By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | January 22, 2019

In the America of today social justice warriors virtue signaling their tolerance for others have been repeatedly and quite often exposed for the bigots, sexists, and racists that they really are.

Take, for example, the following video provided by Brandon Farley via his Twitter page, in which a food cart lady parked at the PDX Women’s March in the hyper-tolerant city of Portland this past weekend refused service to an individual requesting a meal reportedly based on the fact that he is a male.

Tolerance at its finest.

You won’t see this one in the mainstream media because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

Misandrists – or man haters – are not vilified or abhorred like a teenage kid with a red hat smiling during the drumming of a traditional Native America tune, but rather, are defended and raised to 15-minute celebrity status among the very peers who call for death sentences against anyone who disagrees with their oft extreme and skewed personal belief systems.

This, right here, is the hypocrisy of the modern day social justice warrior, and though we don’t see the complete incident because the preceding moments have not been made available, it sure does appear to be a case of refusal of service based on a bias on the part of the lady working the cart:

If we’re not mistaken, it is against Federal Law to discriminate against a person because of their race or sex.


Contributed by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com


SHARE:

By Jose Nino | Mises Institute | Dec. 26, 2018

Is gun confiscation coming to Congress?

The 2018 midterm elections produced a split Congress with Democrats gaining control of the House and Republicans gaining seats in the Senate.

The chattering DC classes are already speculating about the Democrats’ plans to subpoena Trump’s tax records and Senate Republicans’ moves to consolidate their hold of the federal judiciary. But amid the DC gossip, a new threat is being overlooked—red flag gun confiscation orders.

The Guardian detailed House Democrats’ desire to pass gun control legislation in the upcoming Congress:

“Ted Deutch, a Democratic congressman from Florida who represents Parkland, where a February school shooting left 17 dead, said this week that he expected House Democrats to focus on bills with more bipartisan support. Those measures included bump stock bans and “extreme risk protection orders”, also known as red flag laws, which give law enforcement and family members a way to petition a court to temporarily bar an unstable person from buying or owning guns.”

With the cries for gun control growing stronger, the federal government may finally give in to public pressure to “do something.” Red flag laws might just be the “come together” moment establishment politicians have been looking for.

What Are Red Flag Laws?

Red flag laws or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are the euphemistic label for the gun control push du jure blazing across the nation. Under red flag laws, law enforcement has the ability to confiscate an individual’s firearms who is deemed a threat to themselves or others. A simple accusation from a family member, friend, or associate will suffice to seize someone’s firearms.

These laws, mind you, operate in complete violation of due process. Individuals can take their accusers to court, even though the defendant in question has never been charged with or convicted of a crime. Additionally, the defendant could have their weapons confiscated without even so much as a hearing a before a judge. It could take months before a gun owner would have to appear in court to win back his gun rights.

Thirteen states currently have red flag laws on the books, with dozens more filing their own versions. What started out as a state-level movement may have some legs at the federal level. Although it’s true that Congressional Democrats are making gun control a major theme of their legislative agenda, it’s naïve to think red flag laws are only relevant because of “gun-grabbing” Democrats have taken power.

As we’ll see below, red flag laws have a history of bipartisan support. And when any piece of legislation has Democrats and Republicans locking arms in agreement, you know trouble lies ahead.

The Gun Control Bipartisan Status Quo

Despite the passionate campaign rhetoric, a significant portion of Republican politicians will change colors on gun rights once in DC. Several GOP members in the upcoming Congress stick out like a sore thumb when it comes to their gun control advocacy:

Lindsay Graham:  The South Carolina Senator already introduced a red flag bill earlier this year. With the 116th Congress right around the corner, Graham will likely reach across the aisle with Democrat colleagues to move red flag legislation forward. Graham has opined that red flag legislation is the “place where we begin a long-overdue discussion about firearms and mental health. But we must start.”

Marco Rubio: Following the Parkland shootings, Rubio joined the gun control chorus by sponsoring a red flag bill along with Democrat Senators Joe Manchin, Bill Nelson, & Jack Reed. Rubio has even flirted with the idea of regulations on magazine clips, raising the minimum age to buy certain firearms like AR-15s, and tweaking the current background check system.

Mitt Romney: The incoming Utah Senator has an anti-gun record as Governor of Massachusetts. As Governor, Romney signed an assault weapons ban into law in 2004. In political fashion, Romney obscured his anti-gun act by turning to pro-Second Amendment platitudes during both of his presidential runs in 2008 and 2012. In a 2007 statement, Romney expressed that he does not “support any new gun laws including any new ban on semi-automatic firearms.” Nevertheless, the fallout from the recent Parkland shooting has made Romney reconsider the validity of enhanced background checks.

Rick Scott: Former Governor of Florida and Florida’s new Senator, Rick Scott poses an interesting threat to gun rights. Despite his ostensibly pro-gun rhetoric, Scott signed SB 7026 Florida’s most expansive gun control measure in recent history. Pressured by the outrage from the Parkland School shooting, Scott’s SB 7026 contains red flag provisions, raises the age to buy a firearm to 21, and imposes a three-day waiting period for all firearms purchases.

Trump Administration: Even the Executive branch is joining in on the red flag craze. The Trump Administration’s Commission on School Safety recently released a report recommending red flag laws as a means to “address school safety and violence.” It’s only a matter of time before legislation is introduced in either chamber of Congress now that the Trump administration has endorsed red flag laws.

Even Larry Hogan, the Republican Governor of Maryland, kowtowed to anti-gun pressure. On April 24, 2018, Hogan signed a series of gun bills, one which included a red flag law. In October, the first month Maryland’s red flag law went into effect, there were 114 requests to confiscate individuals’ firearms.

Maryland’s red flag law has not been without its fair share of controversy. At 5 a.m on Monday, November 5, two police officers came knocking on 61-year-old Gary Willis’ door to serve him a court order mandating that he turn over his guns. What seemed like a typical court order, quickly turned deadly as one of the cops shot and killed Willis in a struggle that ensued. Quick to defend one of his own, Anne Arundel County Police Chief Timothy Altomare defended the cops’ action by callously claiming that they “did the best they could with the situation they had.”

Anti-Gun Ideology is Growing

The tragic incident in Maryland is an ominous sign of what is to come should red flag laws gain more traction.

Whether or not Republicans will support Congressional iterations of Red Flag laws is anyone’s guess. The bigger problem at hand is an ideological one. When society’s ideological compass is off, government transgressions can come at any time. The passage of red flag laws could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

More than a century’s worth of Progressivism has normalized universalist ideas such as economic controls, big spending, never-ending wars, and now, gun control. Misguided conservatives can debate ad infinitum on the forums or their talk radio shows about how certain Republicans “sell out” or betray their movement.

This, however, ignores how selling out—rubber stamping big government, embracing globalism, and embarking on nation-building—has been the standard operating procedure for many conservatives throughout the last century. Gun rights will be no different.

Gun owners will need to de-program and recognize that decentralization, not the winner-take-all electoral slugfest we see at the federal level every 4 years, is the best way in securing their gun rights.


This report was originally published by José Niño at the Mises Institute

Jose Nino is a Venezuelan-American political activist based in Fort Collins, Colorado. Contact: twitter or email him here.


SHARE:

By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | December 13, 2018

One California Democrat has finally admitted what we all knew, that politicians in government want to end free speech permanently. Representative Ted Lieu said he would “love to be able to regulate the content of speech” during an interview Wednesday.

Lieu admitted that the only reason the government hasn’t punished people for free speech yet is the first amendment.  It seems like the United States government and the die-hard statists that vote for these Communists have learned nothing from the Nazis or the Soviet Union.  Violently controlling speech (which is exactly what regulation of speech would be) is one of the most egregious of human rights violations.

According to The Free Beacon, Lieu got a lot of attention a day earlier when Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Pichai took to assailing conservative claims of the tech giant’s bias against them by reading positive and negative stories about Republican Representatives Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Steve King of Iowa, the latter of whom has repeatedly courted controversy with racially charged remarks.

According to Fox News, after CNN host Brianna Keilar praised Lieu for the “clever” stunt during the testimony, she wondered if Democrats should have used more of their time to question the Google leader about how it and other tech companies can work to prevent the spread of conspiracy theories and other online trolling.  Meaning, Keilar wants people who say things she dislikes or doesn’t believe to be shut down.  She wants to kill freedom of speech for good, not unlike Adolf Hitler.

But for now, at least even though the Nazis in charge obviously want more power and to strip any and all rights from everyone else, Lieu admitted he can’t (yet) regulate speech. “It’s a very good point you make,” Lieu said. “I would love if I could have more than five minutes to question witnesses. Unfortunately, I don’t get that opportunity. However, I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech.”

In the interim, however, Lieu will find it perfectly acceptable if Google and Facebook regulate speech and censor on behalf of the government.  It is utterly terrifying that we live in times where people are actually demanding that the government take away free speech and basic fundamental human rights so all can be enslaved by the government.

If people allow the government to regulate free speech, then it isn’t free speech.


Contributed by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com


SHARE:

By Vicki Batts | Natural News | November 11, 2018

As smart meters make their way across the United States, a growing number of people are vocalizing concerns about the devices and consumer privacy rights. The Fourth Amendment was designed to protect Americans from government surveillance and other forms of government overreach. Now, a federal court in Illinois has ruled that right is negotiable — provided it is in the government’s best interest.

Even after officials ruled that smart meters are a form of government search and seizure, federal courts say that the information gathered by smart meters (and consequently, city-run utilities companies) is “reasonable,” and therefore not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

As the Fourth Amendment declares:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Smart meters and the right to privacy

Naperville Smart Meter Awareness (NSMA) has been fighting against the forced implementation of smart meters in their city for one simple cause: There is no reason for the government to be collecting information from its citizens every 15 minutes.

Even if that “information” is simple electric usage, data collection at 15-minute intervals is unnecessary for the purpose of billing customers. As NSMA explains, citizens of Naperville have no choice when it comes to smart meters: The only way to opt-out is by opting out of public electricity entirely.

NSMA stated in their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit:

The ever-accelerating pace of technological development carries serious privacy implications. Smart meters are no exception. Their data, even when collected at fifteen-minute intervals, reveals details about the home that would be otherwise unavailable to government officials…. .  Naperville therefore ‘searches’ its residents’ homes when it collects this data.

The group contended further:

Naperville argues that its citizens sacrifice their expectation of privacy in smart-meter data by entering into a ‘voluntary relationship’ to purchase electricity from the city. This argument is unpersuasive.  … a choice to share data imposed by fiat is no choice at all. …  a home occupant does not assume the risk of near constant monitoring by choosing to have electricity in her home.

NSMA has been fighting against the City of Naperville and their intrusions since 2011. In 2016, the District Court ruled in favor of the City, prompting NSMA to file their appeal.

In 2018, the Court of Appeals again ruled in favor of the city. Even though the court concluded that smart meters are a form of search and seizure due to data collection, officials ultimately ruled that this data collection was “reasonable.”

The court reportedly states that “the government’s interest in smart meters is significant. Smart meters allow utilities to reduce costs, provide cheaper power to consumers, encourage energy efficiency, and increase grid stability. We hold that these interests render the city’s search reasonable, where the search is unrelated to law enforcement, is minimally invasive, and presents little risk of corollary criminal consequences.”

Funnily enough, studies show smart meters are wildly inaccurate and end up costing users more money. And as K.T. Weaver contends, this decision has essentially named smart meter data collection and privacy invasion as an “official government search.” Moreover, it appears that these officials have given preference to corporate interests over the rights of citizens. And again, it is entirely possible to achieve a modernized power grid without infringing on the people’s right to privacy.

Learn more about smart meters and all their shortcomings at SmartMeters.news.


Originally published by Vicki Batts of NaturalNews.com






SHARE:

By Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | October 31, 2018

I told you there would be more in the case of Darren Huff, a Georgia man who was arrested and Robert Mueller not only oversaw the arrest, but also trumped up bogus charges against him, including having his Special Agent in Charge file an affidavit that contained lies about Mr. Huff being at the courthouse and having a gun there.  Below is audio directly from the FBI website, which I am archiving that demonstrates clearly that a precedent was set in finding Huff guilty for what he allegedly was thinking, his intentions.

For more on the background of the story, please read Documents: Robert Mueller Accused Of Framing Georgia Man On Gun Charge and Navy Vet Claims Robert Mueller’s FBI Agent Perjured Himself In This Affidavit While Framing Man On Gun Charges

The following audio was downloaded from the FBI website.

The transcript is as follows:

Mollie Halpern: The FBI prevents a group of militia extremists from taking the law into their own hands.

I’m Mollie Halpern of the FBI, and this is Gotcha.

Darren Huff, of Georgia, and his followers wanted to indict President Barack Obama and many other federal, state, and local officials for treason. When a Tennessee County grand jury refused them, they wrote up their own bogus arrest warrants. Case Agent Scott Johnson, of the Knoxville FBI Division, says Huff armed himself with a handgun, an AK-47, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and headed for the courthouse.

Scott Johnson: He thought he was going to ride in from out of town with the guns on his hips and right all the injustices.

Halpern: When Huff and others arrived, they found the FBI and its law enforcement partners waiting for them. Huff was sentenced to four years in prison for transporting firearms across state lines with the intent to cause a civil disorder. It was the first time this violation was successfully prosecuted.

Johnson: This case is monumental to the FBI because it will set precedent for case law in future domestic terrorism cases throughout the United States.

Halpern: This has been the FBI’s closed case of the week.

The problem in all of this is that Huff never was at the courthouse.  He never had a gun at the courthouse, and instead of anyone in local, state or federal law enforcement arresting him when they stopped him in Tennessee, they let him go, only to turn around and arrest him a full ten days later under bogus charges and an affidavit from an FBI special agent in charge who perjured himself.

Huff is a Navy veteran.  He was railroaded on charges connected to what the FBI thought he and other veterans were thinking and events that never happened.




According to Navy veteran Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, the entirety of the FBI Gotcha segment is a lie.

  • • The FBI did not-I say again-DID NOT prevent a group of “militia extremists” from “taking the law into their own hands.” No “militia extremists” are involved in this event in any way. Darren Huff was not, is not a militia extremist. Darren Huff had no “followers.” Besides Mr. Huff, the FBI did not categorize any other individual as a “militia extremist” nor did the FBI identify any group as an extreme militia as connected to this FBI manufactured domestic terrorist hoax.
  • • Neither any militia group nor Darren Huff as an individual ever petitioned a Tennessee grand jury in any cause. Ergo: No Tennessee grand jury ever “refused” them.
  • • No “bogus arrest warrants” were or are in existence as connected to events of 20 April 2010.
  • • None of the 31 people who came to Madisonville, Tennessee on Tuesday 20 April 2010 to either attend a court hearing or cover the hearing as press representatives were armed with weapons of any description. There were no guns!!
  • • No one rode into Madisonville, Tennessee with “guns on their hips” or in possession of ammunition.
  • • No law enforcement officer, from any state or federal law enforcement agency ever confronted any of the 31 people for any reason in Madisonville on 20 April 2010. NO CONTACT WHATSOEVER!!
  • • All of the 31 people represented as being in Madisonville, Tennessee on 20 April 2010 were law abiding citizens. Many of them military Veterans. None of those folks violated any laws on that Tuesday.
  • • Mr. Huff was not armed with any weapon in Madisonville, Tennessee on Tuesday, 20 April 2010. Mr. Huff carried no ammunition that day in Madisonville. No state or federal law enforcement officer made contact with Mr. Huff on 20 April.
  • • Mr. Huff was never physically present at the location Mueller’s FBI puppet, Special Agent Mark A. Van Balen, said Mr. Huff was present, carrying a gun, with other men carrying guns, all “intending” to take over the courthouse. No evidence exists in contradiction.
  • • The FBI arrested Darren Huff ten days later, on 30 April 2010, as Huff was traveling on I-75 near Knoxville, Tennessee. The FBI did not arrest anyone else afterwards, but tried very hard to do so. FBI agents, following the events of 20 April 2010, canvased the southeast, interviewing uncounted numbers of people who were present in Madisonville on 20 April, or neighbors of these folks.
  • Now, if you are a movie fan and you remember a certain film by the name of Minority Report starring Tom Cruise, you might remember this segment in which a man is arrested for a crime he did think about, but never committed.

    Isn’t this exactly what went on under Robert Mueller’s FBI against our veterans who simply wanted the law upheld but never violated it in the process?  I’ll let the reader decide.


    Article originally published by Tim Brown at The Washington Standard.

    Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit


    SHARE: