Why Gun Control is Fraud

The second Amendment does not grant the right to own guns. It recognized the pre existing right.
“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.”

The American Revolutionary War was fought in large part because the Brittish tried to disarm Americans.

The American Revolutionary War was fought and won because private citizens owned multiple ships outfitted with multiple rows of cannons that could be granted letters of marque and reprisal, which is to say, legal permission, to attack foreign nation ships and steal their cargo.

More people have died in the 20th Century from their governments first disarming them, and then slaughtering their own people, about 200 million people killed, more than any other source, except possibly death by modern medicine.

I believe all “gun free zones” should be abolished because they are unconstitutional, and that they trample on the civil rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

I believe that a private business that is open to the public must give service to people who are carrying weapons, because private businesses are licenced by the government, and are not allowed to discriminate against people based on sex, color or religion, and it is also a civil right, and religious command to carry weapons for self defense and for those who cannot defend themselves.

I believe that when people call the police to report “a person with a gun” that the police should arrest the caller for reporting a non crime, and/or for trying to convert a civil right into a crime.

I believe “concealed carry” laws infringe on the people’s right to keep arms, and that “brandishing” laws infringe on the people’s right to bear arms. Simple assaut laws should be sufficient to prevent people from engaging in brandishing type behavior which would include threats. If no threat (assault) is made, then there is no crime.

People are being disarmed every day in America simply through the process of a restraining order. If anyone lies and makes up an event where you threatened them, as people tend to do if they get caught threatening you they will quickly resort to this kind of false accusation, then you will lose your right to own a gun as most restraining orders are granted. These are federal laws. 
https://family.findlaw.com/domestic-violence/firearms-and-domestic-violence.html

There are 2-3 million temporary restraining orders issued each year, more than the 2 million babies being born each year.

Source: http://www.saveservices.org/2017/11/basic-facts-and-statistics-about-restraining-order-abuse-in-divorce-and-custody-disputes/

Almost all restraining orders applied for, are granted, because judges like to “err on the side of caution”.

At this rate, eventually everyone will no longer have any right to keep and bear arms.

I believe that politicians who propose gun control laws, and I believe those politicians who have voted for gun control laws, and that police who enforce gun control laws, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for civil rights violations.

One of the best organizations that I have found that advocates for gun rights is:
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://jpfo.org/

Please share this.

Dayton Shooter Was A Pro-Satan Leftist Who Supported Warren, Sanders, Antifa And Communism

It has been a tumultuous weekend for the country, which suffered two consecutive mass shootings over the last 48 hours in both El Paso and Dayton.

And while the media was eager to quickly expose the El Paso shooter as a right-wing extremist with the implication that he is merely following Trump's belligerent rhetoric, only few details had emerged about the Dayton, Ohio shooter although we certainly understand why the mainstream media may not have rushed to make these alleged details public - because according to Heavy.com, the Dayton shooter was an Elizabeth Warren (and Bernie Sanders) supporter who advocated for socialism, communism and supported Antifa.  (more)

Please share this.

8chan: Another Mass Shooting, Another Internet Purge

This is the third “mass casualty event” in less than a year that was immediately followed up by censorship of the internet...

Last year, after the shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue, the new social-media platform Gab was attacked in the press and bullied off the internet.

Earlier this year, following the Christ Church mosque attack, New Zealand briefly totally blocked access to several websites.

Yesterday, two men allegedly killed 30 people at a store in Dayton Ohio, and a mall in El Paso Texas.
Today 8chan has been totally shut down.

If you don’t know what 8chan is, well it’s like 4chan but without the sense of decency. If you don’t know what 4chan is, it’s like reddit went off its medication.

Both places could be, can be, kinda gross. But they could – can – also be amazing. Insightful. Useful. Free speech is like that. Sometimes beautiful, sometimes ugly. If you cut off the ugly parts it’s not “free speech” anymore. This is something we all know, but the media is trying to force us to forget.

The boot-licking justification of this move was, of course, spear-headed by The Guardian: 8chan: the far-right website linked to the rise in hate crimes

The hand-wringers and pearl-clutchers in the media are happy to pretend this is about “hate” and “safety”, which is obviously not true.

Take the thrust of the Guardian article:

8chan...why is a website linked to such a high death count allowed to exist on the open internet?

Wouldn’t this question be better asked of www.cia.gov?
Or maybe one of these…

www.defense.gov
www.lockheedmartin.com
www.army.mil
www.mi5.uk

Hell, going by this absurd definition of “death count” – meaning, apparently, “someone who allegedly posted there, allegedly committed a crime” – then all Facebook and twitter have staggering “death counts”.

Known war criminals use twitter every single day.

The alleged Christ Church shooting was live-streamed on Facebook (but it was 8chan that got blocked).

The Guardian itself published an opinion piece, a week ago, written by Alastair Campbell. A man with a body count 50,000x higher than the Texas shooting. That’s an El Paso every day for 137 years.
This isn’t about hate, they’re fine with hate. This isn’t about blood, they love blood.

8chan was no more hateful or bloody than any website on that list, so what was the real problem with it?

It was anonymous, fringe and uncontrollable.
It was free. Now it’s not. Any one of us could be next.

Please share this.

Did UK Gov't Conspire to Elect Pope Francis ?

by Dr. Maike Hickson
Catherine Pepinster, the former editor-in-chief of the British Catholic weekly, The Tablet, published two years ago a book in which she claims that the British Foreign Office may have played an important role in the 2013 papal election that resulted in Pope Francis' election. Based on many interviews with key figures such as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and the British Ambassador to the Holy See, Nigel Baker, she claims that the UK “played a crucial role in the election of the Argentinian destined to shake up the Catholic Church.” 

In her 2017 book The Keys and the Kingdom. The British and the Papacy from John Paul II to Francis, Pepinster deals with the growing relations between Rome and England over the course of several decades, especially also in light of the history of the Reformation and the particular situation of Catholics in England.

Pepinster sees that, with the election of Pope Francis, a new sort of relationship is developing. She states that “Britons have more influence in Rome today than they ever have done before in the last 100 years.”

The reason as to why the British government would take interest in the election of a new pope is also explained by the author. She quotes here Nigel Baker, the Ambassador to the Holy See, who said in 2014: “We have an embassy to the Holy See because of the extent of the Holy See soft power network, the influence of the pope, and the global reach and perspective of papal diplomacy focused on preserving and achieving peace, on the protection of the planet, and on bringing people out of poverty.”

Pepinster recounts in her book how the British government, through the person of the British ambassador to the Holy See, was instrumental in setting up a meeting where key cardinals networked with lesser-known cardinals to promote Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio for pope.

Calling Bergoglio's election a "very British coup," Pepinster's work suggests that a secular power was involved in the election of a pope.

Pepinster writes that already under Pope Benedict XVI, there was a time of “consolidation for the relationship between the British and the papacy.”

“That growing connection between the papacy and the United Kingdom,” she adds, “was in many ways a recognition of the usefulness of the two entities' own global networks. It is worth examining next how, in March 2013, one occasion did bring these networks together to such dramatic and significant effect that it would change the Catholic Church's course of history.”

Let us now examine how the British were to a certain extent involved in the election of Pope Francis, a man “who would shake up not only the Catholic Church but its relations with the world, and who would try to reshape the institution of the papacy itself.”

First looking back at the 2005 election of Pope Benedict, Pepinster quotes a Tablet article from that time which pointed out that the cardinals who had come from less important and wealthy countries had been left out of the private meetings of cardinals that are traditionally used as means of building an opinion as to who the next Pope should be. The Tablet then wrote that “some [cardinals], especially from the developing world, were living at the outskirts of the city and had no entourage, let alone press secretaries”; they therefore “would have been unaware of the intimate gatherings of cardinals over whiskies or quiet lunches to discuss strategies for the forthcoming election.” 

Without naming names, Pepinster goes on to describe how, in 2013, “there was concern that the developing world cardinals could be left on the sidelines again,” since they do not have at their disposal their own countries' embassies in Rome which they could use for receptions or for dinners. 

Further describing the situation in 2013 after Pope Benedict's resignation, the author says that “factions had already opened up” among the cardinals, with the curial cardinals being split into two camps – one in favor of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the other in support of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.

“Meanwhile,” she continues, “four leading European cardinal reformers – Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Walter Kasper, Godfried Danneels and Karl Lehmann, all of whom were thought to have backed Jorge Bergoglio in the 2005 conclave – realized that these splits afforded them an opportunity.” They had supporters for their cause among Latin American and some influential Europeans voters, she explains. 

Pepinster quoted papal biographer Austen Ivereigh and his statement that there were 11 African and 10 Asian cardinals, and that “for the ones from historically English-speaking nations, the British cardinal, Murphy-O'Connor, was a reference point, and key to bringing them onside.”

“This is where the UK made a substantial contribution to the run-up to the 2013 conclave,” writes Pepinster.

Conversations among people in senior positions in the Church in London and Rome led to the realization that there was a major overlap between the developing world and the British Commonwealth. Where better to host a gathering for the cardinals who had no real base than the UK embassy to the Holy See?
The idea that the British could provide a meeting place for the cardinals from emerging nations and also use such an event as a networking opportunity for people from the Commonwealth was put to the UK ambassador Nigel Baker, who then discussed it with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. It led to a reception on behalf of the British government for cardinals from Commonwealth nations that took place at the ambassador’s residence at the Palazzo Pallavincini.

Pepinster does not state who had this idea in the first place and when this reception specifically took place, but Gerard O'Connell's book on this conclave states that it took place on March 7, with Cardinal Gracias and Turkson also present.

Noteworthy here is that, by means of this meeting, the UK government helped Murphy-O'Connor to organize those cardinal electors from poorer countries who might have been otherwise left out from any more organized preparation of the 2013 conclave that ended up electing Pope Francis. Two conservative English-speaking cardinals – Cardinal George Pell, as well as Cardinal Marc Ouellet – were significantly left out of that meeting at the British embassy.

“The most significant guest” at that gathering was, according to the book author, Murphy-O'Connor. Even though he was too old to be able to vote at the conclave, this British cardinal “had a highly significant role to play that night at the Palazzo Pallavicini,” Pepinster explains. And since another cardinal from the UK, Scotland's Keith O'Brien, did not participate at the conclave due to the scandals surrounding him, the UK had only one cardinal – Sean Brady of Northern Ireland – in that conclave.
To return to that fateful gathering in the embassy, “the focus was on those from the poorer nations,” according to Pepinster. “Quite what Murphy-O'Connor said to the cardinals that night is not known.” As Baker told Pepinster, at some point he had left the room to leave the “cardinal to it.” At some point in the evening, the waiting staff also left the room, thus enabling the cardinal “to have a few minutes of totally confidential chat with the red hats from the south.”

Describing the outcome of that March 12-13 conclave, Pepinster points out that Jorge Bergoglio had finally been elected by 115 cardinals, eighty of which came from Europe and North America. She continues: “The other thirty-five were from the rest of the world; left out in the cold during the lobbying in 2005, a sizeable number had been drawn into the process far more effectively in 2013, thanks to the Foreign Office and an English cardinal who understood both Rome and Jorge Bergoglio.”

If Pepinster's account implies here that a foreign government had a role to play in the election of a pope, this should justly cause concern. This report certainly should lead to further inquiries also as to the involvement of British foreign intelligence assets.

She continues, saying that even though the UK had at the time merely one voting cardinal at the conclave, thus seeming to have been “banished to the sidelines,” it played nevertheless “a crucial role in the election of the Argentinian destined to shake up the Catholic Church with his drive for reform and his peacemaking.” Pepinster insists on this point by additionally quoting Tim Fischer, the former Australian ambassador to the Holy See, who stated: “The British influence on the conclave was against all the odds, yet it happened. That was down to one of the most capable cardinals I've ever met – Cormac Murphy-O'Connor – playing the most powerful non-voting role in the choosing of a pope I've ever known.”

Moreover, Catherine Pepinster told the British Telegraph in 2017: “Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor was a popular, genial man but beneath his jovial exterior was someone of great canniness who knew exactly how the Vatican worked. And that canniness meant he ensured his friend was elected Pope Francis – a pope who has made a huge impact on the Catholic Church and the world. There have been kingmakers in history; Cormac Murphy-O’Connor turned out to be a popemaker.”

Or, as Pope Francis himself put it a few months after his election and during a papal audience with Murphy-O'Connor present: The pope pointed to his old friend and said, “You’re to blame!”

Please share this.

How Justin Trudeau Lost His Rock-Star Popularity

Justin Trudeau did little wrong in his supporters’ eyes during his first three years as Canada’s prime minister. In the fourth, his popularity has dropped so far his party may lose its majority in October elections.

A secretly taped call is one reason why. Just before Christmas, Canadian Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould turned on her iPhone voice recorder for a call with the country’s top bureaucrat, Michael Wernick. Mr. Trudeau and senior officials had already pressed her and her chief aide 20 times in calls, messages and in person to let a major Canadian firm avoid a criminal trial on bribery and fraud charges. She had resisted.

On the phone, Mr. Wernick said the company, SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., was considering selling itself or moving abroad, and Mr. Trudeau believed it should be given the chance to negotiate an out-of-court settlement.  (more)


Please share this.