fox files

BEWARE LEVI STRAUSS & COMPANY. BEWARE.

LEVI STRAUSS CEO CHIP BERGH is all fired up and he seems unwilling to rest until he’s single-handedly alienated every freedom-loving customer the company ever had.

Bergh has been in the news for some time now sounding off and piping in about his absolute hatred, distaste and contempt for the 2nd. Amendment and has just recently outlined the three ways that he plans to use his company name recognition and money to bolster his anti-gun, anti-2nd. Amendment agenda.

ANOTHER DEPLORABLE STATE

For ignoring the nationwide success of permitless carry, also known as Constitutional Carry, the Kentucky State Journal newspaper deserves the latest raspberries award.

In an editorial written for when Kentucky Governor signed the bill to make it the nation’s 16th. permitless carry state, this good for nuthin’ news organization, and I use those words very loosely, and its editorial board wrote the following:

SO-CALLED ‘GUN VILOENCE’

THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS ‘GUN’ VIOLENCE!

Anti-gunners like to bring up a term when they argue for gun control: “gun violence.” They make it sound so reasonable that gun violence must be stopped, but we need to ask ourselves: What is gun violence, and is gun violence even real?

If you talk to an anti-gunner, they will, of course, tell you that gun violence is the most horrible thing occurring in the world today, but Robert A. Margulies, M.D. (yes, a medical doctor) begs to differ. In fact, Margulies says that gun violence is a myth. He writes,

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY SUCH THING AS “GUN VIOLENCE.” THERE IS ALSO NO SUCH THING AS KNIFE VIOLENCE, CAR VIOLENCE, ALCOHOL VIOLENCE, ETC. VIOLENCE IS PERPETRATED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP. THE TOOL USED IS IRRELEVANT.

MOST ARTICLES ABOUT ‘GUN VIOLENCE’ ARE WRITTEN AS IF TO JUSTIFY POSITIONS THAT THE AUTHORS DON’T RECOGNIZE OR ACCEPT AREN’T TRUE. LET’S BREAK IT DOWN:

1. SUICIDE, WHETHER INVOLVING FIREARMS OR NOT, IS AN ACT OF DESPERATION, REMORSE, INABILITY TO ACCEPT CIRCUMSTANCES, OR CHOOSING TO AVOID A SITUATION THAT THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT CONTROL.

THE LITERATURE IS REPLETE WITH DATA ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES’ NUMBERS AND RATES OF SUICIDE. CULTURE STRONGLY INFLUENCES RATES AS WELL AS THE PREFERRED MECHANISMS. SUICIDE BY FIREARM MAKES UP APPROXIMATELY TWO-THIRDS OF UNITED STATES FIREARM-ASSOCIATED DEATHS.

2. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF SELF-DEFENSE, INCLUDING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION. WHETHER IT INVOLVES FIREARMS, CONDUCTED ELECTRICAL WEAPONS, BLUNT OBJECTS, POINTED OBJECTS OR BLADES, OR HANDS MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THE END.

THESE MAKE UP 20 TO 25% OF FIREARMS-ASSOCIATED DEATHS. THESE OUTCOMES ARE SOCIALLY AND CULTURALLY ACCEPTABLE.

3. THERE ARE SMALL AND DECLINING NUMBERS OF ACCIDENTAL FIREARM DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES.

4. THAT LEAVES APPROXIMATELY 25% OF FIREARMS ASSOCIATED DEATHS DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. MORE THAN HALF OF THESE OCCUR IN JUST A FEW OF OUR LARGE CITIES AND ARE ASSOCIATED WITH GANG ACTIVITY AND OTHER DRUG OR SEX TRAFFICKING CRIME.

WITH THAT BASIC INFORMATION ON THE TABLE, THE QUESTION BECOMES: WHAT TO DO ABOUT VIOLENCE? THE EMPHASIS ON FIREARMS IS A PROVERBIAL RED HERRING. THE PROBLEM IS NOT FIREARMS, KNIVES, OR TIRE IRONS IN THE HANDS OF THE POLICE OR HONEST CITIZENS.

THE AVOWED INTENT OF MUCH OF THE LITERATURE ON “GUN VIOLENCE” IS TO DESIGN LAWS THAT WILL PRECLUDE CRIMINALS OBTAINING FIREARMS. THAT IDEA IS EITHER MISTAKEN OR MALICIOUS. NO LAW WILL PREVENT A CRIMINAL FROM BREAKING THE LAW. THAT IS WHAT DEFINES “CRIMINAL”. THE ONLY PURPOSE OF LAWS IS TO PUNISH PEOPLE FOR VIOLATING THEM, WHICH MAY BE OF SOME DETERRENCE. UNTIL HUMAN NATURE BECOMES ANGELIC, THERE WILL BE THE NEED TO PUNISH CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

Dr. Margulies nails this issue on the head. Gun violence is a myth. Violence is a reality, but the tool used in violence is irrelevant, and banning guns hasn’t and won’t solve the problem of violence committed by criminals.

It is exactly this reason that we need to both oppose all gun control laws and also train to be able to protect ourselves and those we love. Because a law isn’t going to prevent a criminal from doing evil; you will be what restrains evil when it happens near you.

Yes you, because YOU are YOUR OWN FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE and YOU are responsible for your own safety and the safety of family, friends and others dependent up such circumstances.

You do NOT wait minutes for the police to arrive when seconds count. PERIOD! GOT THAT.

BEING SILENCED

AMERICA IS BEING SILENCED ONE FB AND ONE TWITTER POST AT A TIME!

GOVERNMENTS. POLITICIANS. AUTHORITY. DEGREES, ET EL.

That all stems from humans being indoctrinated from birth onward that government is a necessary babysitter for humanity because, as the indoctrination continues to preach, mankind is not intelligent enough to govern himself. And of the people, by and for the people is NOT how it is working out even though it is stated that way. BAM!

SO-CALLED ‘COMMON SENSE’ GUN LAWS

SO MUCH FOR THE SO-CALLED ‘GUN-SAFETY’ ADVOCATES

I have a big problem with anti-gun groups adopting and utilizing the descriptor “gun-safety advocates.” It seems that their marketing and PR people are trying to spin their efforts in a new light. They don’t want to be seen as “anti-gun” or against the Second Amendment. They don’t want to be heard pushing for “gun control.” So they are now attempting to re-brand, if you will.

They’re trying to change the wording to create more positive connotations and good vibes about their intentions. I mean: Who doesn’t like gun safety? Anyone? Is there anyone out there trying to get people to be unsafe with guns?

LIFE VS DEATH

Life asked death:

Why do people love me and  hate you?

Death replied:

Because you’re a beautiful lie and I am the painful truth.

MEN OF EVIL

Elected officials, who swore to uphold the Constitution, are using the power given them by voters to destroy their Second Amendment rights—by eliminating their First Amendment rights.

There exists a special place in ignominy extended the trust of their voters, turn upon a dime and attempt to undermine the protections of the constitutional order that put them in office. And, within that special place, there exists an even smaller place, reserved for those whose ambitions lead them to pile transgression atop transgression and strike at many roots at once.

It is bad enough when an elected official attempts to limit a core component of American liberty such as freedom of speech. But to attempt to limit freedom of speech in the pursuit of curbing another, equally important right? That compounds the iniquity beyond all measure. As Oscar Wilde might have said, to abridge one right may be regarded as a misjudgment; to abridge two looks like tyranny. And, in America, we’ve already had that debate.

But, alas, we have apparently not won that debate in perpetuity, for across the United States we are beginning to see a series of concerted efforts to sabotage the First Amendment in an attempt to curtail the Second. These efforts take many forms, but they all have one thing in common: Their authors understand that to control speech is to control people, and thus to control politics. Appearances to the contrary, the First Amendment was not inserted first into the Bill of Rights because it is the most important precaution in the document. And yet, if it had been, the framers would not have missed the mark.

The classic image of the censor is the man with a red pen and a razor who cuts out words and messages that contravene the party line. But he, thankfully, is extremely rare in these United States—a salutary fact that has led the would-be arbiters of our national conversation to work more creatively around the system, and to try instead to prevent those whose views they disdain from ever speaking in the first place.

At the federal level, the Democratic-led House of Representatives has just passed a bill that, among other things, places more restrictions on “lobbyists”—which, of course, is just another word for the people in our society who are paid by others to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” on their behalf. To put it simply, there is no way in which one can suppress or place conditions upon “lobbying” without suppressing or placing conditions on ideas—which, again, is not a bug of Nancy Pelosi’s regulatory agenda, but the primary feature. Tellingly, the Democrats made sure that this was the first bill they introduced (there is a ghastly symmetry between its marker, ‘H.R. 1’, and the First Amendment, which it guts), and even had the temerity to title it the ‘For The People Act:’ One must ask: Which people? And, given that politicians are not in the habit of limiting the influence that benefits them and their agenda, the answer seems rather obvious: YOU!

In California, New York and Illinois, the usual suspects are not even pretending anymore. In Los Angeles, a city lawmaker named Mitch O’Farrell has introduced a measure that would require staffers at City Hall to place onto a list any business or organization that enjoys a “formal relationship” with the National Rifle Association, and then, the Los Angeles Times reports, to “lay out options for boycotting them.” O’Farrell’s stated reason for action is that the NRA has a different conception than he does of what constitutes a “common-sense gun safety law” And so, he says, he wants to “send a message as a city with an annual budget approaching $9 billion.” That message? That political organizations that disagree with him should be punished for their dissent.

It is difficult to imagine a more flagrantly unconstitutional measure than O’Farrell’s. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear on multiple occasions that all governments within the United States are prohibited from punishing businesses and other outfits whose politics they dislike. The Court made this clear during the Civil Rights era in NAACP V. Alabama, when the state of Alabama tried to prevent the NAACP from doing business in the state, and then, having been restrained, tried to subpoena the organization’s membership lists. And the Court made this clear in 1972, when it reaffirmed the general rule against government retaliation on the basis of speech and extended it even to cases in which there existed no formal or pre-existing contract. Writing for the majority in Perry v. Sindermann, justice Potter Stewart observed that the state “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interest, especially his interest in freedom of speech.”

“If the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations,” Stewart continued, “his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited.”

Or, and this is just as pernicious, snuffed out in advance. In effect, O’Farrell is hoping to do one of two noxious things. The first is to destroy the livelihood of anybody who does not think as he does. The second is to ensure that anybody who- does not think as he does keeps quiet about it. If O’Farrell were to get his way—if, that is, the city of Los Angeles were to compile a list of organizations whose political opinions it deems unacceptable—the obvious result would be a decrease in the public expression of those opinions that the city has proscribed and an increase in the public expression of those opinions that the city has marked out as respectable. Or, put another way, the result would be a system in which private organizations that disagreed with the people in power were punished for their opposition to the status quo. Before long, that opposition would wither and die on the vine, which, of course, is the purpose of O’Farrell’s proposal in the first place.

That is one purpose, too, of a pair of extraordinary proposals that have popped up in the states of New York and Illinois. In New York, a Brooklyn-based lawmaker named Kevin Parker has introduced a proposal that would require any resident of the state who hopes to buy a handgun to hand over his social media passwords and search-engine history to the police for evaluation. Under Parker’s rules, the state police would be permitted to comb through three years’ worth of an applicant’s history on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, and one year’s worth of an applicant’s history on Google, Bing or Yahoo. The police would then be given carte blanche to decide whether the applicant is a suitable candidate for handgun ownership. In Illinois, a similar idea has been put to paper by Democrat state Rep. Daniel Didech. Before long, one assumes, the idea will spread.

Once again, it is difficult to know where to start. Both Parker and Didech’s approaches represent a flagrant violation of both the First and Fourth Amendments, and seek to gut the Second Amendment by relegating it to a privilege for which one is obliged to ask permission rather than a fundamental constitutional right that is presumptively enjoyed by all.

Irrespective of the matter at hand, free people do not permit the exercise of their essential liberties to be rendered contingent upon the subjective opinion of the local police. That both Parker and Didech seem not to understand that is a significant problem in and of itself. But there are implications for free speech that are perhaps the most dramatic here. Under Parker’s measure, the police in New York would be empowered to determine who is and who is not acceptable as a gun owner—a flatly impossible task that would inevitably call upon the evaluating officer to make a series of judgment calls. What, one wonders, would count as unsuitable? Profanity? A dark sense of humor? Quoting rap lyrics? Strongly held religious beliefs? Vigorous political argument? Opposition to abortion or to gay marriage or to the banning of so-called “assault weapons”—all opposition that the governor of New York has deemed “unwelcome” in his state? And what would stop the program adopting the position that disturbed individuals must be barred from owning handguns, and that wanting to own a handgun is itself a sign of a disturbed mind?

Advocates of such measures will presumably insist that such questions represent little more than fearmongering. I disagree, and I present the history of government encroachment as my witness. But even if they are right—and even if the proposal could indeed be tightly restrained—there would remain a risk that nobody could avoid. This risk is that applicants would end up preemptively censoring themselves lest they ever need to apply for a handgun permit and, thereby, end up seeking to please the local authorities. In fact, the consequences in a state such as Illinois or New York would presumably look rather like the consequences that would attach to O’Farrell’s bill in Los Angeles: Those who are out of step with the prevailing views of their elected officials would end up staying quiet about their disagreements, while those who acquiesce would end up making that as clear as possible. There’s a word for that in America—corruption. And it must be kept far, far away from the Bill of Rights.

There is a common trait that marks out those who would undermine freedom of speech, and that trait is cowardice. The man who is confident in his positions—and, by extension, in his ability to argue on their behalf and to recruit others to his side—sees no need to resort to the censorship of others, nor any reason to encourage those who disagree with him to stay quiet. By contrast, the man who suspects that his position is weak—and who, in consequence, has no faith whatsoever in the appeal of his ideas—knows instinctively that he can improve his position by removing the voices of opposition.

It is cowardice, not confidence, that lies beneath the ongoing attempts to make sure that speakers who dissent from the prevailing opinion of the faculty are kept off of college campuses. It is cowardice, not confidence, that explains the House of Representatives’ attempt to make it more difficult for “lobbyists” to make arguments that they dislike. And it is cowardice, not confidence, that has led to the ongoing attempt within the gun control movement to boycott any organization that has a relationship with the NRA. As has always been the case, the men who would police our language are fearful rather than brave, and they cannot prevail without putting their fingers on the scale.

The good news for the rest of us is that they cannot prevail without help, and that it is relatively easy to deny them that help. It is notable that, while advocates of the Second Amendment have kept the same definitions, language and agenda for decades, the gun control movement has been engaged in an endless attempt to recast its intentions and to replace its clearer language with euphemisms. It is by this process that “gun control” has been laundered into “gun safety”; that pretty much every modern firearm has been deemed an “assault weapon”; and that magazines that hold more than just a few rounds have been labeled “high capacity.” There is no reason for those who are interested in the truth to indulge this propaganda, and they should actively resist doing so.

More important still, they should resist any law that would, directly or indirectly, prefer one viewpoint over another—or, worse, make the free exercise of a constitutional right dependent upon the content of a person’s speech. The opening passages within the Bill of Rights serve as an overture of sorts, and they are full of stark and precise language. “Shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” are not only comprehensible to all, they are adjacent within the text and act as dual bulwarks against the destruction of human freedom. That there are men among us who would use one as a skeleton key to open the other is regrettable. But the door can be easily locked.

UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ‘SCARY’

Once known as strongholds for the free exchange of ideas, many American universities have become no-speech zones—particularly if you speak out in support of the Second Amendment.

American colleges and universities have long been admired as bastions of free speech and thought. But today, a new wave of campus political correctness is on the offensive against free speech, including support of the Second Amendment.

National Rifle Association gun safety classes had long been taught at the nine-campus Los Angeles Community Colleges—until they were banned by the Board of Trustees. The Board’s vice president stated that colleges should “promote gun control” and not teach gun safety. To make sure that no safety training occurs, the trustees even banned inert plastic gun replicas, which have no moving parts and are colored to not resemble real guns.

College President Kathleen Burke says that the word “gun” may not be mentioned in the schools’ catalog, according to a report in The College Fix, a newspaper whose journalists cover political correctness on campus.

In 2018, Long Island University Post junior Anand Venigalla participated in an off-campus shooting event hosted by retailer Cabela’s Sporting Goods. He posted Facebook pictures of himself holding some guns at the event. Then, a student who saw the pictures complained that the student “might have violent intentions”—even though there was nothing in the pictures suggesting violence.

The administration ordered Venigalla to an “imperative” meeting. There, the administration discussed its “concerns”—namely an essay that student had written the year before for a class on war, terrorism and justice. In the essay, Venigalla had cited the Boston Tea Party for the argument that political violence can sometimes be justified against the government, but not against individuals.

The inquiry against Venigalla was dropped, since he had violated no rules. Still, the administration had sent the strong message that participation in the shooting sports will lead to investigation of everything you have ever written.

If you go a step further, and expressly support the Second Amendment, the police may be summoned. When a Central Connecticut State University student gave a class presentation supporting licensed firearms carry on campus, the professor called the police. Since Connecticut has gun registration, the police interrogated the student about where he stores his registered guns.

At Kent State University in Ohio, someone overheard a telephone call in which student Leandra Westbrook said it is “a shame that I cannot carry a gun on campus, considering I have my carry license.” Another student reported her to campus police. She was detained and interrogated by campus police, who let her go after ascertaining that she was not carrying.

Expressing support for campus carry can, in fact, bring severe consequences. After the 2007 Virginia Tech mass murders, the Hamline University (Saint Paul, Minn.) administration sent campus-wide emails informing students about counseling services. One student wrote back, suggesting that Virginia Tech’s ban on adult students carrying licensed handguns was a contributing factor in the murders, and that Hamline’s similar policy was dangerous.

He was immediately suspended, allowed to return to campus only if he had a mental health evaluation supervised by the administration. According to the Hamline administration, criticizing the administration’s gun ban was “deemed to be threatening and thus an alleged violation of the Hamline University Judicial Code.”

At some schools, Second Amendment speech is completely off limits. Students at Hampshire College (Massachusetts) scheduled a speech on “Women Empowerment and Second Amendment” by African-American activist Antonia Okafor.

Two hours before the speech, the administration announced, “We have to cancel this event because we deem it too controversial and we are receiving calls from students and staff and professors and they are upset about it.” Further, ‘An event where someone is coming to campus to speak about the Second Amendment, which is a very controversial subject, would need to have extra considerations and precautions put into place, which cannot be done on such short notice.”

Likewise, when the Boise State University chapter of Young Americans for Liberty invited Dick Heller (the winning plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller) to speak, the administration demanded a $465 fee—for three security guards and two police officers. Information about the speech was subsequently scrubbed from the university website.

The problem exists everywhere, including areas where Second Amendment support is strong. The Texas Christian University chapter of Young Americans for Freedom scheduled a speech by former Reagan administration official Bay Buchanan. The speech was titled ‘Fully Loaded’, and the handbill for the speech included a picture of an old shotgun. To raise funds, the student group planned a raffle, the prizes being firearm safety classes. The administration forbade the raffle and refused to distribute the flyer on official school websites. According to the administration, “Gun promotion is contrary to university policy to carry on campus. Producing a poster with a rifle on it and the words ‘fully loaded’ apparently can cause alarm in today’s environment.”

Mentioning firearms is verboten at some schools. The University of Oregon’s chapter of Young Americans for Liberty asked for $95o from the student government for a “Liberty Poker Night.” Because student fees are mandatory, the First Amendment requires that the fees be distributed to student groups without ideological discrimination. But funding was denied because the student government said that “the event’s pro-gun message” made some students feel “unsafe.” The event would have included door prizes—three firearms donated by local gun dealers. As YAL students made clear, the firearms would never be on campus, but would be picked up later from the dealers, in compliance with all state and federal laws.

The thought of guns is also forbidden at some schools. The Yale University campus is renowned for the stone artwork adorning the buildings. One item depicts a Puritan and a Native American side by side. The Puritan holding a musket and the Native American a bow. The musket has since been covered to prevent offending students.

Even laughter is a potent weapon against conformity, and therefore must be suppressed. At Lone Star College, the Young Conservatives of Texas distributed a flyer that included a humorous list of ‘Top 10 Gun Safety Tips’. For example, “if the gun misfires, never look down the barrel to inspect it” one of the passages reads.

The school confiscated the flyers and warned the young conservatives that their group might be disbanded. According to the administration, any “mention of firearms and weapons” constitutes “material interference with the operation of the school or the rights of others.” The reason is that speech about guns “brings fear and concern to students, faculty and staff”.

The censorship resulted in a lawsuit by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The state school’s censorship regime was held unconstitutional by a federal district court.

But at private colleges, there are no First Amendment rights. So at Colorado College, a private school in Colorado Springs, the school’s Feminist and Gender Studies program published a newsletter, The Monthly Rag, discussing topics such as “male castration:’ In response, two students put up a poster parodying the Rag. The posters mentioned “guy stuff” such as chainsaws and sniper rifles. Colorado College President Richard R Celeste (formerly anti-gun governor of Ohio) declared that the posters were “threatening” and meant “to intimidate others.” He punished the students for their supposedly sex-related “violence.”

To protest the ‘gun-free’ zone at Portland State University, College Republicans created a satirical petition to make the university a ‘murder-free’ zone. They created posters with messages such as ‘Make PSU Murder-Free Now!’ And in response, the administration denied the Republicans use of a table in the commons area. Supposedly, the satirical message was ‘triggering’ and ‘libelous’, and might have provoked a violent response by anti-gun students.

At some campuses, Students for Concealed Carry organized ‘Empty Holster’ protests. On a designated day, students protested campus gun bans by wearing empty holsters at the school. Tarrant County College in Texas, prohibited the protest. Students were also forbidden to wear pro-gun T-shirts, since these were supposedly “offensive” and constituted advocacy for “violence.”

Students were also prohibited from handing out flyers. With no holsters or T-shirts, a protest was allowed only in the college’s so-called ‘free speech’ zone, which as only a 12 foot wide concrete slab.

In fact, criticizing campus gun bans is an unforgivable deviation from political correctness at some colleges. At Allegheny County College, (Pennsylvania), a student wanted to form a campus chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, and she distributed handbills about the organization. The administration ordered her to destroy the handbills. According to the administration, giving out free flyers about a new campus group was unlawful “solicitation” since the student was trying to “sell” other students on the idea of joining the group. A dean warned her that she would be punished if she persisted in what the administration called “academic misconduct.”

It’s not just students who are at risk of censorship. At St. Thomas University in Florida, Chief Financial Officer Anita Britt was ordered to resign because she serves on the board of directors of American Outdoor Brands, a conglomerate that owns Smith & Wesson.

In this upside-down world of today’s universities and society in general, verbal dissent from political correctness is considered “violence.” At the University of California’s Merced campus, the Campus Republicans held an event supporting immigration law enforcement. Students held signs saying, “I love undocumented firearms.” The university’s Associated Students, which distributes funding to campus groups, threatened to cut off funding because the signs constituted “violent actions:’ The Campus Republicans were then stalked and harassed by faculty and by other students. A professor accused the Republicans of making “anti-Marxist arguments.”

That professor had, in fact, got to the real point. On campuses today, non-adherence to Marxism is a punishable offense.

While the problem of campus censorship is much broader than Second Amendment issues, it is no wonder that Second Amendment advocates are so frequently targeted. The censors hate what the NRA and the Second Amendment stand for and represent. Individual rights, responsibility, self-sufficiency, courage and patriotism. After all, the NRA teaches personal safety classes titled “Refuse To Be A Victim”—exactly the opposite of campus indoctrination that teaches that everyone is a victim and should just exist to be a target if the administration had any say about the matter.

Second Amendment advocates are hated and persecuted on college campuses because their character is hard for totalitarians to control. As Thomas Jefferson advised his nephew, Peter Carr, in 1785, “As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind.”

Submission requires disarmament. When 17th-century French philosopher Jean Bodin argued against the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech, he accurately observed, “We may not think ever to keep that people in subjection which hath always lived in liberty, if they not be disarmed.”

It’s important to note that the NRA is fighting back. Since 2008, the NRA Grassroots has brought “NRA University” to more than 100 campuses. As Grassroots Director Glen Caroline explains, NRA University is “a two-hour training seminar for college students interested in learning more about NRA, the Second Amendment, gun safety, legislative threats to gun rights and the gun control debate:’ All students who attend the seminar receive a one-year membership, lots of food and NRA swag.

But NRA Grassroots courses are not sufficient to resist the authoritarian tide. Two decades ago, NRA President Charlton Heston asked Harvard Law students, “Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe? It scares me to death, and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason. … I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge:’

What did Heston, who had marched alongside Dr. Martin Luther King during the civil rights battle in the 1960’s, advise? “Disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely. … I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous laws that weaken personal freedom.

“But be careful,” he warned. “Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. … You must be willing to be humiliated … to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma”

He concluded: “So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobedience’s of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God’s grace, built this country”

CREEPING SOCIALISM

READ ON IF YOU FEEL WHAT HAPPENED IN VENEZUELA CAN’T EVER HAPPEN HERE IN THE UNITED STATES!

HOW CREEPING SOCIALISM THREATENS AMERICAN FREEDOMS

Look no further than the devastating situation in Venezuela to see what happens when a socialist government confiscates the guns of law-abiding citizens.

In early March, a Harris poll revealed that nearly half (149.6 percent) of Millennials and members of Generation Z said they would “prefer living in a socialist country.” Millennials are typically defined as anyone born between 1981 and 1996, and Generation Z includes those born in or after 1997.

Since these two age groups are expected to make up about 37 percent of voting-age Americans for the 2020 election, trouble could be looming on the horizon. Combine that with the fact that an increasing number of u.s. senators and representatives are publicly embracing socialism, and the outlook is even more dire.

Setting aside a vast multitude of other problems created by socialist systems, the devastating effect that moving toward a more socialist type of government would have on law-abiding Americans and the practice of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is nearly unthinkable.

The Venezuela Disaster

Venezuela was once the most prosperous country in Latin America, boasting one of the world’s richest oil reserves. High oil prices ensured that the majority of Venezuela’s citizens lived a decent life. In fact, seven years ago, nearly 90 percent of the country’s revenue came from oil.

The oil-centered economy started to crumble when prices began to fall in 2014. The drop from $100 per barrel to about $50 per barrel was more than the economy could stand. The failing economy, coupled with the Nicolas Maduro regime coming into power and morphing Hugo Chavez’s socialist government into a more tyrannical dictatorship, sent the country into a downhill spiral.

Venezuela is currently experiencing the worst economic crisis in its history, marked by hyperinflation, rampant disease, soaring hunger and crime. The crisis has affected the lives of average Venezuelans on all levels. By 2017, hunger had escalated to the point where almost 75 percent of the population had lost an average of nearly 20 pounds, and more than half did not have enough income to meet their basic food needs. By the end of 2018, more than 90 percent of the population was below the poverty line, and almost one-tenth of Venezuelans (3 million) had left their country.

Most recently, electrical blackouts have plagued parts of the country, and the shortage of food and drinkable water has worsened. As some hospitals used generators in order to continue caring for patients during the blackouts, others operated without any power at all, leaving patients needing dialysis machines and other equipment to do without.

The bottom line is that once-proud Venezuela has become the poster child for how a country’s socialist government can quickly become so corrupt that its citizens become mired in a life-or-death crisis. All the while, its leaders seem to care only about themselves, not rank-and-file Venezuelans.

Authorities have even fired upon and killed citizens by the dozens for protesting the Maduro regime. In fact, in the past two years, nearly 200 pro-democracy protesters, armed mainly with rocks, have been shot and killed by government forces in order to squelch their protests.

Socialism And Guns

Ask Venezuelans how they got where they are, and they will tell you that disarmament of average citizens has been the major factor. In fact, it is the sole reason citizens aren’t able to fight back against a corrupt, tyrannical government in their current time of need.

Back in 2012, the Venezuelan National Assembly enacted what was known as the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law:’ with the stated purpose of disarming “all citizens.” Effective in 2013, the law banned commercial sale of guns and ammunition to all Venezuelans. That is, all but those within the government and, of course, criminals.

After Maduro succeeded Chavez as the country’s leader, the Venezuelan government in 2014 spent $47 million enforcing the ban, according to a recent report from Fox News. Many of the confiscated firearms were publicly destroyed as a show of force by government officials.

The result: Buy or sell a gun now, and you’ll spend 20 years in prison—if you can survive that long.

“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight:’ Javier Vanegas, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador, told Fox News. “The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”

As many American politicians continue a full-scale assault on our Second Amendment and the rights it protects, it is clear that many Venezuelans wish that they would have had such a protection of their right to arms. Is it possible that citizens having such a right to keep and bear arms would have changed the outcome? I believe the answer is a resounding “yes.”

“The idea of having the means to protect your home was seen as only needed out in the fields. People never would have believed they needed to defend themselves against the government.”

“Venezuelans didn’t care enough about it (the gun ban),” Vanegas further told Fox. “The idea of having the means to protect your home was seen as only needed out in the fields. People never would have believed they needed to defend themselves against the government.

“Venezuelans evolved to always hope that our government would be non-tyrannical, non-violator of human rights, and would always have a good enough control of criminality.”

Obviously, that’s not how things have worked out. Rather, what we are seeing on television news on a daily basis is that some Venezuelans have guns—namely corrupt government agencies and violent criminals. But regular citizens who need protection are out of luck.

Luis Farias of Margarita says violence was bad enough before the gun ban. Now, he says, it’s devastating.

“Now the criminal mother is unleashed;’ Farias told Fox. “Trying to ban guns didn’t take guns off the streets. Nobody cares about the law; certainly the criminals don’t care about the laws.”

Naming Names

Yet isn’t disarmament of the law-abiding exactly what many in American politics are striving for? After all, I’ve discussed many, many times in my site how most gun control laws—including “universal” background checks, “assault weapon” bans, bans on standard-capacity magazines (incorrectly called “high-capacity”) and the creation of so-called “gun-free” zones—only affect law-abiding citizens, since the vast majority of criminals already get their guns by illegal means. That’s the same way criminals in Venezuela get their guns now, since there are no legal means.

Ironically, socialists in the U.S. government are the very politicians trying to force their gun-ban ambition on American citizens. Consider presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, the grand patron of American socialism who was arguably cheated out of the Democratic nomination in the last presidential election.

“I’m not afraid of the word:’ Sanders said in an interview with The Nation published in 2015.”When I ran for the Senate the first time, I ran against the wealthiest guy in the state of Vermont. … He kept attacking me as a liberal. He didn’t use the word ‘socialist’ at all, because everybody in the state knows that I am that.”

Sanders has become a reliable “yes” man automatic vote for ANY kind of restrictive gun control. Ironically, Sanders was recently warned about his embrace of socialism by someone who has lived it.

“Sanders was lucky to be able to get to the Soviet Union in 1988 and praise all its stunning socialist achievements before the entire system and empire collapsed under the weight of its own spectacular failures,” said Carl Bildt, Swedish prime minister from 1991 to 1994 and minister for foreign affairs from 2006 to 2014.

Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Beto O’Rourke—all announced themselves as 2020 presidential ‘hopefuls’—each aligned closely with socialist ideals. And of course, all say they “support” the Second Amendment. Yet that means nothing to them; all detest guns and gun owners. All three would happily ban the most popular rifle in the United States, used safely by millions of Americans on a daily basis. All three would gladly create a firearm registration system through the so-called “universal” background checks system. And never forget: Registration always leads to confiscation, whether here in the United States or elsewhere.

Now consider the newest “mainstream” media darling—U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a proud socialist, big mouth and someone who has become way, way too big for her own britches. In her few short months in Congress, the former bartender hasn’t met an anti-gun proposal that she hasn’t liked. When voting on ‘universal’ background checks, she even threatened to “primary” less radical Democrats who failed to vote her way on an amendment that would require U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be notified if an illegal immigrant attempted to buy a gun from a commercial dealer.

And Ocasio-Cortez’s desire to ban guns carries right over into her hatred of the National Rifle Association. During a rant against AR-15’s, she took aim at over 6 million good, law-abiding NRA members. That’s good people. Doctors. Lawyers. Teachers. Students. Politicians. Mothers and Fathers.

“NRA politicians are also cheap to buy, and kill hundreds of people through neglect over extended periods:’ she said. Ironically, Ocasio-Cortez even launched a verbal attack on the NRA when a deranged man killed 50 people in a New Zealand mosque—a mass murderer that the NRA had absolutely no connection, ties to or with!

Of course, many more politicians on the Democrat side of the aisle have socialist leanings. And they read like a who’s-who list of the modern American gun-ban movement.

“Others are socialist at heart. They just haven’t yet worked up the nerve to say as much in public,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre wrote last March to state those examples, that they were the likes of “Far-left political elites like U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Gov. Jerry Brown, U.S. Sens. Chris Murphy and Chuck Schumer, Democratic National Committee Deputy Chairman Keith Ellison, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and many more.”

What do all of these politicians have in common, along with their embrace of socialism? The answer is simple: They all hate the Second Amendment, firearms and law-abiding American gun owners. And the reason why is even more simple: It’s much harder to exert social control over independent-minded, armed patriots.

Next time you see coverage of Venezuela and the dire plight of the people there, remember why they are unable to fight back against a corrupt government that couldn’t care less about their well-being. And let that be another reason to work fervently to keep the Second Amendment as relevant today as it was when it was written.

As the FX late night station for the animated series of Adult Swim for the Secret Agent Archer show would say……..

Do ya’ want socialism? Because if ya’ want socialism, that’s how ya’ get socialism.

MEMORIAL DAY

*late, but save for next year

There are 525,600 minutes in a year, so hear me out please.

Join Me This Memorial Day in Honoring the Fallen During the National Moment of Remembrance

This coming Monday, I’m hoping you’ll take one of those minutes to join me in remembering the brave souls who died while serving. I plan to observe a moment of silence in honor of those fallen.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

IF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS TAKEN AWAY, THE DUMB AND SILENT MAY BE LED, LIKE SHEEP