according to their Quran followed closely by the venomous accusation of being a racist and bigot.

 

I have no doubts that if a Muslim dedicated to what the Quran, Hadith, Sira or whatever says would kill me for their perception of insulting Islam. Currently I am way-way down the old totem pole of anyone a Muslim would like to silence; ergo no seeks to end my life like more notable Counterjihadists. Here are some names you may or may not recognize AND YET are probably well known among Muslim Apologists (in no particular of relevance but just from the top of my – no pun to give a Muslim any ideas intended):

 

o   Robert Spencer

 

o   Andrew Bostom

 

o   Pamela Geller

 

o   Brigitte Gabriel (Yes I am aware it is a pseudonym) – See Also ACT for America

 

o   Bat Ye’or (Another Pseudonym)

 

o   Geert Wilders

 

o   Bill Warner

 

o   Wafa Sultan

 

o   Ayaan Hirsi Ali

 

o   Ali Sina See Also HERE

 

o   Fjordman (Another pseudonym): Among critics of the Counterjihad Movement – especially in Europe – often heads the list of the false accusation of being a Right Wing, Hate Mongering, Anti-Islam racist and bigot. If you Google his name you will find volumes of vilifying critics. This is especially the case do to a mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik who massacred mostly a bunch of youth in a Norwegian youth camp under the delusion it would inspire Europeans to bring about a New World Order by deporting Muslims. Breivik quoted Fjordman extensively in a delusional Manifesto delineating a movement in his mind to purify Europe and restructure a European government. Left Wing Europeans have used Breivik’s love of Fjordman’s writing to excoriate Counterjihadists as violent Right Wing Extremists.

 

o   Walid Shoebat

 

o   Ibn Warraq

 

o   Nonie Darwish: Youtube Video: ‘Why I Left Islam’: Part ONE & Part TWO

 

I am certain I left someone out. These people are labelled extremists implying the advocacy of racist hatred or violence. The irony is that none of this applies to Counterjihad writers. The sole purpose of Counterjihadists is to shed light on what the Quran really says and exposing the deception involved with Islamic theology to convince non-Muslims to be accepting of Islam.

 

SO ANYWAY I began these thoughts talking about decidedly Left Wing Senator Diane Feinstein. Here is the thing that is remarkably shocking to a Counterjihad writer. The Democrat Leftist from California understands that Fundamentalist Muslims are a threat to the National Security of the United States. Not only has Feinstein identified Radical Islam as the enemy BUT as Chairman Senate Intelligence Committee has released a report that exposes the Obama Administration as negligent on protecting Ambassador Chris Stevens during the Benghazi attack by Islamic Terrorists.

 

I am no admirer of Senator Diane Feinstein but in this case she is awesome.

 

A Brigitte Gabriel email sent via ACT for America sent an email that reminded of this information. Below is that email.

 

 

JRH 1/18/14

Please Support NCCR

*************************************

A Tale of Three Senators

 

By Brigitte Gabriel

Sent: 1/17/2014 11:08 AM

ACT for America

 

In a time where courage is a precious commodity on Capital Hill, a Democratic U.S. Senator has set an admirable example of statesmanship in stark contrast to two of her former colleagues.

Senator Diane Feinstein of California, the Chair of Senate Intelligence Committee has sounded the alarm over the escalating threat from Jihadist terrorism and released a report in the pursuit of the truth about the terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11th, 2012.

Senator Feinstein’s words and deeds stand in stark contrast to those of former Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, the former and current Obama administration Secretaries of State.

Senator Feinstein recently correctly defined our enemies as a “very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community” – in a warning that terrorism is on the rise. During a December 1st interview on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Senator Feinstein noted,

 

I think there is a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community. And that is, that the West is responsible for everything that goes wrong and that the only thing that’s going to solve this, is Islamic sharia law and the concept of the caliphate. And I see more groups, more fundamentalists, more jihadists, more determined to kill to get where they want to get. So, it’s not an isolated phenomenon. You see these groups spread a web of connections. And this includes North Africa, it includes the Middle East, it includes other areas as well.

 

It took great courage for Senator Feinstein to publicly identify the enemy and describe the basics of the doctrine that underpins their actions. She knew full well that her democratic base will be very uncomfortable with her bold truth about a problem that is devastating our country yet no one wants to identify including the president. Her words were like a breath of fresh air. Few Republicans, much less Democrats, on Capitol Hill have done as good a job of articulating the threat we face from Jihad.

Unfortunately, Feinstein’s former colleague, Secretary of State John Kerry, is not nearly as well informed as she is. He has uttered nothing to indicate that he has any grasp of the enemy threat doctrine and what makes our enemies “tick.”

In fact, just this week, Kerry parroted the long-discredited theory that terrorism is caused by poverty. In remarks delivered during a visit to the Vatican, Kerry proclaimed poverty to be the “root cause” of terrorism.

This isn’t the first time Kerry has regurgitated such nonsense. Speaking at the Global Counterterrorism Forum in the wake of the Jihadist terrorist attack on a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, Kerry called for “providing more economic opportunities” for youth to prevent them from being recruited to terrorism.

Perhaps Kerry has forgotten that Osama Bin Laden was a multimillionaire who left a life of luxury in Saudi Arabia to wage global jihad? Or maybe he forgets that the current leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was no pauper either. He was a professor of surgery and practicing physician at one time in his native Egypt before he turned to jihad. Then there is current captive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was well off enough to come to the United States to earn a degree in engineering from North Carolina A&T.

There is no actual evidence that poverty causes terrorism. Jihadist terrorism has its roots in the doctrine known as sharia. Jihadists have come to commit acts of terror from a variety of lifestyles, nationalities and socioeconomic backgrounds. There is no evidence to indicate that poverty is a prerequisite for Jihadist terrorism, despite what Kerry says.

In fact, Kerry’s statement shows a profound confusion and naïveté when it comes to the war with which we are faced. Fortunately, Senator Feinstein doesn’t have the same problem that Secretary Kerry has.

In fact, as Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein has just released a new, bipartisan report on the Jihadist terror attack on US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11th, 2012, that goes a long way toward dispelling some of the myths surrounding that attack and assigning accountability for what went wrong.

Among the report’s findings:

• The attack was NOT a spontaneous act of violence touched off by a protest in reaction to a video about the prophet Mohammed.

• The U.S. government did not do enough to prevent the attack or protect the diplomatic facilities.

• The Obama State Department had ample warning of a dangerous security situation in Benghazi but failed to take proper action to secure lives and property.

• The Obama intelligence community issued statements after the attack that turned out to be wrong and then was slow in correcting those incorrect statements.

Feinstein’s committee’s candid, accurate report is quite different from the testimony before the Senate delivered by Senator Feinstein’s former colleague, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on January 23rd, 2013. Who can forget the shameful prevarications and doublespeak from Hillary Clinton that day?

But worst of all was this cynical and infamous passage:

 

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they would go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

 

Congratulations to Senator Feinstein for identifying the mistakes for which Hillary Clinton was ultimately responsible and laying out the facts for the American people that Benghazi was PREVENTABLE, because to us, it DOES make a difference!

______________________________

Counterjihadists and Senator Feinstein

John R. Houk

© January 18, 2014

______________________________

A Tale of Three Senators

 

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

Assault on the Second Amendment


1st American Rev - Gun Rights

Mark Alexander very, very much defends the Second Amendment.

 

JRH 1/13/13

Please Support NCCR

************************

Assault on the Second Amendment

‘I Will Not Comply’

 

By Mark Alexander

January 10, 2013

The Patriot Post

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” –Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

 

PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Patriots, I call on you to pledge: “We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as ‘endowed by our Creator,’ enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Sign the 2A pledge!

 

Though tens of millions of American Patriots have already said it, the time has come for one of us to go to the mountaintop and shout it so the whole world can hear it.

 

I hereby make this public declaration: In keeping with the oath I have taken in the service of my country, I will “support and defend” Liberty as “endowed by our Creator” and enshrined in our Constitution, “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Accordingly, I will NOT comply with any defensive weapons ban instituted by executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates the innate human right to defend self and Liberty, as empowered by “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

 

What does this mean?

 

I will neither register with, nor surrender to the government, any weapon in my possession. I further declare that I am not in possession of weapon, weapon component or ammunition that has not been lawfully acquired for lawful purposes, including defense of self and family, home and property, and most importantly, defense of Liberty in accordance with the Second Amendment.

 

I have spoken with my family and our Patriot Team about the potential consequences of this public declaration, both for our families and for our company. They fully understand the implications of my very public declaration of civil disobedience in defense of Liberty and Rule of Law. They understand that I have and will abide, first and foremost, by my oath to support and defend our Constitution — the very oath that Barack Obama and his NeoCom cadres have solemnly sworn, but stand in abject violation of same.

 

Since publishing the first issue of The Patriot Post more than 16 years ago, I have made clear that one constitutional prohibition on the central government trumps all others, and that is the proscription against federal infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

 

Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote, in his eminent “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

 

Story was James Madison’s appointee to the High Court, and Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 46, “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

 

Just after Obama’s re-election, I warned that he would attempt to render neutral the only substantive obstacle between Liberty and his avowed political agenda of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” — the Second Amendment.

 

I noted that, per their standard political playbook, the socialists and their Leftmedia promoters would wait on some tragic murder spree, and, in keeping with Obama’s game plan to “never let a serious crisis go to waste,” use that event as fodder to seize guns.

 

A month after writing those words, a mentally deranged sociopath used a firearm to kill children and adults in a Connecticut elementary school. Before the bodies of murdered children had even been removed from Sandy Hook Elementary, Obama was, shamefully, stacking their coffins to use as a soapbox for his latest and greatest assault on the Second Amendment — a renewed effort to not only ban the future sale of many defensive weapons, but register them in order to eventually confiscate them.

 

Obama has framed this debate as a contest between “public safety” and the NRA — those who “cling to guns or religion” — and insists that the Second Amendment was instituted to protect “hunting and sport shooting.” He has called for a so-called “assault weapons” ban — I note “so-called” because it would more accurately be described as a “defensive weapons” because such arms are purchased, first and foremost, for defense not assault.

 

Obama claims, “We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting…” If by “hunting” he means hunting down those who offend Liberty, then he is correct.

 

Some Leftist governors and legislators have already adopted Obama’s “hunting” misinformation memo. New York’s Andrew Cuomo proposed “the toughest assault weapons ban in the nation” this week, asserting, “We respect hunters and sportsmen. This is not taking away peoples’ guns. I own a gun. I own a Remington shotgun. I’ve hunted. I’ve shot. That’s not what this is about. It’s about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles. No one hunts with an assault rifle! No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer!”

 

If, by “risk of high-capacity assault rifles,” he means risk that they might be used for their intended purpose — to defend Liberty against the tyranny of socialist politicos and those who do their bidding — then I understand his concern.

 

The fact is, these weapons, which Obama and his cadres want to eradicate, account for only a tiny fraction of homicides in the U.S. Obama and Biden know that — which is why they have reframed their gun ban rhetoric around saving a few lives rather than many: “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking,” said Biden.

 

According to the FBI’s public safety statistics, almost 10 times as many people are murdered annually with knives, hammers and bare hands than are murdered with the type of weapon used in the Connecticut attack. Furthermore, from the time the Senate first banned so-called “assault weapons” in 1994, through the expiration of that ban in 2004 and to the present day, the number of such weapons held by the people has increased by 2.5 million, while murders have dropped by almost 50 percent. In other words, more guns equate to less crime. But Obama is not one to let hard facts interfere with his sacred socialist agenda.

 

So, why all the focus on so-called “assault weapons” — what is the Left’s real agenda? (That question was rhetorical.)

 

Patriots, this contest is most assuredly not between public safety and the NRA, but between Leftists and Essential Liberty.

 

Benjamin Franklin spoke timeless words to this contest: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In the case of those who would give up Essential Liberty for nothing more than the perception of a little temporary safety with more gun prohibitions, they will, ultimately, lose both.

 

In addition to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s renewed “comprehensive” ban on a long list of defensive weapons, which she plans to reintroduce in two weeks, Obama appointed Joe Biden to be his executive branch lightning rod for this subterfuge.

 

Three weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder, who once suggested “we should really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way,” implied that Obama might use an executive order to undermine the Second Amendment. This week, Joe Biden confirmed that, saying, “The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required. It’s critically important that we act.”

 

On that note, enough is enough.

 

Liberty is “endowed by our Creator,” not determined by executive decree or congressional legislation or judicial diktat. Liberty is an innate human right. It is a gift from God, not from politicians.

 

I have, herein, publicly declared that I will not comply with any executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates our Constitution, or the innate human right to defend self and Liberty. I know that there are tens of millions of Patriots who are, likewise, committed. As our Founders affirmed in the last line of the document codifying their rejection of tyranny: “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

 

Fellow Patriots, I can handle the consequences of my very public declaration of intent to reject Obama’s assault on the Second Amendment. I am not asking you to make the same public commitment, though I know most of you would step up to the line.

 

However, I am asking you to join me in your pledge to affirm: “We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as “endowed by our Creator,” enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

 

Please make that affirmation today and encourage others to do the same.

 

Sign the 2A pledge!

_____________________________

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2013 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”