By John W. Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | April 9, 2018

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”—Benjamin Franklin

The ease with which Americans are prepared to welcome boots on the ground, regional lockdowns, routine invasions of their privacy, and the dismantling of every constitutional right intended to serve as a bulwark against government abuses is beyond unnerving.

I am referring at this particular moment in time to President Trump’s decision to deploy military forces to the border in a supposed bid to protect the country from invading bands of illegal immigrants.

This latest attempt to bamboozle the citizenry into relinquishing even more of their rights is commonly referred to as letting the wolves guard the henhouse.

Never mind that using the U.S. military as a police force constitutes a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Never mind that America’s police have already been transformed into a standing army. Never mind that the borders have always been porous—a fact that the government and its corporate partners profit from greatly when convenient. Never mind that Trump’s infatuation with heavy-handed military and police power could pave the way for far greater threats to our liberties than a few underfed, unemployed migrants entering the country.

We are long past the stage where the government—at any level—abides by restrictions on its powers.

What we are dealing with is a run-away government hyped up on its own power, whose policies are dictated more by paranoia than need.

Watching the state of our nation unravel, I can’t help but think of Nazi Field Marshal Hermann Goering’s remarks during the Nuremberg trials. As Goering noted:

It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

It works the same in every country.

The same propaganda and police state tactics that worked for Adolf Hitler 80 years ago continue to be employed with great success in a post-9/11 America.

We keeping returning to the same sticking point, forced to make the same choice over and over again: essential liberty or temporary safety.

Time and again, we keep sacrificing our liberties for phantom promises of safety.

Whatever the threat to so-called security—whether it’s rumored weapons of mass destruction, school shootings, or alleged acts of terrorism—it doesn’t take much for the American people to march in lockstep with the government’s dictates, even if it means submitting to martial law, having their homes searched, and being stripped of one’s constitutional rights at a moment’s notice.

Moreover, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government.

The lesson is this: once a free people allows the government to make inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny.

This is fast becoming a government that has no respect for the freedom or lives of its citizenry.

Yet there are warning signs we cannot afford to ignore.

First off, there is no such thing as a “border” in the eyes of these military patrols. The entire United States of America has become a Constitution-free zone.

According to journalist Todd Miller, the “once thin borderline of the American past” is “an ever-thickening band, now extending 100 miles inland around the United States—along the 2,000-mile southern border, the 4,000-mile northern border and both coasts… This ‘border’ region now covers places where two-thirds of the US population (197.4 million people) live… The ‘border’ has by now devoured the full states of Maine and Florida and much of Michigan.”

As part of its so-called efforts to keep the nation safe from a host of threats, the U.S. government has declared that ever-expanding border region a Constitution-free zone.

Miller explains:

“In these vast domains, Homeland Security authorities can institute roving patrols with broad, extra-constitutional powers backed by national security, immigration enforcement and drug interdiction mandates. There, the Border Patrol can set up traffic checkpoints and fly surveillance drones overhead with high-powered cameras and radar that can track your movements. Within twenty-five miles of the international boundary, CBP agents can enter a person’s private property without a warrant.”

To recap: 66% of Americans (2/3 of the U.S. population, 197.4 million people) now live within this 100-mile-deep, Constitution-free zone.

That’s a lot of ground to declare off limits to the Constitution.

The result, as Miller notes, “is a permanent, low-intensity state of exception that makes the expanding borderlands a ripe place to experiment with tearing apart the Constitution, a place where not just undocumented border-crossers, but millions of borderland residents have become the targets of continual surveillance.”

Be warned: government agents continue to roam further afield of the so-called border as part of their so-called crackdown on illegal immigration, drugs and trafficking. Consequently, greater numbers of Americans are being subject to warrantless searches, ID checkpoints, transportation checks, and even surveillance on private property.

Second, this de facto standing armythat has been imposed on the American people is in clear violation of the spirit—if not the letter of the law—of the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the government’s ability to use the U.S. military as a police force.

America’s police forces—which look like, dress like, and act like the military—have undeniably become a “standing” or permanent army, one composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband, which is exactly what the Founders feared. With the police increasingly posing as pseudo-military forces—complete with weapons, uniforms, assault vehicles, etc.—a good case could be made for the fact that SWAT team raids, which break down the barrier between public and private property, have done away with this critical safeguard.

Unfortunately, the increasing militarization of the police, the use of sophisticated weaponry against Americans and the government’s increasing tendency to employ military personnel domestically have all but eviscerated historic prohibitions such as the Posse Comitatus Act.

Indeed, there are a growing number of exceptions to which Posse Comitatus does not apply. These exceptions serve to further acclimate the nation to the sight and sounds of military personnel on American soil and the imposition of martial law.

This begs the question: if the borders constitute a Constitution-free zone, who will police those policing our borders and hold them accountable for misconduct and wrongdoing?

We’ve seen what happens to domestic police charged with wrongdoing: they get little more than a slap on the wrist. Just recently, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court shielded a police officer who shot a woman four times in her driveway as she stood talking to a friend while holding a kitchen knife. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged in her dissent in Kisela v. Hughes, “It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished.”

Third, there’s the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency,an arm of the Department of Homeland Security made up of more than 60,000 Customs and Border Protection employees, and supplemented by the National Guard and the U.S. military.

A national police force imbued with all the brutality, ineptitude and corruption such a role implies, the DHS—aptly described as a “wasteful, growing, fear-mongering beast”—has been ruthlessly efficient when it comes to establishing what the Founders feared most: a standing army on American soil.

The third largest federal agency behind the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense, the DHS—with its 240,000 full-time workers, $40 billion budget and sub-agencies that include the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—extends its tentacles into every aspect of American life.

In fact, just about every nefarious deed, tactic or thuggish policy advanced by the government today can be traced back to the DHS, its police state mindset, and the billions of dollars it distributes to police agencies in the form of grants to transform them into extensions of the military: militarizing police, incentivizing SWAT teams, spying on protesters, stockpiling ammunition, distributing license plate readers to police agencies, contracting to build detention camps, tracking cell-phones with Stingray devices, carrying out military drills and lockdowns in American cities, using the TSA to carry out soft target checkpoints, directing government workers to spy on Americans, conducting widespread spying networks using fusion centers, utilizing drones and other spybots, funding city-wide surveillance cameras, and carrying out Constitution-free border control searches.

Finally, there’s this whole question of martial law.

Technically, a good case can be made that the Constitution-free border regions within the United States are already under martial law carried out by a standing army comprised of militarized police and the U.S. military.

Then again, for all intents and perhaps, the American police state is already governed by martial law, is it not? Battlefield tactics. Militarized police. Riot and camouflage gear. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Drones. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Concussion grenades. Intimidation tactics. Brute force. Laws conveniently discarded when it suits the government’s purpose.

This is what martial law looks like, when a government disregards constitutional freedoms and imposes its will through military force, only this is martial law without any government body having to declare it. This is martial law packaged as law and order and sold to the public as necessary for keeping the peace.

It doesn’t matter whether the so-called threats to national security posed by terrorists, extremists or immigrant armies ever became a reality. Once the government acquires—and uses—additional powers, it does not voluntarily relinquish them.

The damage has been done.

For those who can read the writing on the wall, it’s all starting to make sense: the military drills carried out in major American cities, the VIPR inspections at train depots and bus stations, the SWAT team raids on unsuspecting homeowners, the Black Hawk helicopters patrolling American skies, the massive ammunition purchases by various federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the IRS and the Social Security Administration.

Viewed in conjunction with the government’s increasing use of involuntary commitment laws to declare individuals mentally ill and lock them up in psychiatric wards for extended periods of time, the NDAA’s provision allowing the military to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone, including American citizens, only codifies this unraveling of our constitutional framework.

Throw in the profit-driven corporate incentive to jail Americans in private prisons, as well as the criminalizing of such relatively innocent activities as holding Bible studies in one’s home or sharing unpasteurized goat cheese with members of one’s community, and it becomes clear that “we the people” are the real enemies of the state.

We’re the ones in the government’s crosshairs.

That wall being built at the border won’t be just for keeping illegal immigrants out—it’s to keep us trapped within the punishing confines of the American police state.

Our freedoms—willingly relinquished in response to endless scare tactics—have been breached, undermined, and eroded time and time again. We’re being conditioned to this life in a police state.

As for this latest maneuver, it’s just another means of poking a hole in the already-tattered fabric of the Constitution.

In other words, it’s a test to see how hard we will fight to hold onto what remains of our freedoms.

If this is a test, we’re failing abysmally.

Face it: we are sliding fast down a slippery slope to a Constitution-free America.

We’ve been heading in this direction for some time now, but this downward trajectory has picked up speed since Donald Trump became president.

This state of near-lockdown has been helped along by government policies and court rulings that have made it easier for the police to shoot unarmed citizens, for law enforcement agencies to seize cash and other valuable private property under the guise of asset forfeiture, for military weapons and tactics to be deployed on American soil, for government agencies to carry out round-the-clock surveillance, for profit-driven private prisons to lock up greater numbers of Americans, for homes to be raided and searched under the pretext of national security, for American citizens to be labeled terrorists and stripped of their rights merely on the say-so of a government bureaucrat, and for pre-crime tactics to be adopted nationwide that strip Americans of the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty and creates a suspect society in which we are all guilty until proven otherwise.

All of these assaults on the constitutional framework of the nation have been sold to the public as necessary for national security.

Time and again, the public has fallen for the ploy hook, line and sinker.

We’re being reeled in, folks, and you know what happens when we get to the end of that line? We’ll be cleaned, gutted and strung up.

Incredibly, no matter how many times Americans are lied to, cheated, swindled, robbed, manipulated, and doublecrossed, they still keep falling for the government’s tired, thinly disguised ploys to amass more power at the expense of the citizenry.

Remember when George W. Bush claimed the country was being invaded by terrorists post-9/11 and insisted the only way to keep America safe was to give the government and its gun-toting agents greater powers to spy, search, detain and arrest?

The terrorist invasion never really happened, but the government kept its newly acquired police powers made possible by the USA Patriot Act.

Remember when Barack Obama claimed the country was being invaded by domestic terrorists and insisted the only way to keep America safe was to give the military the power to strip Americans of their constitutional rights, label them extremists, and detain them indefinitely without trial?

The invasion never really happened, but the government kept its newly acquired detention powers made possible by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Now you have Donald Trump claiming the country is being invaded by immigrants and insisting that the only way to keep America safe is to empower the military to “assist” with border control.

Mind you, Trump is not the first president to deploy military forces to the border.

Nevertheless, you can rest assured that this latest call for boots on the ground (whether those boots belong to the National Guard or the armed forces is mere semantics) to police the American border is yet another Trojan Horse that will inflict all manner of nasty police state surprises on an unsuspecting populace.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the menace of a national police force—a.k.a. a standing army—vested with the power to completely disregard the Constitution, cannot be overstated, nor can its danger be ignored.

Contributed by John W. Whitehead of where this article was originally published.

John W. Whitehead is a Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at Whitehead can be contacted at


By JD Heyes | Natural News | April 8, 2018

For years Left-wing Democrats have claimed that when it comes to guns and the Second Amendment, they don’t really want to eliminate the right or take away people’s guns.

For the same number of years, conservatives, libertarians, and anyone else focused on preserving the Bill of Rights have known they were lying.

Now, for some reason that defies political realities, many on the Left are tossing aside their facade of “reasonable gun control” and exposing themselves as the gun-grabbers we always knew they were.

As reported by The Free Thought Project, residents of Deerfield, Ill., which is a suburb of Chicago, have less than two months to dispose of their “assault rifles” and high-capacity ammunition magazines or face fines of up to $1,000 per day per gun and, eventually, arrest and jail time.

On April 2 the Village Board of Trustees unanimously approved a ban on certain types of semi-automatic rifles, amending a 2013 ordinance that places regulations on how such weapons were stored.

The Chicago Times reports further:

The new ordinance prohibits the possession, sale, and manufacturing of certain types of assault weapons and large capacity magazines within the village, according to the ordinance. One change from the law as it was originally discussed exempts retired police officers from the ban, according to Village Manager Kent Street.

The gun Nazis on the board said their law is modeled after a similar one passed by nearby Highland Park in 2013. That ban has since survived a legal challenge by a city resident and the Illinois State Rifle Association. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the law was constitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court essentially reaffirmed it by refusing to take the case (which, frankly, is a travesty of justice).

City attorney Matthew Rose said of the new law: “This is not only held constitutional by the Seventh Circuit but similar laws have been ruled constitutional in California, the District of Columbia and Maryland.” (Related: CNN’s Chris Cuomo actually said ‘no one is calling for repeal of Second Amendment’ after his network reported otherwise.)

Well, most modern-day federal judges are obviously not very steeped in the writings of the founding fathers as they pertain to the Second Amendment and the “right to keep and bear arms,” for if they were, the phrase “shall not be infringed” would have real meaning and would thus limit arbitrary efforts to ban instruments of self-defense that are supposed to be protected.

In any event, the new law goes farther than just banning “assault rifles.” It includes any semi-automatic rifle that can accept a magazine with more than 10 rounds of ammunition; shotguns with a revolving cylinder; and semi-auto handguns that can accept large-capacity magazines. Models mentioned specifically include, of course, the AR-15 and AK-47-style rifles, along with Uzi-style weapons.

What never ceases to amaze me is the abject stupidity surrounding these kinds of laws.

The rifles targeted here are rarely used in criminal acts. Like, almost never. The FBI’s own statistics prove that. But because they get the most coverage from the dishonest media, everyone believes they’re the ‘weapon of choice’ for killings.

And why the bullet limit? How is it that the sage, wise Village Board members arrived at 10 as being ‘acceptable?’ Did they hold a seance or something? Did God speak to them and ordain 10 bullets as being ‘enough’ to defend oneself with?

Then, of course, there’s always the reality that criminals don’t give a rat’s you-know-what about laws, they care about victimizing law-abiding citizens.

Which brings me to this point: These kinds of gun-ban laws always punish law-abiding people, but they don’t do anything to punish law-breakers.

Why is that?


Originally published @

J.D. Heyes is editor of The National Sentinel and a senior writer for Natural News and News Target.


By Daisy Luther | Organic Prepper | March 23, 2018

Everyone likes to blame the Democrats for gun control, but here’s a news flash: those of us who fervently believe in the Second Amendment are actually being betrayed by members of the Republican party who are in Congress right now. The budget bill on the table right now would gut the right to bear arms for millions of Americans, it’s already passed the House and Senate, and the Congress is controlled by Republicans.

UPDATE: President Trump, a Republican, has signed the bill which has no funding for his beloved border wall, reduces gun rights, and fully funds Planned Parenthood. Whatever your beliefs on those things, it’s pretty clear that it is not a conservative-friendly bill.

The spending bill that Congress hopes to pass is more than 2200 pages, according to Senator Rand Paul, who was outraged at being given less than a day to read the entire bill. Senator Paul live-tweeted his reading of the bill last night, and it’s a pretty safe bet that nobody else in Congress spent the evening reading it before they voted.

How the spending bill affects our Second Amendment rights

In this budget bill are some insidious things that affect our Second Amendment rights.

The bill revives an Obama-era restriction on firearms for senior citizens.

Just before President Obama left office, his administration finalized new regulations banning Social Security recipients from buying a gun if they have trouble managing their finances.

About 10 percent of all people 65 and older risked being classified as “financially incompetent” – about 4.2 million in all.

Using the Congressional Review Act, Republicans and two Democrats passed a bill overturning the regulation. But the bill did more than that. It also prevents any future president from reinstituting the ban without new legislative authorization from Congress.

Unfortunately, the spending bill passed Thursday allows the ban to be reinstituted because it reauthorizes the 2007 National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act. This act allowed government agencies, not just the courts, to determine if someone is mentally incompetent to buy or possess a gun.

House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said during testimony late Wednesday that he was “disturbed” that the bill would undo part of Republicans’ good work. But by Thursday morning, the House leadership had decided to go ahead with the measure. (source)

And that’s not all.

The bill funnels $50 million dollars into strict anti-gun organizations, namely the STOP School Violence Act, designed by the Sandy Hook Promise, which advocates extreme gun control.

At the same time, the bill forbids the use of federal money for arming and training school staff. That’s right – our tax dollars will be put to work against us. And representatives that are supposed to be pro-gun are allowing it to happen.

Finally, the bill will authorize the CDC to research “gun violence.” But the CDC has been allowed to research this for years, despite what you see to the contrary from the MSM. In 1996, the Dickey provision prohibited the CDC from using government funds to advocate or promote gun control.” There is no such provision in the current bill.

It isn’t just Democrats who are passing this bill.

This bill has passed the House by a vote of 256-167.  The breakdown in the House of Representatives is 238 Republicans and 192 Democrats. If the Republicans were truly looking after our gun rights, as they like to advertise, this bill wouldn’t have passed the House.

In the wee hours, it went before the Senate, where 60 votes were needed to pass it.  The Senate has 51 Republicans and 47 Democrats, and the bill was passed by a vote of 65-32.

In short, the “pro-gun” Republicans have betrayed their constituents yet again. Way to go, Republicans.

The President will most likely sign it according to White House budget director Mick Mulvaney.

“In order to get the defense spending primarily, (and) all the rest of our priorities funded, we had to give away a lot of stuff that we didn’t want to give away,” Mulvaney said. (source)

And that’s not all.

The spending in this bill is truly obscene. You’d think an American budget would be focused on American interests, right?

Senator Paul tweeted these highlights lowlights.


Here are the Republican representatives who voted against this bill. If your representatives are not on this list, you’ve been betrayed by someone promising to represent you who voted for laws he or she probably didn’t even read:

• Rep. Ralph Abraham

• Rep. Rick W. Allen

• Rep. Justin Amash

• Rep. Brian Babin

• Rep. Joe Barton

• Rep. Jack Bergman

• Rep. Andy Biggs

• Rep. Rob Bishop

• Rep. Diane Black

• Rep. Marsha Blackburn

• Rep. Rod Blum

• Rep. Dave Brat

• Rep. Mo Brooks

• Rep. Ken Buck

• Rep. Ted Budd

• Rep. Mike Coffman

• Rep. James Comer

• Rep. Carlos Curbelo

• Rep. John Curtis

• Rep. Warren Davidson

• Rep. Jeff Denham

• Rep. Ron DeSantis

• Rep. Scott DesJarlais

• Rep. Jeff Duncan

• Rep. John Duncan

• Rep. Tom Emmer

• Rep. Blake Farenthold

• Rep. Matthew Gaetz

• Rep. Tom Garret

• Rep. Greg Gianforte

• Rep. Louie Gohmert

• Rep. Paul Gosar

• Rep. Garret Graves

• Rep. Morgan Griffith

• Rep. Glen Grothman

• Rep. Andy Harris

• Rep. Jody B. Hice

• Rep. Clay Higgins

• Rep. George Holding

• Rep. Trey Hollingsworth

• Rep. Mike Johnson

• Rep.  Jim Jordan

• Rep. Trent Kelly

• Rep. Mike Kelly

• Rep. Steve King

• Rep. Congressman Raúl Labrador

• Rep. Darin LaHood

• Rep. Doug LaMalfa

• Rep. Bob Latta

• Rep. Billy Long

• Rep. Barry Loudermilk

• Rep. Mia Love

• Rep. Thomas Massie

• Rep. Brian Mast

• Rep. Tom McClintock

• Rep. Mark Meadows

• Rep. Alex Mooney

• Rep. Markwayne Mullin

• Rep. Dan Newhouse

• Rep. Kristi Noem

• Rep. Ralph Norman

• Rep. Gary Palmer

• Rep. Steve Pearce

• Rep. Scott Perry

• Rep. Ted Poe

• Rep. Bill Posey

• Rep. John Ratcliffe

• Rep. Tom Reed

• Rep. Jim Renacci

• Rep. Tom Rice

• Rep. Dana Rohrabacher

• Rep. Todd Rokita

• Rep.Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

• Rep. Keith Rothfus

• Rep. David Rouzer

• Rep. Steve Russell

• Rep. Mark Sanford

• Rep. David S. Schweikert

• Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner

• Rep. Jason Smith

• Rep. Lloyd Smucker

• Rep. Chris Stewart

• Rep. Mark Walker

• Rep. Randy Weber

• Rep. Daniel Webster

• Rep. Bruce Websterman

• Rep. Roger Williams

• Rep. Ted Yoho

• Rep. Lee Zeldin

I’ll update with the Senators when I can find the list.

If you voted Republican to protect your 2A rights, you were betrayed.

The long and the short of this?

• Who you vote for doesn’t matter.

• Having more Republicans than Democrats in Congress doesn’t matter.

• Our system is broken, and what you think about it doesn’t matter.

As long as our government passes bills with thousands of pages instead of single item bills, the public will continue to be betrayed and deceived. Those who believe that voting Republican will ensure their continued right to protect themselves have been deceived and until we refuse to keep putting these people in office who are there to serve themselves, not their constituencies, we will continue losing our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.

How is voting for the “lesser of two evils” working out for you?

What if we opted not to put any kind of evil in office, not just the lesser one? What if we opted to put the best of our country in positions of power, not just the less horrible of our country?

When are we going to say that we’ve had enough? At the rate we’re going, probably when it’s already too late and our corrupt system has enslaved us to the point that rebellion is futile.

The mainstream media is acting like Senator Rand Paul is a lunatic who is determined to shut down the government, but in reality, Senator Paul seems to be one of the only people in Washington DC who performing his due diligence.

Write to your local Senators and call their offices. (Find the contact info here.) Demand that they vote no on this spending bill.  We have to stop passing policies that haven’t even been read by those voting on them. Lawmaking should not be a game of “Let’s Make a Deal.”

Government shutdowns have happened before and they’re mostly theater. We’ve been perfectly fine without them.

Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging, gun-toting, homeschooling blogger who writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, and the pursuit of liberty on her website, The Organic Prepper where this article was originally published.


Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | February 26, 2018

If those questioning the media’s “official narrative” of the events of the Florida school shooting needed any more evidence that they are on the right track, they’ve just gotten it. YouTube and Twitter are now scrubbing users who dare to question the student’s demanding gun control and the media’s account of the school shooting.

According to Natural News, starting a few days ago, both Twitter and YouTube began scrubbing all videos and tweets that don’t follow the “official narrative” on the Florida school shooting. Anyone who questions the wisdom of the school students-turned-propagandists (who were all probably eating Tide pods a week ago) is immediately banned and silenced with censorship. Only one side of this “debate” is allowed to exist: The side that worships the government and demands that all law-abiding Americans surrender their self-defense firearms because a group of traumatized school kids were shot at by their own lunatic classmate.

Online platforms that once hosted conversations and debates are now nothing more than crazy liberal echo chambers of cognitive illiteracy combined with demanded obedience toward the government. All of these left-wing extremist tech companies have now decided to crush the speech of their political opponents and transform the entire internet into a totalitarian bubble of barely functioning idiots who literally believe that school children should not be protected by armed citizens.

On Wednesday, Twitter Safety released a statement regarding the Parkland students. Anyone “harassing” (disagreeing with) the Parkland students demanding your disarmament will be banned. Twitter also said that they are using “anti-abuse tools to weed out malicious automation around these individuals and the topics they are raising.” According to Natural News, in other words, if you dare question or refute anything these teenagers say, you risk being banned from the platform. How dare you question the wisdom of children who didn’t know last week that eating Tide pods is dangerous, but have now decided what kind of gun laws you need to be regulated by.

Twitter Safety tweeted: We are actively working on reports of targeted abuse and harassment of a number of survivors of the tragic mass shooting in #Parkland. Such behavior goes against everything we stand for at Twitter, and we are taking action on any content that violates our terms of service.

“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”― George R.R. MartinA Clash of Kings

Contributed by Mac Slavo of where this article was originally published.


President Donald Trump is already on board with banning bump stocks.  Now, he is willing to have conversations to see where changes to current unconstitutional, unlawful and illegal current laws regarding limiting a right of the people can be or might be made.

Suzanne Hammer | Freedom Outpost | February 22, 2018

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, Constitution for the united States of America.

There has been no other God-given individual unalienable right that has garnered more opposition than the right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to defend themselves to preserve their life and liberty and defend against a tyrannical government.  Some citizens of this republic argue this “right” only applies to those in the militia despite the Militia Act of 1792 declaring citizens are the militia, particularly male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45.  These individuals cannot understand the God-given individual unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, whether against criminals or a tyrannical government, protects all other rights bestowed by God.

It becomes more disconcerting when a spokesman for the executive branch declares “we haven’t closed the doors on any front” when asked about infringing upon the right of the people recognized, guaranteed, and protected by the Second Amendment.

During Tuesday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked about a proposed “assault weapons” ban and said, “We haven’t closed the door on any front.”

NPR’s Mara Liasson asked, “In 2000 [President Trump] did support an ‘assault weapons’ ban. What is his position now?” She followed her own question by asking if President Trump supports “reinstating” the 1994-2004 federal “assault weapons” ban.

CNN reported that Sanders responded by saying, “I don’t have any specific announcements, but we haven’t closed the door on any front.”

Sanders went on to say “the next several days and weeks” will witness conversations on where changes in current laws might be made.

She said Trump is specifically supportive of making background checks “more efficient.”

On February 20, Breitbart News reported that Trump directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to finalize plans to ban bump stocks. The details of the ban–whether it might include a grandfather clause–are not yet known.

President Donald Trump is already on board with banning bump stocks.  Now, he is willing to have conversations to see where changes to current unconstitutional, unlawful and illegal current laws regarding limiting a right of the people can be or might be made.  Didn’t Trump tweet about the failure of Democrats to pass any additional unconstitutional “gun control” laws when holding the majority in both chambers of Congress and having a Democrat as president?  Yes, he did.  But, anti-constitutionalists want to blame Republicans for the lack of gun control and weapons bans.

Did he also not call out Democrats as not wanting to take a stand to implement any kind of gun control measures?  Yes, it was Trump.  Again, anti-constitutionalists blame the NRA, Republicans and law-abiding gun owners for the lack of gun control, weapons bans and gun confiscations.  However, Democrats were not interested in tackling much of the citizenry that supports upholding the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment.

Where in the Constitution does it give authority to a president to “ban” or issue orders to legislate any “ban” on arms, accessories for arms, etc.?  Nowhere.  Where in the Constitution does it give authority to Congress to regulate, ban or confiscate arms?  Nowhere.   Regardless of the political party, the Constitution for the united States of America, as the supreme law of the land, gives zero authority for any government to regulate, ban or confiscate firearms.  Yet, Trump is pulling a Motel 6, using the open door instead of a light, where contemplation of violating the Second Amendment is concerned.  He’s done it with bump stocks so the jump to other unconstitutional actions is not far behind.

How quickly one who is elected to office forgets his campaign platform, even when placed on the World Wide Web for all to review and reference using internet searches.  Trump claimed in his campaign platform regarding the Second Amendment:

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.

The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. Here’s how we will do that:

Trump claimed he would support enforcing the laws on the books and “get serious” about prosecuting criminals.  He recognized a program called Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia where individuals using a gun in the commission of a crime was prosecuted in federal court as a felon and served a prison term of five years without early release or parole should the individual be found guilty.  Trump went on to recognize that law-abiding citizens are blamed when criminals commit crimes using guns.  He purported to support empowering law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves in an effort to fight crime, stating personal protection is up to the citizen.

He claimed the united States mental health system is broken and vowed to work to fix it, despite the authority to fix the mental health system not being listed in the Constitution as a power of the federal government.  Again, he recognized that law-abiding gun owners are blamed for mentally ill individuals who use guns to commit acts of violence and admitted none of the solutions proposed by politicians would have prevented such tragedies.  Moreover, no individual has to be mentally ill to commit an act of evil;  some people just have evil hearts and intentions.

In his campaign platform, he called gun and magazine bans failures. His platform stated, “Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them.  So, the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners.”   Moreover, he stated to support a “national right to carry,” which if anyone wants to get technical is already contained in the Second Amendment.

The question is, “who wrote that for Trump?”  His campaign platform appears to have been written to counter Hillary Clinton, who supports gun confiscation, in order to secure his election.  If he truly believes any of what is contained in his campaign platform, he would not “instruct” Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “finalize plans to ban bump stocks.”

Now, in the wake of the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting, it seems the doors are open on all fronts regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  If a door is not closed, it’s open.  Any current law infringing upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms, even background checks, are unconstitutional and unlawful.  Therefore, any change to any current law would also be unconstitutional.  Moreover, if left to the unconstitutional Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, citizens could see current “pseudo-laws” expanded that might call for “bans” and confiscation of a particular style of firearm.

Despite any Supreme Court decision upholding the Second Amendment in full, the government only recognizes and abides by those decisions that support its agenda – it ignores all others.  And, the government, particularly politicians who believe citizens should not be armed, will use anything and anyone to support their agenda to enact gun control and confiscation.

The Congress, in the immigration laws, legislated authority to the president to prohibit immigration of individuals upon national security concerns.  Yet, Trump’s administration cowed to a federal judge’s order, not the Supreme Court, to violate the law concerning DACA illegal aliens and immigration of individuals from nations posing national security concerns.  Trump is waffling on his campaign platform regarding illegal alien invaders, meaning it would be no surprise if he waffled on his Second Amendment stance.

YouTube videographer “Mind of Jamal” uploaded two videos, which can be viewed here and here, addressing the call for gun control, bans of weapons, and the shamelessness of the lamestream enemedia in using the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting to further an agenda.  While not agreeing with everything contained in the videos – specifically, politicians upholding what their constituents believe instead of upholding the Constitution and honoring their oath of office and our government being a democracy as examples, he does make good points prompting one to think.

Suzanne Hamner (pen name) is a registered nurse, grandmother of 4, and a political independent residing in the state of Georgia, who is trying to mobilize the Christian community in her area to stand up and speak out against tyrannical government, invasion by totalitarian political systems masquerading as religion and get back to the basics of education.

Originally published @ Freedom Outpost