Congress’s Behavior Police To Register Potential Future Criminals

By KrisAnne Hall.

The TAPS Act is not the solution to gun violence many members of Congress are professing it to be. The unlimited and arbitrary authority this Act bestows upon an unaccountable bureaucracy of 24 people, combined with the language of double-speak and contradictions creating loopholes allowing completely unsupervised and unchecked authority, is reminiscent of the Sedition Act of 1798.

The TAPS Act will create a brand new bureaucracy under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. A non-elected bureaucrat will be authorized by Congress to appoint 23 other non-elected bureaucrats to “identify individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior” and then to “manage” those Americans.

The sole purpose of this bureaucracy of 24 will be to create State and federal behavioral policing body ruling over the perceived behavior of the American people — a KGB-style agency not only monitoring the behavior of Americans, but also functioning as judge, jury, and executioner.

This Act mandates the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a Joint Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management Task Force: a 24 member bureaucracy consisting of one government employee (level GS-15 or above) and 23 people from non-governmental organizations of the Secretary’s choosing. Not a single member of this 24 person bureaucracy will be elected by the people, therefore the people will retain no control whatsoever over the actions or activity of this newly created bureaucracy that will possess, by Congressional consent, an enormous amount of arbitrary and unchecked power over the people (see §4(a)).

The sole purpose of this task force is “identifying individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior” and create a power to control those people on a federal and local level (§3(2)). This Act contains no clear definition of “concerning behavior.” As a matter of fact, the Act relies upon the Task Force (24 non-elected bureaucrats) to first define “concerning behavior” and then empower the “monitors” tasked with “identifying individuals” that exhibit that behavior.

According to (§3(2)(a)) no actual criminal act must take place to invoke the power this bureaucracy creates. A Federal or State agent must only believe an individual is “interested” in committing their definition of “concerning behavior” to summon this new and undefined power to action.  The DHS will then be “empowered” to implement these arbitrary rules with no acknowledgement of any of the rights of the people.

To take the legal-eeze off it, this is intended to create a registry of people who may commit crimes at some unspecified and unknown time in the future. This registry will then be used to begin a step-by-step usurpation of their individual rights, from the assumption of innocence and due process to the 1st and 2nd Amendments and more.

Once a State or federal gent has identified an American believed to be interested in some kind of concerning behavior, §3(2)(b) authorizes the bureaucracy to empower these agents to investigate and gather information from multiple sources (sources remain undefined in this Act) on this individual American to find “articulable facts” supporting whether this person is truly exhibiting an “interest” in committing “concerning behavior.”

The 4th Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant based upon probable cause (not articulable facts), supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Under the 4 th Amendment, it is impossible for this Task Force to empower any government agent to do what Congress has authorized it to do. But the Act makes no mention of the 4 th Amendment or the government’s requirement to respect and secure the rights of the people.  According to §3(2)(c) of this Act, after the bureaucracy has compiled its “articulable facts” by circumventing the 4th Amendment’s requirements on government, the bureaucracy is now empower an government agent to “manage” the threat of “concerning behavior.” There is no definition within the Act for the word “manage.” However, the “Powers of the Task Force” are defined in §4(f) as follows:

“Any member of the Task Force may, if authorized by the Task Force, take any action which the Task Force is authorized to take by this section.”

While there are no guidelines created by Congress on how this bureaucracy is supposed to define “manage” or “identify” the behavior of Americans, §2 of the Act establishes that the Task Force will create its own “guidelines and best practices” in order to devise a “national standard” of action.  Therefore, it seems indisputable through §2 and §4(f) that any member of the Task Force can take any action it chooses as long the Task Force will establish the guidelines and practices for such action. The only limit of a government agent and the agency as a whole, rests solely upon the whim of the individual bureaucrat and the bureaucracy to limit itself.  There’s not a lot of history suggesting that would happen.

No Real Congressional Oversight

Congress retains no real authority to check, balance, limit, modify, or control the exercise of power created by this bureaucracy.  The only requirement for this new bureaucracy is to operate as the behavioral police in America and after one year the Secretary (the GS-15 government employee) will submit a report to Congress telling Congress what they have been doing for the past year. The Act then requires DHS to report to Congress once a year every subsequent year on how the guidelines are working, not as a check and balance.

A deceived member of Congress may attempt to assert that the only authority of the bureaucracy is to make “suggestions to Congress” as to what the proper course of action should be. However, that assertion can be seen as pure error by reading §3(2)(c) of this Act.

A deceived member of Congress may believe that this federal bureaucracy will have no power over the State and local police powers. However §8 of this Act establishes that federal grant money will be given to local jurisdictions which will undeniably establish the power for this Bureaucracy to control local and State authorities once they accept that money. So just as with the Department of Education and so many other federal agencies, if the States submit to federal authority, they’ll get the money. Most to all States will. (Surely the American people recognize this sleight of hand by now!)

A deceived Supreme Court, upon legal challenge, will likely fail to recognize this Act to be vague and full of self-defining authority for a non-elected bureaucracy. SCOTUS has long held great deference to federal agencies and their agents to define their own authority and procedures when Congress leaves holes in the laws.

The Constitution delegates no authority to Congress to fund, recommend, or create a behavioral police for the people. The writing of this Act and the Act’s website proves that every co-sponsor of this Bill knows this as fact! First, the Act makes no mention of due process, the rights of the people, nor any reliance upon or limit established by the Constitution of the United States.

Secondly, if you go to the Bill’s website and click on the hyperlink “Constitutional Authority Statement” the link takes you back to a copy of the Bill text, with no statement of authority whatsoever. The Constitution is not what the foundation for this Act, but fear of guns on the left and fear of terrorists on the right.

So, with the passage of this Act, Congress will create a new bureaucracy who will be empowered to create its own guidelines and procedures on how it will operate; and to define, identify, and enforce government control upon its self-defined “concerning behavior” of individuals in America — complete autonomous, arbitrary, self-defined authority resting in the hands of bureaucrats elected by no one, and controlled by no one.

This Act, on its face, violates the 4th , 5th , 6th , and 8th Amendments. But as in every arbitrary law, the whole truth of its offense to the rights of the people cannot be fully known until the law is put into action. If this Act is used as some members of Congress profess, it is highly likely that execution of this Act will violate large swaths of the Constitution — including the 1st , 2nd , 4th , 5th , 6th , 7th , 8th , 9th , and 10th Amendments. Constitution and the rights of the people be damned, the bureaucrats will have their power under the illusion of keeping people safe — always the justification for taking away rights.

Members of Congress are championing this Bill as the “be all and end all” solution to gun violence in America, yet the Bill does not even once mention the words “gun” or “ammunition.” It should be clear now that the TAPS Act is not about gun control at all, it is about people control. It will target any American who voices, types, or indicates a thought toward questioning government policy, people, or power. (See the FBI Memo defining and identifying the “new” standard for domestic terrorist.)

How any politician who professes a knowledge of the Constitution or professes a love for America, her people, and their rights could ever back this insidious piece of legislation is completely beyond my comprehension. And as Patrick Henry said in 1788: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.”

It’s time for the American people to hold these pretend patriots suspect and tell them to change their vote or change their vocation.

If any person, including members of Congress would like to discuss this with me, my door is open. My website: KrisAnneHall.com.

ABOUT KRISANNE HALL

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at www.KrisAnneHall.com.

FLORIDA ALERT: “Assault Weapons” Ban Amendment Bans ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS

The so-called “assault weapons” ban that is proposed for a constitutional amendment to be on the 2020 Election Ballot bans the possession of:

“any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun CAPABLE of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine or other ammunition feeding device.”

The fact is, any rifle or shotgun that is “capable” of accepting or using, a detachable magazine that holds 10 rounds or less is also “capable” of accepting a magazine or magazine extension of any size. Magazines with a capacity of 3 all the way up to 100 rounds are in common use throughout the United States.

Therefore, ALL semiautomatic rifles and shotguns “capable” of using a detachable magazine or fixed magazine would be banned. UNLESS YOU REGISTER THEM WITH THE GOVERNMENT within a year — so the government knows who has guns and how many.  Otherwise you can be arrested, charged and prosecuted for felony possession of so-called “assault weapons” and your guns confiscated.

That means all Ruger 10-22 semiautomatic rifles, all Remington Model 1100 shotguns, all Benelli shotguns,  all semiautomatic hunting rifles, all semiautomatic plinking and target rifles — you get the picture.  If it is semiautomatic, kiss it goodbye.

Firearms that you legally purchased, legally owned, legally used, and legally possessed for years could suddenly be banned and you could end up in prison for merely continuing to possess your own property if you fail to register with the government. History shows that when the government knows who has guns and where they are, they can come and confiscate them.

Remember, once convicted of felony possession of a so-called “assault weapon,” then YOU LOSE ALL OF YOUR GUNS because felons can’t possess ANY GUNS, Period. 

Further, manufacture and sale is also banned since there is no exemption whatever for possession due to manufacturing, distribution or sale.

Simply put, over 150 manufacturers may be forced to shut down and move out of Florida if they manufacture semiautomatic rifles or shotguns. Goodbye jobs, goodbye Pittman-Robertson money for youth gun safety programs, goodbye retail gun shops, HELLO, major damage to the job market and Florida’s economy.

A recent Gallup poll shows that over 40% of households ADMIT to owning at least one gun. That number is probably much higher since we don’t like telling pollsters what we own.  In Florida with a population of over 22 million, that means 9-10 million Florida households could lose their home defense firearms if they are semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

At an August 16th hearing, sponsor and supporters of the “Assault Weapons” Amendment said the following:

“We don’t think it bans Ruger 10-22 rifles, they’re just .22s.” —BUT IT DOES!!!!!

“My Benelli shotgun is beautiful and shouldn’t be banned. — BUT IT WILL BE!!!!!

“We don’t want to shut down your shooting range and gun shop.” — BUT IT WILL!!!!!

Welcome to reality.  What they think or what they say they want doesn’t matter.  

ONLY the words matter and the proposed amendment will ban Ruger 10-22s, Benelli Shotguns, Remington Model 1100 shotguns and all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with detachable or fixed magazine. 

What matters is what the language says and does. And past experience has shown us that the government will enforce it as badly as they possibly can.

BOTTOM LINE: The sponsors and supporters either don’t know what the heck they are doing or they are lying.

AND your Second Amendment rights are in danger. PERIOD.

VIDEO ON RED FLAG LAWS: An Open Letter to our Legislators, Judges and Lawmen

LibertyFellowshipMT published an outstanding 18 minute video (below) of an open letter delivered by Dr. Chuck Baldwin the leader of Liberty Fellowship located in Montana on Sunday, March 17, 2019 during a service. You know he is a good guy because the ultra leftist Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled him a “God and Guns” pastor and leader of an “apocalyptic mission” and “anti-government Patriot movement”.

Note: SPLC is infamous for placing many conservative and tea party affiliated groups on their domestic terrorist list and providing it to govt. agencies including the DOD’s Center for Counter Terrorism. Is it any wonder that POTUS and his supporters were targets for the left leaning intelligence community under Obama.

The video/open letter addresses the great dangers of “Red Flag” gun confiscation law Senate Bill 7 (Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019) sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and co-sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senator Dick Blumenthal (D-Conn).

Senate Bill 7 violates every American’s right to Due Process under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Red Flag ex parte orders are not based on probable cause but the absurdly low standard of “reasonable cause” for obtaining an ex parte order which can result in a seizure on the same day the Court issues followed by a Hearing within 14 days. Not only that it is based on the low standard of “preponderance of evidence or reasonable suspicion” and not “beyond reasonable doubt.” Among the many loosely defined criteria for issuance includes reckless storage – (which could mean a gun on night stand or at bedside). It also shifts the burden of proof to gun owner  (e.g. gun owner must prove he is not a threat) which ignores the legal precedent of innocent until proven guilty.

If you don’t have time to listen to whole thing (which I recommend) then skip to middle and listen from 9 minute mark on.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Conservatives Mobilize to Stop “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation Laws.

Media notices Trump cooling to more gun laws

Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates

7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws

The Associated Press reports Congress is seriously considering red flag gun laws.

These laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others.

President Trump has signaled his backing of bipartisan Senate legislation sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

“We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” Trump said in a White House speech.

Red flag laws have garnered support from several conservative intellectuals, as well, including David French of National Review and Ben Shapiro.

Here are seven reasons red flag laws should be opposed, particularly at the federal level.

Most people haven’t heard of red flag laws until recently—if they have at all—but they aren’t new.

Connecticut enacted the nation’s first red flag law in 1999, followed by Indiana (2005). This means social scientists have had decades to analyze the effectiveness of these laws. And what did they find?

“The evidence,” The New York Times recently reported, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”

The Washington Post reports that California’s red flag went basically unused for two years after its passage in 2016. Washington, D.C.’s law has gone entirely unused. Other states, such as Florida and Maryland, have gone the other direction, seizing hundreds of firearms from gun-owners. Yet it’s unclear if these actions stopped a shooting.

With additional states passing red flag laws, researchers will soon have much more data to analyze. But before passing expansive federal legislation that infringes on civil liberties, lawmakers should have clear and compelling empirical evidence that red flag laws actually do what they are intended to do.

The Founding Fathers clearly enumerated the powers of the federal government in the Constitution. Among the powers granted in Article I, Section 8 are “the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office.”

Regulating firearms is not among the powers listed in the Constitution (though this has not always stopped lawmakers from regulating them). In fact, the document expressly forbids the federal government from doing so, stating in the Second Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Unlike the federal government, whose powers, James Madison noted, are “few and defined,” states possess powers that “are numerous and indefinite.”

Indeed, 17 states and the District of Columbia already have red flag laws, and many more states are in the process of adding them. This shows that the people and their representatives are fully capable of passing such laws if they choose. If red flag laws are deemed desirable, this is the appropriate place to pursue such laws, assuming they pass constitutional muster. But do they?

The Constitution mandates that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”

Depriving individuals of a clearly established, constitutionally-guaranteed right in the absence of criminal charges or trial is an affront to civil liberties.

In 2018, two Maryland police officers shot and killed 61-year-old Gary Willis in his own house after waking him at 5:17 a.m. The officers, who were not harmed during the shooting, had been ordered to remove guns from his home under the state’s red flag law, which had gone into effect one month prior to the shooting.

While red flag laws are designed to reduce violence, it’s possible they could do the opposite by creating confrontations between law enforcement and gun owners like Willis, especially as the enforcement of red flag laws expands.

In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. In practice, they can work quite differently.

In a 14-page analysis, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island explained that few people understand just how expansive the state’s red flag law is.

“It is worth emphasizing that while a seeming urgent need for [the law] derives from recent egregious and deadly mass shootings, [the law’s] reach goes far beyond any efforts to address such extraordinary incidents,” the authors said.

“As written, a person could be subject to an extreme risk protective order (ERPO) without ever having committed, or even having threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.”Though comprehensive information is thin, and laws differ from state to state, anecdotal evidence suggests Rhode Island’s law is not unique. A University of Central Florida student, for example, was hauled into proceedings and received a year-long RPO (risk protection order) for saying “stupid” things on Reddit following a mass shooting, even though the student had no criminal history and didn’t own a firearm. (The student also was falsely portrayed as a “ticking time bomb” by police, Jacub Sullum reports.) Another man, Reason reports, was slapped with an RPO for criticizing teenage gun control activists online and sharing a picture of an AR-15 rifle he had built.

Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel, civil libertarians point out.

As I’ve previously observed, red flag laws are essentially a form of pre-crime, a theme explored in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, based on a 1956 Philip K. Dick novel.

I’m not the only writer to make the connection. In an article that appeared in Salon, Travis Dunn linked red flag laws “to the science fiction scenario of The Minority Report, in which precognitive police try to stop crimes before they’re committed.”

If this sounds far-fetched, consider that the president recently called upon social media companies to collaborate with the Department of Justice to catch “red flags” using algorithmic technology.

The idea that governments can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat such ideas pose to civil liberties is quite real.

Compromising civil liberties and property rights to prevent acts of violence that have yet to occur are policies more suited for dystopian thrillers⁠—and police states⁠—than a free society.

It’s clear that laws of this magnitude should not be passed as an emotional or political response to an event, even a tragic one.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Washington Times. 

RELATED ARTICLES:

What You Need to Know About ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws

Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates

RELATED VIDEO: Authorities say 3 potential mass shootings were foiled in recent days.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Socialists Chip Away at the Second Amendment

“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” – Noah Webster

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”  Noah Webster


We’ve all heard it before: the Second Amendment was never meant for citizens to have the sort of guns available today – it was just for hunting! Bull hockey, it was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people. By that same logic the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the internet (which didn’t exist at the time) so kiss your free speech rights online goodbye!  We’ve already seen massive censorship.

Then there’s the “it was only implied for a militia” argument.  Another crock.

There’s a certain level of irony in liberals claiming that the second amendment was only implied for a militia. Any time a militia group does spring up they’re quickly denounced by the left including much of the neo-con establishment right.

Even National Review has had at least nine articles supporting various gun control laws. They advocated everything from universal background checks to Red Flag laws.  By now people should understand that William F. Buckley and Irving Kristol were the two men who changed the old right conservative Republican Party into this new neo-con Trotskyite left leaning cabal who will not stand up for our God given rights in the Constitution.

They tell us we don’t need guns, and I say, “The hell we don’t!”

El Paso, Texas – Dayton, Ohio

Call me cynical, or donning a tinfoil hat, but these shootings seem planned and coincidentally appear just at the right time for use by politicians who go to the extremes against firearms, including President Trump and his closest “advisors.” Let’s pray he backs away from all of this and keeps his promises to the American people.

Notice that after Congressman Steve Scalise was shot and nearly died at a Republican baseball game, there was not a scintilla of outrage for gun control by the left.

Interesting, is it not…The suspect in the congressional baseball practice shooting, James Hodgkinson, was a fierce Trump opponent who called him a traitor.  The left ignored it.

The manifesto written by the 21-year-old El Paso shooter who killed 20 and injured 26, was a leftist screed.  Patrick Crusius’s “My Life Page” was changed by progressive pinkos from Democrat to Republican as reported by Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit.  Crusius was a soulless video game player, just as President Trump stated.   His crime might be described as one of nihilism, the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless, an ideology of despair that has motivated rootless young men toward violent crimes throughout human history.

Dayton shooter, 24-year-old Connor Betz, was shot dead by police but not before he killed nine innocent people.  Betz had satanic patches on his clothing and was a registered democrat and a supporter of Elizabeth Warren.  The NY Post snagged over 3,000 of his tweets which included embraces of far-left stances and politicians — including presidential-hopeful senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont — as well as Antifa, anti-fascist protesters known to resort to violent tactics.  “I want socialism, and I’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding,” reads one tweet from the Betz account, according to Newsweek.

A person willing to kill innocents and be killed by the police while doing so surely would have no qualms about violating a state or federal law that prohibited the general ownership of the weapon he was about to use.

New Laws Are Lies

There are enough laws on the books.  There’s not a single new law that would change anything.  First Trump agreed to ban bump stocks, a stupid argument if there ever was one.  By labeling bump stocks “machine guns,” the ATF effectively changed their classification under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) and made them illegal under the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA), a move which retroactively criminalizes their purchase and ownership.  By the way, the 1968 GCA was taken from Adolph Hitler’s gun ban.

If Trump signs any new laws, this will drive a huge wedge between him and his supporters.  True, there is no one else to vote for, but Trump supporters will not go out in droves as they did in 2016, which could give the election to the Democratic Socialists. If the President backs down on his promises, he will lose…and the left wants our guns, they want them out of our hands, and when the movie, The Hunt, becomes reality even though it’s now been pulled, we won’t have any way of firing back.

Our God given freedoms are codified by our Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.  Pressures are being applied on all Republican politicians to again bend to the socialists’ desires to eliminate firearms, especially by Ivanka Trump.  Stupid deals with these enemies of freedom have been made in the past, and every single time, Republicans have lost.  Why?  Because most of them do not represent us or Constitutional conservatism; they are part of the same globalist establishment as the Democratic Socialists.

Gun Free Zones and Joe Biden

Gun Free Zones are killing fields.  Whenever there is a shooting, the socialist democrats propose gun control; but when someone is raped or murdered by an illegal alien, the same people never demand border control!  This law has effectively turned schools into shooting galleries for deranged lunatics.

Research from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that 98 percent of all public mass shootings that occurred between 1950 and July 10, 2016, happened in gun-free zones.  Responding to this research, USA Today contributor Erich Pratt recently opined, “No wonder that 81% of police officers support arming teachers and principals, so that the real first responders — the potential victims — can protect the children.”

As of early 2018, educators in 33 states may not arm themselves to protect their students. Nor may schools in these 33 states even hire armed security guards.  Our children are literally sitting ducks.  This in turn means one and only one thing, as recently noted by conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, “Everybody that wants to shoot up a school knows that they are going to be the only one armed.”

Exactly. And if you scroll back through history, you’ll find that the reason this situation exists is because of Joe Biden who introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1990. Out of fairness, though, it should be noted that then New World Order President George H.W. Bush signed it into law after it passed the Democrat-led House and Senate.

Bush, a Republican, was no Second Amendment champion throughout his time in office. When he could have stood up for gun rights, Bush kowtowed to anti-gun pressure and signed this bill into law.

Nearly three decades later, Republican governors have made up ground by passing pro-gun legislation like Constitutional Carry.

However, this case is another reminder that just because a politician is a Republican does not guarantee that they will be a pro-gun champion.

Assault Weapon Bans

John Lott, President of Crime Prevention Research Center was interviewed on Mark Levin’s radio program and explained the three gun control bills now up by both Democratic Socialists and neo-con Trotskyite Republicans.  They are Assault Weapon Bans, Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws.

John Lott says they’re banning guns based on how they look rather than how they function.  The idiots in Congress have no clue of what they’re doing.  So, you can have a semi-automatic hunting rifle, which fires the same bullets with the same rapidity doing the same damage as a gun that looks like an M-16, but it’s not a weapon that militaries around the world would use.  The inside guts of it, which civilians have, is the same as any small caliber hunting rifle.  The vast majority of semi-automatic rifles in the United States are owned by people who own guns.  Banning guns on their looks when other guns operate the same way is pure stupidity.

The original assault weapons ban which Senator Feinstein and her staff got passed, was by flipping through pages of catalogues on assault weapons and marking off different names of guns simply by how they looked.  Even people paid by the Clinton administration couldn’t find any benefit of this insane law.  There was actually a small drop in the states where the assault weapon ban was dropped versus the states where it was not.  The original Feinstein ban expired in 2004.

Universal Background Checks

Now they want background checks on the private transfer of firearms, which means going to a licensed dealer and having them do the background check.  In Washington DC you’d have to pay the dealer $125.00 to do the background check, and that’s per firearm.  Another monetary leeching of the gun owners.  According to John Lott of Crime Prevention Research Center, there have been no mass murders this century by anyone who privately purchased a firearm.  The vast majority of firearms are purchased through dealers where there is already a background check via the National Instant Background Check Systems (NICS).

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 was launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998 and mandated NICS. It is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 230 million such checks have been made, leading to more than 1.3 million denials.  NICS is located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia.

Red Flag Laws

A red flag law is a politically divided gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves without due process and facing their accusers in a court of law.

Again, these laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others.

President Trump has signaled his backing of bipartisan Senate legislation sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).  This is very dangerous.  Any extreme leftist neighbor who decides they don’t like you, can report that you own firearms and are acting in a way that could harm someone.  Whether true or not, you could lose your ability to own firearms.  President Trump in one tweet shows why ‘red flag’ laws are so very dangerous.

The Red Flag Laws virtually have nothing to do with mental health.  There are 17 states which have this law now and only one of them even mentions the term “mental health” in it.  The basic notion is that they’re trying to predict whether someone will commit a crime or harm themselves.  This reminds me of the Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report where the government would predict someone’s future crimes and arrest the person before the behavior.

Already on the books is a 72-hour hold (Baker Act) on someone who has psychiatric problems and has been reported.  However, what the Red Flag law wants to do is to get rid of some of the restrictions from the Baker Act.  With the Baker Act, you have psychiatric experts evaluate the person and make a decision, but with Red Flag laws there are no psychiatric experts making a decision.

First you have a complaint and it varies across states, some states friends can do it, some states relatives can do it…police, or in Colorado, anyone can do it.  A judge basically looks at a piece of paper that summarizes the complaint, then in a short period of time depending on the state, the police will go in and take the firearms.  They’ll have a hearing in a couple weeks, but the problem is there’s no legal representation automatically provided to the targeted person.  The prosecutors basically act as lawyers for the person making the complaint.

Red Flag laws are totally unconstitutional, the very presumption of innocence and the due process of law requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to punishment or sanctions prohibits the loss of liberty.  Recently we’ve seen the presumption of innocence turned upside down with Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the spurious investigation of our President for nearly three years.

Nevertheless, the American left has diligently tried to punish people and deprive us of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future.  The Soviets used psychiatric testimony to predict criminal behavior which we condemned in the 80s, but now our President seems to want it here.  In America, we do not punish a person or deprive anyone of liberty on the basis of a fear of what the person might do.

This is a “turn in your conservative neighbor” law, and is a massive danger to freedom.

Conclusion

Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin said, “In a nation where over the last 50 years we’ve aborted 60 million unborn babies, and we have multiple states with medically assisted suicide being provided by physicians at both ends of the life spectrum, we’re losing the value for life that we once historically had.  Firearms are not the problem; the problem is our culture of death.”

Fifty years ago, children didn’t walk into schools with firearms and shoot their fellow classmates.  In fact, the high school I went to in Park Ridge, Illinois had an underground shooting range and a Rifle Club.  There were pickup trucks in the parking lot with gun racks on the back and the rifles in plain view.  Kids brought their rifles on the bus with them, they kept them in their cars, most of which were unlocked.  We were never exposed to what today’s children are exposed to at a very young age.  The problems with our culture are systemic, and day by day they are growing worse.

It’s easy to blame the tools used in these killings so as to part American citizens from their own self-defense, but the real cultural issues are far more complex and are rarely discussed. It’s the morality, and what’s the cause of this morality? We have driven God out of the public arena.

George Washington said in his Farewell Address that it is religion that sustains morality. If you undermine religion, you’ll undermine morality.

That is precisely what has happened to America. Beginning with a whole series of misguided Supreme Court decisions, religious influence in society, especially Christian, was restricted more and more. By the 1960s, God was effectively kicked out of the public schools along with prayer and the Ten Commandments.

When we had God in the classrooms, there was no need for armed guards in the hallways.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates

Kamala Harris’s Poorly Thought Out Gun Control Proposals

The Date For The Democrats’ Anti-Gun Push On The Hill Is Set 

The Grim Consequences Of Democratic Socialism

© All rights reserved.

El Paso and Trump? And What Rhetoric Causes the Shooting of Whites?

Ever since the El Paso shooting, talk of racism has been ratcheted up. Racism certainly is a problem, too, one accompanied by another problem: Those talking most about it appear to know least what it actually is. But try this on for size:

How about when you emphasize only the relatively rare killings committed by one particular racial group while ignoring murders in which its members are victims, in order to make it appear a unique threat?

For the uninitiated, that group would be whites. Of course, not only is the above happening with respect to them, but the El Paso shooting is also being used to demonize effective anti-illegal-migration rhetoric. The argument is that “Trump’s racist rhetoric” inspired the murderer to target Hispanics.

But bearing in mind that white-on-minority murders are quite rare and not nearly as common as the reverse, let’s ask a question: What kind of rhetoric caused the following killings?

  • On December 7, 1993, a black man, Colin Ferguson, targeted white people with a handgun on a Long Island Railroad train, killing six passengers and injuring several others.
  • One of two black snipers who killed whites in the Washington, D.C., area in 2002, John Allen Muhammad, said that he’d intended to murder six whites a day for 30 days. He believed that “the white man is the devil.”
  • In 2010, black man Omar Thornton targeted whites at his workplace in Manchester, Conn., killing eight.
  • In 2016, black man Micah Xavier Johnson shot 12 Dallas police officers, killing five; he’d told authorities that he wanted to kill white people. (Barack Obama’s anti-police rhetoric comes to mind here.)
  • Black man Fredrick Demond Scott was charged in 2017 with the killings of two white men in Missouri and is suspected in the deaths of three others. He’d said that he wanted to “kill all white people.”
  • In April 2017, black man Kori Ali Muhammad, who’d called white people “devils” on social media, murdered three Caucasian men in Fresno with a .357 revolver.

Then there was black man Oghaleoghene Atuno, who on April 5 purposely ran over two young white boys with his car.

Though not all involve murder, numerous other examples of black-on-white racial attacks can be found here, here and here.

If you’re wondering what kind of people perpetrate these incidents, watch the video below.

No, the above is not from the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Speaking of today’s anti-white party, however, will it ever have to answer for all the attacks on whites? Will people such as Tina Rutnick (a.k.a. Kirsten Gillibrand), Irish Bob O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and the rest of their fellow travelers be condemned for talking about white privilege and how America is supposedly a white-supremacist nation and their continual (whether explicit or implicit) impugning of whites?

For that matter, will academia, the media and entertainment be held accountable for pushing these prejudices? We know the answer. But let’s now delve a little deeper.

It’s unlikely there’s a cause anywhere that hasn’t had evil done in its name. There have been both “left-wing” and “right-wing” terrorists, running the gamut from environmentalists and animal rights activists to sovereign citizens and other anti-government types. For the wrong cause can be advanced in the wrong or right way (e.g., political lobbying), and the right cause can be advanced in the right or wrong way. Thus, a cause’s worst actors are not at all a gauge of its validity.

It’s also absolutely true that the rhetoric we use matters. Words are powerful, after all; hence the saying “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Moreover, even proper rhetoric used to promote a good cause can inspire the deranged to violence.

Yet what are the implications of this? Should media not report on, and should we not inveigh against, child sex abuse in the clergy or the Boy Scouts because some unhinged individual might attack an innocent clergyman or scouting troop leader?

In this vein, it’s safe to say that many (and probably most) of the attacks on whites wouldn’t have occurred were it not for the anti-white critiques prevalent in politics, the media, academia and entertainment. And though the El Paso shooter convincingly explained in his manifesto that his anti-immigration views predated President Trump’s rise, it’s likely that anti-illegal migration rhetoric has sparked some kind of attack somewhere. Yet, again, none of this tells us anything about either type of rhetoric’s validity.

But can it really be the case that a public figure is never morally complicit in violence associated with his rhetoric? Yet if the violence alone doesn’t implicate him, what does?

Answer: his words’ falsity.

In this post-Truth time, this simple reality is overlooked. Leftists are responsible for the attacks against whites because their rhetoric against them is pure demagoguery built on lies. What’s the truth? In brief (a comprehensive refutation of caucaphobia is here), whites probably weren’t the first to practice slavery or violate human rights. But they were the first to end slavery, and they birthed our modern concept of human rights in the first place. In fact, their Western Civilization can largely be credited with creating the whole modern world.

In contrast, it’s a fact that we’re subject to an “invasion,” as Trump (and many before him, including yours truly) has put it. It is a fact that Democrats are facilitating this. It is a fact that they’re doing it for political power.

It’s also a reality that immigrationist social engineers are very happy to replace European-descent Americans with Third Worlders who they know will, upon naturalization, vote for leftists, as even Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson has pointed out. That the El Paso shooter also mentioned “replacement” doesn’t make it any less true, not anymore than Ted Kaczynski’s bombings changed what he warned about: the threat that technology (e.g., artificial intelligence) could possibly pose to man.

And why is this even controversial? The demographic shift is well-known — left-wing outlet NPR has called it “the browning of America” — and is no accident: It’s the result of immigration policy the Left could change if it wanted to. It doesn’t want to.

What the Left does want to do is use the El Paso tragedy to remove any remaining stumbling blocks to its immigrationist endeavors. Liberals now want “invasion” (and even “illegal alien”) considered a racist term. This is nothing new, either, as the Left has already tried to demonize things such as “Build that wall!” chants and “MAGA” hats. The idea is that anything rhetorically effective for conservatives — anything that could possibly influence people — should be labeled racist and thus be out of bounds. (By the way, would this include anti-immigrationist remarks such as “Europe belongs to the Europeans,” uttered last year by infamous “white supremacist” the Dalai Lama?) Hey, the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate.

This is why all of us — President Trump, you and I — should double down. We are being invaded. The problem isn’t those of us who warn about it, but the people making it happen.

Everyone has rhetoric. And if leftists can tell their lies, can’t we at least tell the truth?

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Amid Standoff And Gunfire, Philadelphia Crowd Taunts Police Officers

Tell Your U.S. Senators and Representative to Oppose Gun Control

In the wake of two recent criminal mass attacks, a number of gun control proposals have begun to circulate in our nation’s capital. None of these proposals would have prevented either of last weekend’s tragedies, but they all would restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

“Universal” Background Checks Won’t Stop Mass Shootings

Every perpetrator of high-profile mass shootings has either passed a background check or acquired a firearm in a way that would be unaffected by a universal background check (either through theft or the use of a “straw purchaser”).

“Universal” Background Checks Do Not Stop Criminals

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), 75 percent of criminals in state and federal prison who had possessed a firearm during their offense acquired the firearm through theft, “Off the street/underground market,” or “from a family member or friend, or as a gift.” Less than one percent got firearms from dealers or non-dealers at gun shows.

Criminals defeat the background check system by getting guns through straw purchasers. ATF has reported, “[t]he most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent….”

In a 2018 study, researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and the UC Davis School of Medicine found that comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors “were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.”

“Universal” Background Checks Are Not as Universally Popular as Advocates Claim

Despite claims of the near universal popularity of “universal” background checks, these proposals have not been nearly as popular as claimed when presented to voters. In 2016, Maine and Nevada both had “universal” background check initiatives on the ballot.

Despite being outspent by Bloomberg-backed gun control groups by $5.3 million to $1.2 million, Mainers defeated the initiative by 3.6 percentage points.

In Nevada, where Bloomberg-backed groups spent almost $19 million in support of the initiative versus less than seven million spent against, the initiative passed by less than one percentage point.

Banning “Assault Weapons” Isn’t the Answer Either

FBI data shows that four times as many individuals are killed with “knives or cutting instruments,” than with rifles of any kind. The data also shows that rifles were listed as being used in fewer homicides than “blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” or “personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.).”

A 1997 Department of Justice-funded study of the 1994 “assault weapons” ban determined that “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”

A 2004 follow-up Department of Justice-funded study determined that “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” Presented with the overwhelming evidence of the ban’s inefficacy, Congress did not renew it.

In 2018, a RAND Corporation study found no conclusive evidence that such bans have an effect on mass shootings or violent crime.

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. The immense popularity of the AR-15 has come about at a time when Americans cite self-defense as their primary reason for owning a gun.

The effectiveness of the commonly-owned semi-automatic rifle in defense of self and others was illustrated in 2017 during an attack on a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Upon learning of the attack, resident Stephen Willeford retrieved his AR-15 rifle and shot and wounded the gunman. Since 2017, other Armed Citizens have used commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to thwart an armed robbery in Texas, stop a trio of home invaders in Oklahoma, and halt a stabbing attack in Illinois.

Now Is the Time To Act

Please contact your Senators and Representative TODAY and urge them to oppose ineffective gun control measures that won’t make us any safer but will infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. You can use this link to send them an email or call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bill Clinton Touts Failed Gun Ban With Bogus Info

“Universal” Background Checks Aren’t as Universally Popular as You’ve Been Led to Believe

Kamala Harris and Her Perplexing Anti-Gun Ideas

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

President Trump in one tweet shows why ‘red flag’ laws are so very dangerous

President Trump tweeted the following on August 13th, 2019:

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!

With this one tweet every American can see the great danger of red flag laws.

QUESTION: Did President Trump send out this tweet to kill any chance of a federal red flag law passing?

President Trump may be thinking 20 steps ahead of both the Republicans who support red flag laws and Democrats who support universal background checks. Republicans have no stomach to pass any universal background check laws. Republicans also are not in favor of banning “assault rifles” either.

Has Trump shown Republicans and Democrats alike what they can expect when he’s re-elected? Is the President showing how a red flag law can be used to go after the many “crazies” in the Democratic and even in the RepublicanParty?

Here’s The President’s Strategy

The President of the United States just called an American citizen and journalist “nuts.” Merriam-Webster defines the adjective nuts as follows: 2INSANECRAZY.

No matter what you think about Chris Cuomo’s rant, his use of foul language and loss of control, it doesn’t rise to the level of taking away a fundamental Constitutional right.

Does this tweet rise to the level of taking away Cuomo’s 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? I, and my guess is that President Trump, think not.

When any President of the United States calls another person “nuts” (crazy) and implies that that person shouldn’t be allowed to “have any weapon” law enforcement takes notice.

We are moving down a very slippery slope indeed. And perhaps President Trump is putting on the brakes?

As I warned before, “Red flag laws will inevitably lead to innocent people caught up in the feeding frenzy to keep guns out of the hands of ‘crazy people’.”

Trump’s tweet makes my point perfectly.

Be warned. Red flag laws and universal background checks are very very dangerous. They can be used to disarm law abiding citizens, political opponents, and even journalists. We will wait and see what happens when Congress reconvenes. Hopefully the panic to do something will have subsided. And the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms will prevail.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hawkins: Universal Background Checks Unenforceable Without Gun Registry

The Argument Beneath the Surface of Gun Control

PODCAST: Dissecting the consequences of the “red flag” laws

RELATED VIDEO: NRA’s Wayne LaPierre Stands Strong for Law-Abiding Citizens.

PODCAST: Voter ID. Rep. Bob Barr: Speech Trump Needs to Make. Red Flag bills.

GUESTS:

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues – including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform — as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. His analysis and commentary have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Politico, Human Events, National Review Online and Townhall. Along with John Fund, he is the co-author of Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk and Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department

TOPICVoter ID Opponents Lose Again!!

Congressman Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the House of Representatives. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and is Chairman of Liberty Guard a non-profit, pro-liberty organization. He also heads the Law Enforcement Education Foundation and a consulting firm, Liberty Strategies.

TOPICThe Follow-up Speech Trump Needs to Make

Rob Natelson has divided his professional life between the private for-profit sector, the private non-profit sector, and state and local government. A former law professor and nationally known constitutional scholar, he is currently a self-employed consultant who serves as senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver.

TOPICRed Flag bills: Attack on the Bill of Rights!!

Red Flag laws are a cover-up for the failures of government to see and act on real red flags

President Trump during his comments on the shootings in Texas and Ohio came out in favor of so called “red flag” laws, also known as “extreme risk protection order law.”

Red flag laws haven’t stopped any person bent on mass murder. The Florida legislature passed a “red flag” law after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. The red flag law was passed by the Republican majority before the Majory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission report into the shooting was completed and issued on what happened leading up to the shooting.

In a January 1st, 2019 column by the Daily Caller titled Florida Newspaper Publishes Exhaustive Parkland Report: Sheriff’s Office ‘Cost Children Their Lives’ Neetu Chandak wrote:

Authorities and school officials either failed to act or were unclear about procedures when confronting the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooter Feb. 14, 911 logs, surveillance videos, and interviews show.

On January 11th, 2019 newly elected Governor Ron DeSantis removed Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel from office.

In a March 1st, 2019 article by NPR titled Parkland Shooting Suspect: A Story Of Red Flags, Ignored Joel Rose and Brakkton Booker reported:

Friends, family and neighbors were worried about Nikolas Cruz. So were social workers, teachers and sheriff’s deputies in two counties.

[ … ]

When Cruz was just 10 years old, his mother called the police to the house. That call in 2008 was the first of dozens of times over the next decade she would summon law enforcement, often for help keeping her sons under control.

[ … ]

By 2013, according to that list, the calls to the deputies began detailing more violence. In November of that year, Lynda said she was thrown against a wall because she took away an Xbox gaming system. In November 2014, deputies report Cruz used a BB gun to shoot a chicken.

By early 2016, deputies were called after a neighbor’s son saw a disturbing Instagram post that seemed to suggest Cruz “planned to shoot up the school.” At the time, deputies concluded that Cruz owned knives and a BB gun. They passed along that information to a school resource officer at Stoneman Douglas, but it is not clear whether any other steps were taken.

It is one of several incidents now under further investigation by the sheriff’s office.

Of the 23 incidents deputies responded to at the Cruz residence, 18 of them involved Nikolas Cruz, according to the sheriff’s office. The office says that “none appeared arrestable under Florida law.”

Read more.

On June 4th, 2019 I reported:

Former Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson is facing 11 criminal charges – including child neglect, culpable negligence and perjury – in connection with his lack of response to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Broward State Attorney Mike Satz announced Tuesday.

Following a 14-month investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, former Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson, 56, was arrested Tuesday on seven counts of child neglect, three counts of culpable negligence and one count of perjury. The investigation examined the actions of law enforcement during and following the Parkland school mass shooting.

On June 6th 2019 Dana Loesch stated, “[Broward County] Sheriff Scott Israel worked hand in hand with [Superintendent of Broward County schools] Robert Runcie to hide criminal actions, misdemeanors, felonious behavior of students like this murderer. They enabled him to avoid having a record established that would have prevented him from legally purchasing a firearm. In my opinion, Sheriff Scott Israel may as well have walked into the gun store and bought it for him.”

There were many red flags involving Nickolas Cruz.

In addition to all of the above Nickolas Cruz was reported to the FBI twice.

The first time was on September 24, 2017 when Ben Bennight saw a comment on YouTube posted by a Nickolas Cruz stating, “Im going to be a professional school shooter.” 

The second report was on January 5, 2018, just over a month before the deadly Parkland shooting, to the FBI was from an anonymous caller from West Virginia who reported, “Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.”

CONCLUSION

Red flag laws are designed to cover up the failures of school district, local, state and federal law enforcement. Red flag laws will inevitably lead to innocent people caught up in the feeding frenzy to keep guns out of the hands of “crazy people.” Do these crazy people include current and former members of the U.S. armed forces who suffer from PTSD? In November 2018 a 61-year-old man is dead after he was shot by an officer trying to enforce Maryland’s new ‘red flag’ law.

Government imposed red flag laws can’t stop a killer from killing.

These 17 states and the District of Columbia have passed red flag laws: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii (effective Jan. 1, 2020), Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada (effective Jan. 1, 2020), New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

As Joseph Stalin said,

“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”

At some point red flag laws will be used to kill the idea of the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This is the current end game of many politicians, Republican and Democrat alike.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guns and the Do-Something Fallacy – WSJ

Raising a Black Flag Against Red Flag Laws

Trump Is Unlikely To Commit Political Suicide by Betraying Us On Guns

Answers to Common Gun-Related Questions After the Shootings in El Paso and Dayton

Mass Shootings Aren’t Becoming More Common–and Evidence Contradicts Stereotypes about the Shooters

7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws

RELATED VIDEOS:

Can You Guess How Many More Times Knives Are Used for Murder Compared to Rifles? The Answer Is Massive.

Universal Studios is promoting a film about the “elites” hunting down people who disagree with them. The film due out in late September is call “The Hunt.” Watch The Hunt – Official Trailer [HD]. UPDATE: Universal Studios has pulled the film and it’s trailer.

Warning: How This Veterans Affairs Policy ‘Red Flags’ Patriots

Gun-grabbing crisis vultures just can’t let the latest mass shootings go to waste. “Red flag” laws are now all the rage in the Beltway as the magic pill to prevent homicidal maniacs from wreaking havoc on the nation.

Even President Donald Trump has endorsed the idea of preemptively confiscating people’s firearms if they are deemed a “threat.”

But if you want to know how this American version of China’s social credit system would work in practice, let me remind you of how Veterans Affairs recklessly red-flags “disruptive” citizens without due process, transparency, or accountability in the name of “safety.”

Government bureaucrats routinely deprive our nation’s heroes of medical treatment based on arbitrary definitions of who and what constitutes a mental health menace.

I first reported on the VA’s secretive database on “disgruntled” and “disruptive” vets five years ago. Under the VA policy on “patient record flags,” federal bureaucrats can classify vets as “threats” based on assessments of their “difficult,” “annoying,” and “noncompliant” behavior.

The VA manual says the flags “are used to alert Veterans Health Administration medical staff and employees of patients whose behavior and characteristics may pose a threat either to their safety, the safety of other patients, or compromise the delivery of quality health care.”

What a crock. It’s precisely because so many vets receive inferior care from the feds that they have been forced to raise their voices.

Have we all forgotten the 40 veterans who perished at the Phoenix, Arizona, VA, which relegated patients to a bureaucratic black hole through secret waiting lists?

Among examples of patients’ behavior referred to the red-flaggers in the VA’s “Disruptive Behavior Committees” (Orwell couldn’t have cooked up a better name): venting “frustration about VA services and/or wait times, threatening lawsuits or to have people fired, and frequent unwarranted visits to the emergency department or telephone calls to facility staff.”

Disabled Air Force veteran and veterans advocate/attorney Benjamin Krause has exposed the Soviet-style targeting of veterans flagged for exercising their First Amendment rights or threatening to sue the VA over neglectful care or for simply being too “expensive.” He calls it “straight out of a totalitarian regime.”

In 2013, the VA inspector general concluded that the bureaucracy “does not have a comprehensive definition of what constitutes disruptive behavior.”

In January 2018, a VA Office of Inspector General report found that large numbers of flagged veterans were being left in the dark about being placed on dangerous patient lists—with no recourse to remove phony flags or appeal in any meaningful way.

Despite rules requiring the Disruptive Behavior Committee to notify flagged patients of their status and informing them of their right to amend their reports, the Office of Inspector General found no evidence in 49% of electronic health records that the panels had provided such notice and disclosure.

In 25% of medical records reviewed, the Office of Inspector General “found no evidence that patients were informed they had the right to request to amend or appeal” special orders restricting care of flagged patients.

There are undoubtedly patients in the system who may pose real threats. But the “problem with the process is that it is secret,” Krause explains at DisabledVeterans.org.

The review process is done in secret and the veteran will not know who sat on the committee or what the evidence presented was prior to the decision. Only after the decision is made are veterans informed of the outcome and given a chance to appeal the vague allegations. That seems like a due process violation if I have ever seen one.

Army vet David Scott Strain of Virginia told me recently that he was a flagged veteran. “My grave sin?” says Strain. “I tried to report the abuse of a deaf, infirm, World War II veteran. He was approximately 95 years of age. A male nurse stood behind his waiting room chair and shouted down at the top of his head, ‘Hello! Hello! Hello! If you can hear me, you can come in now!’”

Strain describes how the elderly vet “could not hear this, and the nurse went through three iterations, while giggling and looking at the wait room personnel as if we were a comedy club audience. It was one of the sickest displays I’ve ever seen.”

For blowing the whistle on VA elder abuse, Strain says, he was banned from all satellite clinics and only granted access to one main facility.

VA flaggers can “manufacture tone, the content of what you’re saying, and will even ascribe actions to you that you did not perform,” Strain warns.

“The potential red flag laws concern me deeply,” Strain told me. “Why any citizen would think it wise to let the government screw such handles to our backs, to threaten and wag us any which way, is beyond my understanding. However, I fully understand why politicians want it.”

Complain too much. Criticize the powers be. Ask too many questions. Boom! You’re a threat.

If such tyranny is allowed among those who volunteered to protect and serve our country in the name of safety, imagine how it will be implemented among the law-abiding, gun-owning general populace.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Michelle Malkin is a columnist for The Daily Signal, senior editor at Conservative Review, a best-selling author, and Fox News contributor. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

We Don’t Need Red Flag Laws, We Need More Good Americans To Get Guns

They Will Still Hate You Even If You Disarm

It’s Personal: Two Arguments For Self-Defense And Not Gun Control | Cam Edwards


A Note for our Readers:

Conservative lawmakers MUST be able to point to tremendous policy victories they have been able to achieve by the end of 2019.

To do that, they will need to be focused on a few specific priorities before the end of the year arrives.

Guess who has the ideas for a clear plan policy agenda for conservative leadership? That’s right — The Heritage Foundation.

Click here to learn how you can do your part in achieving policy victories for conservatives everywhere today.

LEARN MORE >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal Column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

FLASHBACK: Supreme Court Affirms Racist Origins of Gun Control

How ironic that, on the day Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who was a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan and rose to the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter died, the US Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the gun control laws that are embedded firmly in the Democratic Party’s racist roots.

At the heart of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case that is posted on the US Supreme Court’s Internet site is the Court’s decision that the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution – that was pushed through by Republicans after the Civil War, led by Republican Senator Charles Sumner – is the anchor that binds state and local governments to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense. 

Otis McDonald, one of the plaintiffs, is a black man who just wanted to have the right to protect himself from criminals who terrorized him in his home with frequent break-ins. The only current black US Supreme Court member, Justice Clarence Thomas who was appointed by Republican President George H. W. Bush, courageously delved into the racist origins of gun control laws to demonstrate that such laws have no place in a nation of free people. The liberal justices on the Court, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor who was appointed last year by Democrat President Barack Obama, voted against the black plaintiff and his fellow Chicago residents.

The McDonald case provides a bird eye’s view of the history of Democratic Party racism. Referenced in the Court’s opinion is the 1856 Republican Party Platform that includes language about the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” A key source used by the Court is the book “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877” by Dr. Eric Foner.

Forner’s book reveals how, before the Civil War ended, Southern states enacted “Slave Codes” that prohibited slaves from owning firearms. After Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in the rebelling states, and after Republicans pushed through the Thirteenth Amendment freeing all the remaining slaves, Democrats in the South persisted in keeping the newly freed slaves from owning the means to protect themselves – guns.

The Supreme Court in the McDonald decision wrote also about how, after the Civil War, the Southern States started passing laws, called “Black Codes”, to systematically disarm blacks, specifically the over 180,000 blacks who returned to the states of the old Confederacy after serving in the Union Army. In response to the “Black Codes,” the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. But the Democrats would not be deterred. Very soon after the 1866 law was enacted, Alabama, followed by other Southern states, again passed “Black Codes” that made it illegal for blacks to own firearms.

Cited by the Court in the McDonald case, as an example of such a discriminatory code, is the Mississippi law that stated: “no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.” In one Southern town, according to the Supreme Court, the marshal confiscated the weapons of the returning black Union soldiers and, at every opportunity, promptly shot black people.

The Court’s McDonald decision records that: “Throughout the South, armed parties, often consisting of ex-Confederate soldiers serving in the state militias, forcibly took firearms from newly freed slaves”. In his book about Reconstruction, Dr. Foner revealed that in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan was started as a Tennessee social club. The Klan then became a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party and spread into other Southern states, launching a “reign of terror” against Republican leaders, black and white. The Klan would “order the colored men to give up their arms; saying that everybody would be Kukluxed in whose house fire-arms were found”.

In the McDonald decision, the Court pointed out how the Republican-controlled Congress, while debating the Fourteenth Amendment, referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection.

Republican Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of Government”, one of which was the right to keep and bear arms. Pomeroy said: “Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete”.

Pomeroy’s words reflect exactly the sentiment expressed by Otis McDonald when he and his fellow Chicagoans filed a law suit against the Democrat-controlled City of Chicago that had confiscated their weapons, leaving them to the mercy of intruders who had broken open his door and entered his home for vile purposes.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guns Saved These Americans From Assault and Robbery in July

Black Republican Who Supports Trump Fires Back After Being Told To Stop Eating “Coon Flakes”

RELATED VIDEO: Media Hype Questionable Gun Control Study.

Gun Group on Trump’s Response to Shootings: ‘He Doesn’t Know How Volatile This Issue Is’

A gun rights group has warned President Donald Trump not to underestimate the volatile effect proposing gun control legislation could have on his base.

Gun Owners of America, a gun rights organization with more than 2 million members, called on Trump and other lawmakers Monday to reject calls for gun control in the wake of the El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, shootings.

“We think it’s important for Congress and the president to know that gun owners do not support the gun control measures Trump is advocating,” Erich Pratt, the group’s senior vice president, said in exclusive comments to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Many presidents have failed to recognize how gun control motivates voters. He doesn’t know how volatile this issue is. It will be interesting to see how the grassroots react to his comments,” Pratt added.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

Pratt was referring to remarks Trump made Monday about his administration’s plans to work with lawmakers on several gun control measures, including “red flag” laws, which would facilitate confiscation of weapons if someone has been deemed dangerous.

“It is frustrating to see President Donald Trump’s continued support for so-called red flag laws. These red flag laws, properly known as gun confiscation orders, are incompatible with actual due process and allow for the confiscation of firearms from innocent Americans,” Pratt said.

Trump also suggested the need to incorporate mental health status into qualifications for gun possession to prevent unstable individuals from having access to firearms, something Gun Owners of America said it believes is ripe for abuse.

“The GOA opposes all background checks for gun purchases, since unfortunately it could used as a drag net to disqualify individuals who should be able to own a gun,” Pratt said.

“For instance, past proposals have included putting Social Security Disability recipients on the list,” he added.

Trump also mentioned the impact that social media may have on dissemination of unhealthy views, something that Gun Owners of America agrees with, so long as it doesn’t lead to censorship.

“Broadly, we recognize the ‘copycat’ phenomena out there. Some of these shooters just want to get noticed,” Pratt said.

“We have to be careful, however,” he said. “We don’t want to get Congress into the business of discriminating against online speech because then they can justify censorship, which we don’t want.”

COLUMN BY

Whitney Tipton

Whitney Tipton is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

FULL VIDEO of President Trump’s remarks on the weekend shootings in Texas and Ohio.

President Donald J. Trump gave his remarks on the weekend shootings in Texas and Ohio in the White House Diplomatic Reception Room.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘You Had God Watching’: Trump Seeks to Console Shooting Survivors

The Obama Administration holds the record for the largest number of mass shootings

TRANSCRIPT

Diplomatic Reception Room

10:08 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  My fellow Americans, this morning, our nation is overcome with shock, horror, and sorrow.  This weekend, more than 80 people were killed or wounded in two evil attacks.

On Saturday morning, in El Paso, Texas, a wicked man went to a Walmart store, where families were shopping with their loved ones.  He shot and murdered 20 people, and injured 26 others, including precious little children.

Then, in the early hours of Sunday morning in Dayton, Ohio, another twisted monster opened fire on a crowded downtown street.  He murdered 9 people, including his own sister, and injured 27 others.

The First Lady and I join all Americans in praying and grieving for the victims, their families, and the survivors.  We will stand by their side forever.  We will never forget.

These barbaric slaughters are an assault upon our communities, an attack upon our nation, and a crime against all of humanity.  We are outraged and sickened by this monstrous evil, the cruelty, the hatred, the malice, the bloodshed, and the terror.  Our hearts are shattered for every family whose parents, children, husbands, and wives were ripped from their arms and their lives.  America weeps for the fallen.

We are a loving nation, and our children are entitled to grow up in a just, peaceful, and loving society.  Together, we lock arms to shoulder the grief, we ask God in Heaven to ease the anguish of those who suffer, and we vow to act with urgent resolve.

I want to thank the many law enforcement personnel who responded to these atrocities with the extraordinary grace and courage of American heroes.

I have spoken with Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, as well as Mayor Dee Margo of El Paso, Texas, and Mayor Nan Whaley of Dayton, Ohio, to express our profound sadness and unfailing support.

Today, we also send the condolences of our nation to President Obrador of Mexico, and all the people of Mexico, for the loss of their citizens in the El Paso shooting.  Terrible, terrible thing.

I have also been in close contact with Attorney General Barr and FBI Director Wray.  Federal authorities are on the ground, and I have directed them to provide any and all assistance required — whatever is needed.

The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate.  In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy.  These sinister ideologies must be defeated.  Hate has no place in America.  Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart, and devours the soul.  We have asked the FBI to identify all further resources they need to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism — whatever they need.

We must recognize that the Internet has provided a dangerous avenue to radicalize disturbed minds and perform demented acts.  We must shine light on the dark recesses of the Internet, and stop mass murders before they start.  The Internet, likewise, is used for human trafficking, illegal drug distribution, and so many other heinous crimes.  The perils of the Internet and social media cannot be ignored, and they will not be ignored.

In the two decades since Columbine, our nation has watched with rising horror and dread as one mass shooting has followed another — over and over again, decade after decade.

We cannot allow ourselves to feel powerless.  We can and will stop this evil contagion.  In that task, we must honor the sacred memory of those we have lost by acting as one people.  Open wounds cannot heal if we are divided.  We must seek real, bipartisan solutions.  We have to do that in a bipartisan manner.  That will truly make America safer and better for all.

First, we must do a better job of identifying and acting on early warning signs.  I am directing the Department of Justice to work in partisan — partnership with local, state, and federal agencies, as well as social media companies, to develop tools that can detect mass shooters before they strike.

As an example, the monster in the Parkland high school in Florida had many red flags against him, and yet nobody took decisive action.  Nobody did anything.  Why not?

Second, we must stop the glorification of violence in our society.  This includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace.  It is too easy today for troubled youth to surround themselves with a culture that celebrates violence.  We must stop or substantially reduce this, and it has to begin immediately.  Cultural change is hard, but each of us can choose to build a culture that celebrates the inherent worth and dignity of every human life.  That’s what we have to do.

Third, we must reform our mental health laws to better identify mentally disturbed individuals who may commit acts of violence and make sure those people not only get treatment, but, when necessary, involuntary confinement.  Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun.

Fourth, we must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.  That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders.

Today, I am also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty, and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively, and without years of needless delay.

These are just a few of the areas of cooperation that we can pursue.  I am open and ready to listen and discuss all ideas that will actually work and make a very big difference.

Republicans and Democrats have proven that we can join together in a bipartisan fashion to address this plague.  Last year, we enacted the STOP School Violence and Fix NICS Acts into law, providing grants to improve school safety and strengthening critical background checks for firearm purchases.  At my direction, the Department of Justice banned bump stocks.  Last year, we prosecuted a record number of firearms offenses.  But there is so much more that we have to do.

Now is the time to set destructive partisanship aside — so destructive — and find the courage to answer hatred with unity, devotion, and love.  Our future is in our control.  America will rise to the challenge.  We will always have and we always will win.  The choice is ours and ours alone.  It is not up to mentally ill monsters; it is up to us.

If we are able to pass great legislation after all of these years, we will ensure that those who were attacked will not have died in vain.

May God bless the memory of those who perished in Toledo.  May God protect them.  May God protect all of those from Texas to Ohio.  May God bless the victims and their families.  May God bless America.

Thank you very much.  Thank you.

END

10:18 A.M. EDT

© All rights reserved.

NYT Gives Democrats Marching Orders On El Paso Shooting

It is to be expected that Democrats will coldly attempt to score political points from the tragic shootings in Texas and Ohio. Integrity-free politicians will do anything to get elected or stay in office.

The combined shootings over the same weekend will predictably create a call for more gun laws that would do nothing to reduce violence or even gun violence in the United States, as is painfully clear in our ongoing lab testing between states and cities with strict gun laws and those with very few.

But the El Paso shooting will get most of the attention, because it combines the left’s loathing of guns with its reflexive use of the word-weapon “racism” all the time. El Paso is a springboard for blaming all Republicans for guns and blaming President Trump for creating a violent anti-immigrant atmosphere.

And inconveniently, the shooter in Ohio was a known supporter of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. His Twitter biography reads, “he/him / anime fan / metalhead / leftist / i’m going to hell and i’m not coming back.” And he supported strict guns laws! All of which means this will be forgotten as quickly as the shooter who shot up the Republican softball team and was a rabid Bernie Sanders supporter.

Ever the opportunist, Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke jumped on this immediately on Face the Nation Sunday. “I’m saying that President Trump has a lot to do with what happened in El Paso yesterday,” he said. Trump “sows the kind of fear, the kind of reaction that we saw in El Paso yesterday.”

But the New York Times, which all leftists and Democrat political leaders read and take cues from, essentially wrote the party talking points for them, right from the “news analysis” lead:

At campaign rallies before last year’s midterm elections, President Trump repeatedly warned that America was under attack by immigrants heading for the border. “You look at what is marching up, that is an invasion!” he declared at one rally. “That is an invasion!”

Nine months later, a 21-year-old white man is accused of opening fire in a Walmart in El Paso, killing 20 people and injuring dozens more after writing a manifesto railing against immigration and announcing that “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

There you go, Democrats. It’s spelled out with citations for you by your allies at the New York Times.

Talking Point: Trump used the word “invasion” and the shooter used the word “invasion.”

President Trump said Sunday after the shootings: “Hate has no place in our country, and we’re going to take care of it.” On Monday, he tweeted:

“We cannot let those killed in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, die in vain. Likewise for those so seriously wounded. We can never forget them, and those many who came before them. Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying…this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform. We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!”

But here’s how the New York Times summed it up for readers:

“Hate has no place in our country, and we’re going to take care of it,” the president said, declining to elaborate but promising to speak more on Monday morning. He made no mention of white supremacy or the El Paso manifesto, but instead focused on what he called “a mental illness problem.”

This is a beautiful example of why Trump needs Twitter and every Republican needs communications outlets that bypass the Democrat media establishment. Does anyone even doubt that in 2019, with zero culture of white supremacy, that anyone who believes in such garbage has mental issues? And just because President Obama would dive in with very few facts doesn’t mean Trump should.

Talking Point: Trump refuses to acknowledge his role in whipping up hate. 

What’s really interesting is that in the shooter’s manifesto, he states clearly that his views on immigration “predate Trump,” because even a deranged mass murderer knows what the media and Democrats are going to do with his evil act.

The Times acknowledges the “predate Trump” statement but dismisses it. “But if Mr. Trump did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society.”

Perhaps the Times has forgotten, but immigration has been one of the most polarizing debates we’ve had for many years. The Times stopped covering it much — and nothing on kids in cages at the border — during President Obama’s eight years, but it turns out that reality still happens even if the Times does not report it. Illegal immigration has been divisive for decades and tens of millions of Americans’ frustration had reached a boiling point long before Trump. It’s part of what got him elected.

But here’s the summary, which you can expect to hear coming out of Democrats’ mouths.

“While other leaders have expressed concern about border security and the costs of illegal immigration, Mr. Trump has filled his public speeches and Twitter feed with sometimes false, fear-stoking language even as he welcomed to the White House a corps of hard-liners, demonizers and conspiracy theorists shunned by past presidents of both parties. Because of this, Mr. Trump is ill equipped to provide the kind of unifying, healing force that other presidents projected in times of national tragedy.”

The Times conveniently forgets how President Obama stoked racial animus after Ferguson, after Baltimore and after Trayvon Martin. Trump may be ill-equipped, but Obama proved repeatedly he was. The Times is silent on that point, because the actual point of their coverage is to set the stage for Democrats to attack Trump and all Republicans.

But this: “he welcomed to the White House a corps of hard-liners, demonizers and conspiracy theorists shunned by past presidents of both parties.” The Times does not name these people, nor point out the haters previous presidents have invited because of political alliances.But it’s a politically useful salvo.

Talking Point: Trump has even invited racist anti-immigration hard-liners to the White House.

El Paso Mayor Dee Margo got it right when, after CNN’s Jake Tapper repeatedly tried to get him to link the shooting with Trump’s language: “I’m focusing on El Paso. There’s evil in this world and it’s unfortunate.”

Don’t expect to get that reality check from the Democrats or their media.

RELATED ARTICLE: Five outrageous reactions to Dayton and El Paso tragedies from Democrats and mainstream media

RELATED VIDEO: President Trump’s remarks on the weekend shootings in Texas and Ohio.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.