Most Affordable States to Start Your Business

Now more than ever, aspiring entrepreneurs are pursuing their passions and looking for ways to start a business. One of the key considerations when starting a business is keeping costs low and profits high. Choosing the right place in which to open up shop can make a significant impact on the bottom line.

If you’ve been considering opening a business in the USA, some states will be more profitable than others. Here are the most affordable states in which to start your business.

Considerations

Before you learn which states are the best for entrepreneurs, you need to understand the elements that play a role in affordability. Some implications affect the business itself, while others have an indirect influence by affecting the business owner.

Some key considerations include:

  • Taxation – some states have higher taxes than others. Choosing a state with lower taxation means you keep more of the money you’ve earned.
  • Entrepreneurial environment – is the area in a state of economic growth? These are essential components of market research when choosing a home state.
  • Funding opportunities – what are the startup costs in this area when compared to funding opportunities? Some states promote entrepreneurship by offering grants and loans.
  • Labor market – depending on your business venture, you may require specialized or highly-educated workers, which are more affluent in some states.
  • Cost and quality of living – will you be able to afford to live in the state you work when you consider housing, groceries, and utilities? Also, the safety of the area, school options, and more.

By weighing these factors, you’ll be able to determine which state is best for your business. Keeping these concerns in mind, here are some of the most affordable states in which to start a business.

Texas

Texas is at the top of the list for affordability when considering a new business. First and foremost, cities in Texas– Houston and Austin, to name a few– have been booming in recent years. This influx of people and skilled workers has created ample opportunity for aspiring entrepreneurs.

Texas encourages entrepreneurs to open up shop in the Lonestar State with grants and funding options to support their endeavors. This is backed further by free resources, like the Texas Entrepreneur Networks, which helps business owners find investors.

Finally, utilities are affordable in Texas. The electricity plans for Texas are deregulated, creating an open market situation resulting in savings for the end-user. As Texas is such a great place to live and work, it’s the number one state for opening a new business.

Utah

Utah is another state in which to give serious consideration to opening a business. It’s one of the best states in terms of resources for business owners and offers some of the most accessible financing options. Grants and loans are abundant in Utah, and it boasts a higher economic growth rate for small businesses than Texas.

As far as the cost of living goes in Utah, it’s perfectly average in comparison to the rest of the states, ranking 27th overall. While things like groceries, utilities, and transportation are slightly lower than the national average, housing is the tipping point. The median home cost in Utah is slightly over $100,000 more than the national average.

Fortunately, Utah is also one of the best states to rent in. The average rent in Utah is about $200 less per month than the national average. Between the financing options and rent affordability, Utah is a worthy contender for the most affordable and profitable state in which to start a business.

Colorado

Colorado is an entrepreneur’s dream. With low taxation and startup costs, it’s no wonder why so many Millennials are immigrating to Colorado to pursue their business goals. This state boasts a burgeoning labor force, with over fifty percent of residents holding a bachelor’s degree at minimum. In fact, Colorado is one of the most educated states in the country.

The cost of living in Colorado is slightly higher than the national average. This is primarily due to the prices in Denver and some of the more affluent areas. However, as it is a highly educated area, the average income is slightly higher than the national average, as well.

Due to the startup culture in Colorado, there are a lot of incredible resources for entrepreneurs. Denver Startup Week takes place every September and is both an educational and networking opportunity that can open doors for entrepreneurs and investors. The education tracks address everything from business growth, to being a founder, to specific industry concerns.

Make Your Move

While these are the top three affordable states for starting a business, there are many other options. Choosing the right place to start your business builds a strong foundation for growth and success.

The Cult of Transgenderism: My Brother’s Crisis of Identity in an America Gone Mad

By Lisa*Editor’s Note: This is Part 1 of a 6-Part Series. The author of this true account, a wife and mother of three, wishes to remain anonymous. All names in this account have been changed.The Abandonment of Reality and the Embrace of the “True Self”

Last year, my brother Josh, a 37-year-old married father with five kids under the age of 9, announced he was becoming a woman.

His wife, in turn, announced that she not only plans to stay married, but that she is “more proud of him” than she’s ever been. Actually, she said she is “more proud of her than she’s ever been.” That’s because my brother Josh changed his name to Melissa and now requires everyone to use “she/her” pronouns when referring to him. If the grandparents refuse to do this, they have been threatened with limited access to their grandchildren.

My brother and sister-in-law claim that through several years of therapy, they came to realize the truth: that Melissa was Josh’s “true self” all along.

Thus, my tall, handsome, muscular brother began taking strong female hormones that transformed him into a different person. His facial hair stopped growing. He grew breasts instead. As part of his “social transition” he began wearing dresses, wigs, heels, and makeup in public. He will have to stay on female hormones until the day he dies. He refuses to answer to the name Josh now—the only name anyone’s known him as for almost four decades. He says Josh is dead. There was even some type of symbolic “burial ceremony” to say goodbye to Josh once and for all. Unfortunately, I didn’t get invited to that. Nor did my parents. No one sent us flowers. No one dropped off a casserole.

Basically, the best way to describe what happens when a loved one decides to swap genders is this: It’s as though someone murders your loved one and then the murderer gets extremely angry if you won’t let them take the victim’s place in your family.

My family and I are now called “transphobic” for not embracing Melissa with open arms.

When I told my brother, “I’m sorry…I love Josh, but I cannot move forward with this new Melissa girl,” he simply texted me: “So long then.” So long to almost 40 years of relating as siblings. So long to weekly dinners at my parents’ home. So long to our kids growing up with their cousins. But I do not fault him or his wife for this. They are victims. They have been brainwashed by the trans cult. It all began with a therapist’s advice and ended with lifelong payments to the trans medical machine. There’s lots of money to be made in telling people to become the opposite gender. Lots. (More on that later.)

Oddly, even in this #MeToo era, American culture now tells me that my brother—who’s spent 37 years as a Caucasian male—now deserves the same rights and respects that I, an actual woman, deserve. I’m a woman who’s been sexually harassed hundreds of times in my 40 years of life. My brother was a star high school athlete who had his pick of girls to date. While I was fending off unwanted stares and groping hands of males in my 20s, he was enjoying all the perks of being just such a male in the 21st century. While I was giving birth to three babies who will grow up to be women in my 30s, he was joining the fight to get legal access to their public restrooms.

See, if my brother was claiming to be an alien or a time traveler instead of a woman, our culture would never support it. But since it’s 2019 and the denial of reality when it comes to biological sex is en vogue—countless people are blindly embracing Melissa as my brother’s “True Self.” Even though reality clearly proves my brother is male, people unabashedly deny reality out of fear of being called “intolerant.” They’re terrified of being lumped in with all the “Trump-supporting, LGBTQ haters.” They say things like, “If Josh tells us that this Melissa is actually his ‘true self,’ who are we to argue?”

The “True Self” has become the final measure of all things. Every book we open, every show we watch, every internet meme we read suggests we can all attain greater levels of health and peace through a deeper understanding and expression of our “True Self.”

It sounds so right. How can it be wrong?

In his book The Road to Character, David Brooks explains that back in the day, there was something called moral realism—a worldview that put an emphasis on human sin and human weakness. Biblical figures like David and Moses were seen as great leaders who were also deeply flawed. Augustine and the early church fathers talked constantly about the depravity of sin and the need for grace. Then around the 18th century, moral realism found a rival in moral romanticism. Romantics like Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasized the inherent goodness of man and rejected the concept of sin.

Fast forward to the 20th century when books like Rabbi Joshua Liebman’s New York Times best seller Peace of Mind (published in 1946) urged people toward a new morality based on the idea that you should never repress any part of yourself as sinful. Instead, you should “love yourself” and not be afraid of your hidden impulses. Humanist psychologists ran with this idea. They began arguing that the primary problem for humans was no longer sin, but rather the fact that we weren’t fully accepting of ourselves exactly as God made us. This line of thinking led to the advent of the self-esteem movement in 1969, and the core of that movement morphed into what Charles Taylor calls “The Culture of Authenticity.” That’s the culture we’re contending with today.

The central belief of the culture of authenticity goes something like this:

At the center of every one of us is a Golden Figure known as “the True Self.” The True Self can always be trusted. You know that what you’re doing is right when you feel an inner peace inside your True Self. You know that what you’re doing is wrong when you do not feel inner peace inside your True Self.

Because the True Self is inherently good, there is no sin to be found in it. Thus, sin is now found only in the external structures of society that seek to repress the True Self or stop it from fully emerging.

Previous generations believed the development of character and the road to salvation came by struggling against the desires of the True Self. This is why traits like selflessness and self-sacrifice were considered most admirable. But not anymore. Our culture now has a new “salvation”—with the True Self playing the role of redeemer.

The steps to this “new salvation” are as follows:

  1. Relinquish any previous struggle you had against your True Self.
  2. Allow your ego/shadow self to fall away so your True Self can fully emerge without any guilt or shame (both of which are constructs of old, outdated religious systems).
  3. Adopt a new lexicon in which words like “sin” and “evil” now refer to the external constructs of society that caused you to doubt your True Self was good and perfect in the first place. (Thus, the only real sin a man is now capable of engaging in is the sin of intolerance.)

Yet many influential thinkers of the past, including John Stuart Mill, believed the point of life was to struggle every day to sacrifice the True Self on the altar of care and concern for others. This is done by achieving a series of small, inner victories against your own desires because you know that acting upon those desires could result in dire consequences for others.

Because we are all bound together through our good and bad choices, the smallest decisions we make today can negatively impact everyone in our sphere of influence, even reaching forward into generations to come. Thus, we build character by a thousand selfless acts of restraint every day that no one ever sees or applauds.

Our society once believed this sort of self-restraint was the best way to live. Men and women were encouraged to exercise self-restraint in building a life of integrity. But the ideals of selflessness and self-restraint are now seen as hopelessly outdated and must be discarded in favor of the True Self.

To continue reading Lisa’s story, click over to the FRC blog…

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Data Show “Gender-Affirming” Surgery Doesn’t Really Improve Mental Health. So Why Are the Study’s Authors Saying It Does?

4 Feminist Lies That Are Making Women Miserable

Military Trans Surgery: It’s on the House!

School Library Leaves Parents Shelf Shocked

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

A New Candidate for Confiscator-in-Chief

Former Texas Congressman Robert Francis O’Rourke abandoned his run for President last week, once again leaving a void for the most strident anti-gun candidate seeking the Democrat nomination. Even before declaring his candidacy for President, California Representative Eric Swalwell raised the specter of banning AR-15s and similar firearms, forcing Americans to turn them in through a confiscation scheme mislabeled as a “mandatory buyback,” then “go[ing] after” resisters. He even famously “joked” about using nukes to enforce his scheme.

After Swalwell became the first candidate to bow out of the race when he failed to generate any noticeable poll numbers, O’Rourke stepped up to push the confiscation message.

Clearly, every Democrat that wants to run against Trump is anti-gun. The main difference among them, when it comes to semi-automatics, seems to be whether they want to ban their future production, ban them completely and confiscate them, or ban their future production and register those currently owned (presumably to make future confiscation easier).

Candidate O’Rourke staked out his strident position during the third Democrat Debate when he infamously declared, “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK47….” The former Congressman even seemed to double-down on his ban and confiscate scheme. He said during the fourth debate that if a gun owner doesn’t turn in a lawfully acquired firearm, “…then that weapon will be taken from them,” as well as suggesting they may face “other consequences from law enforcement.” He also told Joe Scarborough during an interview the day after the fourth debate that if someone did not turn over a banned semi-auto, “there would be a visit by law enforcement.”

Last week, an Iowa high school student confronted O’Rourke about his plan to ban AR-15s, the rifle the teen uses for hunting deer. The candidate feigned ignorance over the notion that people use the rifle for hunting deer, even though it is commonly used for taking such game.

Later in the week, at an event in Newtown, Conn., that was closed to the public and organized by groups promoting gun control, O’Rourke was again confronted. This time, a Newtown resident accused the candidate of trying to exploit the tragedy her town experienced to promote his anti-gun agenda.

O’Rourke must have finally seen the writing on the wall. He faced harsh criticism over his anti-gun extremism, even in what he may have thought would be “friendly” environments. He burned through an estimated $14 million in campaign funds, while poll after poll saw him stagnating in the low-to-mid single digits. And don’t forget he spent around $80 million last year to lose his U.S. Senate race against Senator Ted Cruz.

If he could not win a statewide race with that kind of money, what hope did he have of winning a national election?

Last Friday, the Texan answered that question when he pulled the plug on his latest campaign. But with O’Rourke now out of the race, will any Democrat candidate don the mantle of wannabe Confiscator in Chief?

On Monday’s episode of The View, while the cast was doing a postmortem on O’Rourke’s failed campaign, host Joy Behar chastised the former Texas Representative for revealing exactly what NRA has been saying for years is the ultimate goal of anti-gun extremists.

Perhaps as a warning to the remaining Democrat candidates, Behar stated, “They should not tell everything they’re going to do. If you are going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected and then take them away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.”

For a party that claims to support transparency, it seems odd to hear a Democrat like Behar offer such advice. Perhaps more concerning, however, would be to consider what else Democrat candidates for President might have in store for law-abiding gun owners that they do not want to publicly reveal until after next year’s election.

Of course, it is likely Behar’s advice will be followed. The top three candidates seeking the Democrat nomination seem to be set at Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Vice President Joe Biden, while South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has been showing signs of gaining some traction. All have rejected O’Rourke’s call for confiscation, at least openly, and at least for now.

But, with multiple sources now reporting that anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg is once again considering throwing his name into the already crowded Democrat field, it’s likely that anti-gun extremists won’t have to wait long for a new champion of confiscation. After all, he’ll be the only candidate who can tout his experience as a firearm confiscator.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Hampshire: Firearm Seizure Bill Headed to House Floor

Wisconsin: Gov. Evers Calls for Firearm Confiscation & Criminalizing Private Transfers

Bloomberg’s Gun Control Apparatus Lies to Virginia’s Firearm Owners in Election Mailing

Strong Firearms Preemption Laws are More Important Than Ever

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

The Stethoscope Is Not Just a Prop

Stock photos of “healthcare workers” who attend patients—physicians are no longer distinguishable—usually feature a stethoscope draped around the neck.

But some, such as cardiologist Eric Topol, consider the stethoscope obsolete, nothing more than a pair of “rubber tubes.”

The most important part of the stethoscope is the part between the ears. But some think that will be replaced by artificial intelligence, and the rubber tubes by sophisticated electronic gizmos costing at least ten times as much as the humble stethoscope.

High tech is wonderful and increasingly capable, but if the stethoscope is dying, so is the art of clinical medicine.

The proper use of the stethoscope requires the doctor to touch, listen to the patient, and spend some time with a living person, not a computer. Patient and physician must cooperate: “Stop breathing,” “Take a big deep breath,” “Lean forward,” and so on.

It may be true, as Dr. James Thomas said, that graduates in internal medicine and emergency medicine miss as many as half of murmurs using a stethoscope. There are several reasons for this. One is not taking enough time to listen in a quiet room, and failing to perform the special maneuvers required to bring out an otherwise inaudible murmur (lean forward and exhale fully, turn onto your left side, squat then stand up, etc.).

The other is inadequate training. There are excellent recordings of heart sounds and murmurs, which of course would take time away from the time-devouring electronic medical record or “systems-based” medicine. And a recording is not the same thing as a live patient. Much of today’s teaching in physical diagnosis may be by “patient instructors”—paid actors pretending to be patients, who are evaluating the students as the students examine them. Rounds may be in a conference room, focused on the electronic record, instead of at the bedside.

In the old days, all the members of the team got to examine a real patient who had an interesting finding, with the patient’s permission and under the supervision of an attending physician. It seemed to me that patients usually enjoyed being the center of attention and the star of the show, and hearing the professor discuss their case. We learned how to help patients to sit up, and about hairy chests, layers of extra insulation, noisy lung sounds, shortness of breath, and other impediments to an easy examination.

The stethoscope is not just for heart murmurs. It’s for finding subtleties in careful, slow measurement of the blood pressure. It’s for extra or abnormal heart sounds. One can sometimes hear evidence of vascular problems inside the skull, or in the arteries supplying the brain, kidneys, or limbs. Or signs of intestinal obstruction. One can check to make sure a breathing tube is in the right place.

I don’t know of any bedside technologic wonders for examining the lungs. The stethoscope can detect sensitive signs of heart failure, pneumonia, fluid in the chest, collapsed lung, or airway obstruction. One can listen frequently to monitor changes in the patient’s status—much more efficiently than bringing the portable x-ray machine around.

The stethoscope works even when the power is off, the batteries are dead, the computer is down, or some circuit in the ultrasound device is malfunctioning. It works in facilities too poor to have the latest technology, or with patients who can’t afford to pay for a more expensive examination.

The stethoscope has tremendous capabilities in trained hands. Patients might want to evaluate whether they have a clinician who knows how to use it or is just carrying around a prop or status symbol. If you have symptoms suggestive of a heart or lung problem, does the doctor listen to all the lung fields—upper, mid, and lower, front and back? To at least four places for heart sounds? Are you asked to cough, say “e,” whisper something, take deep breaths or slow quiet ones, or do other maneuvers if something in the history or examination suggests a possible problem? Is the tv off, and are visitors asked to be quiet?

Everybody including doctors loves fancy technology. But before we toss out the old reliable tools, backed by two centuries of experience, how about some serious comparative studies like those the proponents of evidence-based medicine constantly demand?

© All rights reserved.

The Complete Guide to Home Self Defense Guns: Our Top 5

Would a standard shotgun do? What about a basic revolver? We break down the types of firearms you should consider.

This is the complete guide to home defense guns. In this in-depth guide, you’ll learn:

  • What to look for in a home defense gun
  • The pros/cons with each firearm type
  • What’s the best home defense gun for you
  • And much more

So if you’re trying to look for the best home defense weapon that’ll protect you and your family, this guide is for you. Let’s dive right in.

There’s no such thing as a one size fits all for home defense.

It depends on you and your needs. More specifically, it boils down to your proficiency (or comfort) with your firearm. For example, if all you do is practice with a pistol, then that’s the right gun for you. Likewise, if you only practice with a rifle, then that’s your best home defense weapon. Why is that so?

Stress. When the stressful home invasion occurs, you won’t have time to think. You’ll only have time to act. So choosing a gun that you’re proficient with will help you respond faster, saving you and your families’ life.

That said, here’s the complete breakdown of each firearm type with pros, cons, best use, and even recommendations.

Rifles

Rifles are a great home defense choice. Why? Rifles are insanely accurate, fast, and have the largest magazine. This is great for multi-intruder home defense scenarios. But is it the right choice for you? Here the complete breakdown:

Pros

  • Lethal
  • Very accurate (longer sight radius)
  • Low recoil (depending on your caliber)
  • Large magazine (30 rounds)
  • Highly modifiable
  • Designed to engage multiple targets

Cons

  • Expensive
  • Heavier (reduces handling speed)
  • Easier to disarm (due to barrel size)
  • Over-penetration (hits more than the intended target)
  • Decreased maneuverability (can’t easily be moved in small spaces)

Best Uses

If you want an edge over your intruders, then get a rifle.

It has a larger magazine, more accurate, and incapacitates quickly. You can take an army with a rifle. In fact, that’s how a veteran took out a three-man armed robbery. That’s why I highly recommend a rifle (if you can afford one). It gives you the firepower necessary to overpower your intruder(s).

Recommendation

Smith & Wesson M&P15 Sport II: A very popular 30 round AR-15. It’s an affordable, close-quarters AR-15 that’s designed for home defense. Bonus tip: throw on some game-changing accessories like an AR-15 optic, light and an adjustable stock, and you’ll be ready-to-go.

Shotguns

Shotguns are usually recommended for home defense. It’s great at short-range, scary, and very reliable. Here’s the breakdown:

Pros

  • Affordable
  • Doesn’t jam
  • Doesn’t over-penetrate (depending on gauge)
  • Racking sound scares intruders
  • Works great in low light
  • Weapon-of-choice for wild animals and zombies (just kidding)

Cons

  • Heavier
  • Strong recoil
  • Shorter magazine (5-6 rounds)
  • Slow reloads
  • Short-range use only
  • Not precise (can hit friendlies due to spread)
  • Needs to be aimed (at home defense ranges)
  • Weak stopping power (may not incapacitate targets immediately)

Best Use

If you potentially deal with wild animals or you want to intimidate your intruder, then choose a shotgun. Otherwise, opt-in for another firearm type.

Why? The spread. Let’s say the bad guy’s got your wife in a headlock. Will a shotgun be able to accurately (and safely) take down the bad guy without hitting your wife? No, it wouldn’t.

You’d probably end up hitting your wife because of the spread. Not to mention, most shotguns have a 5-6 shot magazine, so you’ll be out of ammo very fast. That said, I have nothing against shotguns. A lot of people prefer them for home defense with wonderful results. I’m just breaking it down on paper.

If you like a shotgun and you’re proficient with it, then go with one! I agree: it’s an intimidating gun and can save you a firefight when you rack the gun. Yet, it does have its flaws (as mentioned above).

Recommendations

Remington 870: A reliable (and popular) pump-action shotgun. It’s lightweight, intimidating, and affordable.

Benelli M2: A semi-automatic shotgun that doesn’t require you to pump the handle. Just aim and fire.

Revolvers

A revolver (or a “hand cannon”) is a simple and reliable handgun. It’s small, deadly, and affordable. It’s also terrifying. That’s why some prefer a revolver for home defense. But is it any good?

Let’s break it down:

Pros

  • Reliable
  • Easy-to-operate (aim and pull)
  • Scary

Cons

  • Troublesome recoil
  • Requires more skill to fire
  • Fires slower (due to trigger)
  • Reloads slower (due to revolver’s cylinder)
  • Smaller Magazine (6 rounds)

Best Uses

If you’re a “revolver” kind of guy, then go for a revolver. But be warned: it’s not very effective.

It has a small magazine, a bit of a kick, takes longer to reload, and requires more skill to shoot accurately. That’s why law enforcement (minus old cops) stopped using revolvers. They replaced it with a semi-automatic pistol (I’ll cover why below).

That said, if you’re a revolver man, you don’t need a recommendation. But if you do, here it is.

Recommendation

Smith & Wesson Model 66: A 6-shot, .357 Magnum revolver. It’s got an adjustable sight and concealable.

Semi-Automatic Pistol

A semi-automatic pistol is the most common home defense weapon. It’s lightweight, accurate, easy to use, and concealable. It also fits in cramped locations like hallways and doorways. That’s why Law Enforcement and FBI prefer it. But is it the right choice for home defense? Here’s the full breakdown:

Pros

  • -Inexpensive
  • Lightweight
  • Accurate
  • Concealable
  • Fast Target Acquisition
  • Requires only one hand
  • Maneuverable in tight spaces (like small rooms)

Cons

  • Short-range
  • Shorter Mag (potential ammo shortages)
  • Less control (smaller grip surface)
  • Can over-penetrate (depending on caliber)

Best Uses

If you’re looking for a fast and accessible firearm, then go for a semi-automatic pistol. In many gun experts’ opinions, it’s the best firearm type for home defense. It’s cheap, concealable, accurate, and very fast. It’ll be ready whenever you need it.

Recommendation

S&W M&P9c: A polymer-frame, striker-fired double-stack 9mm pistol. It’s affordable, accurate, ergonomic and very concealable.

What’s The Best Gun For Home Defense?

The truth is, it doesn’t matter what weapon you choose. You can choose a shotgun, pistol, revolver, or rifle. They all do the same job—incapacitate whomever it’s pointed at.

Sure, some guns do it better than others. But honestly, it doesn’t matter. What matters is you choose a weapon and practice with it. Because let’s face it:

In a stressful home defense situation, you’re not going to have time to “remember” how to use a gun. You’ll be relying on your training instincts. The better trained you are, the better instincts you’ll have at your disposal.

So keep it simple. First, choose a weapon you like. Then, take it out to the range. And continuously practice. The more you practice, the better the gun (and you) become at home defense. But that’s enough from me.

What’s Your Favorite Home Defense Weapon?

Maybe you like a shotgun? Or an AR-15 equipped with an optic? Either way, let me know what you think in the comments below.

© All rights reserved.

NRA & Gun Owners Win. Bloomberg / Everytown Lose.

Montana Supreme Court finds localities cannot go rogue and enact extreme gun control

FAIRFAX, Va.–  The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today applauded a decision by the Montana state Supreme Court protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners in that state. In an NRA-backed case, the justices held, in a 5-0 decision, that the City of Missoula’s attempt to impose extreme gun control measures was a clear violation of state law.

“This is a huge victory for Montana gun owners and everyone who cherishes freedom in Big Sky Country,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The unanimous ruling from Montana’s Supreme Court confirms that politicians cannot usurp a constitutional framework by contemptuously enacting gun control at the local level.”

Montana, like more than 40 other states, has a preemption law restricting local governments from passing gun control measures that are more restrictive than state law. Preemption laws protect law-abiding gun owners from dealing with a confusing patchwork of laws that can make it nearly impossible to carry a firearm for home and self-defense.

The City of Missoula’s gun control ordinance would have criminalized virtually all private firearms transfers in the city, even between relatives, friends, and co-workers.

Earlier this month, in an NRA-backed case, a Washington court similarly ruled that the state preemption law prohibits local governments from regulating the storage of firearms.

The NRA has led the fight to enact state preemption laws across the country to ensure uniformity in state gun laws.

“These cases underscore the peoples’ need for judges who will faithfully interpret the law in defense of their freedom,” Ouimet concluded.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NRA Member spotlight: Meet the Man Who Helped Turn an Anti-Gun Townhall into a Pro-gun Rally

Washington: Court Upholds State Preemption in Legal Victory for NRA & SAF

Veteran Criticizes Police Practices, Gets Guns and Firearm License Seized by Chief of Police

Of Course Shannon Watts and Everytown are Anti-gun and Hate the Second Amendment

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

Watch: THANK YOU for rebuilding our country! [+Video]

President Donald J. Trump traveled to Pittsburgh yesterday, where he spoke to workers in America’s booming energy sector at the Shale Insight Conference.

The last time President Trump spoke at the conference was on the campaign trail in 2016. Back then, American energy was under relentless assault—not from some foreign enemy, but from our own Federal Government. The previous Administration made it its mission to stifle growth with crippling regulations aimed at energy producers. These policies did nothing to advance “green energy,” but they did cost many workers their jobs.

American energy dominance is a powerful symbol of President Trump’s larger mission for our nation: “Instead of relying on foreign oil and foreign energy, we are now relying on American energy and American workers like never before,” he says.

“I’m here with the incredible people who fuel our factories, light up our homes, power our industries, and fill our hearts with true American pride,” he added. “With unmatched skill, grit, and devotion, you are making America the greatest energy superpower in the history of the world.”

Energy superpower is no exaggeration. Here are some of the facts and numbers behind America’s energy boom under the Trump Administration:

  • The United States is now the world leader in oil and natural gas production.
  • Crude oil reached a record high in production last year—and is projected to set another record this year.
  • Ditto for natural gas: Production is on pace to set a record high in 2019, the third straight year of such a record.
  • In 2018, coal exports reached their highest level in 5 years.

It wasn’t a mystery figuring out how to get America back on top globally—it just took a President willing to abolish the counterproductive war on American energy workers. The Trump Administration ended job-killing policies put in place under President Obama, like the Clean Power Plan and “stream protection rule.” It pulled America out of the fraudulent, ineffective, and one-sided Paris Climate Accord. And it has opened up federally owned land and offshore areas for exploration and production.

President Trump also believes in building world-class infrastructure that puts more Americans back to work—no matter what the far left tries to block. His Administration has approved permits for the crucial Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines, for instance.

Back in 2008, Democrats actually offered a startling preview of what was to come. “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” then-Sen. Barack Obama explained. He was telling the truth: By the time President Trump took office, more than a third of all coal mining jobs had vanished.

The left is at it again, but this time there’s even less pretending about their true motives. If implemented, the “Green New Deal” would be the most radical takeover of America’s economy ever contemplated. The ultimate goal is to eradicate all production of oil, coal, and natural gas in the United States—and millions of jobs along with it.

President Trump made clear yesterday that he will never let that happen. That’s because he knows who built this great country—and it wasn’t wanna-be socialists in Congress.

“I will never stop fighting for you, because I know that you are the ones who are rebuilding our nation. You are the ones who are restoring our strength. You are the ones renewing our spirit. And you are the ones who are making America greater than it has ever been before.”

Thanks to President Trump, the war on American energy is over.

ReadThe President’s full remarks to energy workers in Pennsylvania.

Abolish the Diversity Visa Lottery

Diversity Visa Lottery is “America’s  Achilles heel” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein in an interview in 2015.


What is the Visa Lottery?

The Diversity Visa Lottery also known as (the Green Card Lottery) is an immigration program by which immigrants from nations with usually low rates of immigration to the United States are able to apply for a visa online. The platform, however, has been used by terrorists to penetrate America. On October 31, 2017, Sayfullo Saipov used a rental pickup truck to deliberately mow down pedestrians. After killing 8 and injuring 13, he left the truck and shouted, “Allahu Akbar.” Sayfullo is an Uzbekistan national and came to America in 2010. Later officials found a note about his allegiance to ISIS. This attack immediately received worldwide reaction from other lawmakers including the US. A bill proposed in August that would slash legal immigration levels in half over a decade also would eliminate the lottery program.

The bill went to the House and overwhelmingly passed, but stopped in the Senate. Each year, the Diversity Visa Program accepts 50,000 randomly selected people—only from countries that don’t send many immigrants to the United States—to obtain permanent residency (commonly called a “green card”). It’s a way for individuals and families who otherwise wouldn’t have any way to legally immigrate to the United States to get a green card.

The program is often seen as one that should be ended in a shift toward a more merit-based system. According to Heritage Foundation: “It does not bolster the skills of the American workforce, nor does it reunite families or serve any humanitarian function. Its only purpose is to increase ethnic and cultural heterogeneity in the U.S.–a dubious goal that weakens the social ties within communities.”

The diversity lottery program has been an unwise policy since its inception in 1986. This program is a dangerous gamble. Many Muslims who arrive in America, are deeply indoctrinated by Islamic credos and find it impossible to assimilate into host countries. In fact, their leaders and Imams encourage them to stay away from the American people and only stay within their own community. Hypocrisy is a Muslim trait while they strive to impose their own defunct 7th century barbaric ideology – which is the cause of their own misery – on the host nation.

Both America’s political parties are guilty of keeping much of the US population in the dark about Islam’s mission in the US. Those who dare to ask their representatives questions regarding this matter, will assure their constituents that in general, Muslims are law-abiding citizens of their adopted countries and it is only a minority that is responsible for the violence and chaos, so lies and deceptions are told.

A Muslim is required to abide by their own laws under Sharia and not the Constitution of the United States of America. Because it is mandatory for a Muslim to adhere to Islamic laws and not to a man-made law such as the US Constitution, therefore it is logical to state a Muslim can never be both a Muslim and an American at the same time.

President Trump is 100% accurate in his assessment to completely abolish this bogus “Diversity Visa Program.” Critics argue that the program is susceptible to fraud and manipulation, and that identity fraud is ‘endemic. Critics also assert that the program poses a danger to national security.

Personal Encounter

A few years ago, I met a young Muslim man in his early 20s from Tunisia, who worked for a major hotel brand as a van driver. I casually asked him regarding America and how does he feel being here. He was a van driver, working for a hotel while attending a university, he said. He openly expressed his views to me on how much he resents America and he refuses to take hotel guests to liquor stores or to strip clubs because it was against his religion.  I questioned him on how he obtained his Green Card and what made him to come to the United States. He said, one day, as he was checking his mailbox, he noticed that he had won the “lottery” program.  In our brief conversation, I noticed his demeanor was belligerent and extremely repulsive towards America. In fact, I felt that he would not hesitate to join any radical Islamic groups in the US.

Our non-functional immigration system, with a welcome letter sent him a lottery invitation to a devout and dangerous young Muslim man who was full of hate for America. Go figure!

“Among the heaviest users of the US Diversity Visa lottery are people in countries known to have terrorism problems. Entering the Diversity Visa program, Islamists openly felt, was their opportunity to access the US and cause destruction to the country and its people, which they viewed as their enemy.”

Although President Trump is not the first and will certainly not be the last president who wants to abolish this bogus Green Card Lottery. But he is the only President who is pushing the envelope harder than all previous Presidents. This program is completely irrational and deeply flawed, especially about terrorism. Our immigration system is not just broken, it is shattered. It is beyond repair.

This nonsocial program like other immigration packages is unnecessary and threatens the safety and security of the American people. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, it is your duty to abolish this risky program which threatens our national security.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Germany drops pretence of ‘refugees’, goes right to population replacement

These Gun Owners Were Able to Confront Criminals in September

When the Virginia State Crime Commission and the House Judiciary Committee held hearings earlier this fall regarding firearm policies, it was striking how little many gun control advocates and policymakers know about basic facts related to guns and gun violence.

It also was clear how devastating many of their policy proposals would be for law-abiding Americans who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

These legislators and advocates, like most of us, genuinely want to create safer communities and protect innocent people from violence. But the reality is the overwhelming majority of lawful gun owners never will be a threat to themselves or others, nor would imposing substantial barriers to lawful gun ownership make anyone safer.

Not only do Americans use their firearms for lawful purposes far more often than they use them to commit crimes, but studies routinely show that a very small number of repeat criminal offenders are responsible for the majority of gun-related crimes, even though they’re already prohibited from possessing firearms.


Congress is trying to ramrod through increased gun laws upon the American people. But will that really stop the rise of gun violence? Find out more now >>


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 2013 that “almost all major studies” on defensive gun uses have found that Americans defend themselves with their firearms between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. This makes lawful gun owners an important factor in overall public safety.

Every month this year, we’ve highlighted in The Daily Signal just some of the many times that law-abiding citizens used their firearms to defend themselves or others from threats to their lives or livelihoods. (Take a look at JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJuly, and August.)

September was no different, according to police reports in the news:

Sept. 1, San Antonio, Texas: A young woman shot and injured a man who was trying to break into her home through a back window at 2 a.m., police said. The man later was determined to be the woman’s ex-boyfriend, though she did not know who the intruder was at the time she fired.

Sept. 3, Houston: After a woman parked her vehicle outside her home in the early hours of the morning, two men approached the driver’s side window and attempted to rob her. The woman drew her firearm from her purse and fired two rounds at the men, who ran away, police said. One would-be robber was wounded in the process and later was charged with aggravated robbery. The woman told local reporters: “I got the gun for that purpose, but I never thought I would really have to use it. . . . I saved my own life.”

Sept. 8, Virginia Beach, Virginia: A Florida man was shot and paralyzed by his stepdaughter after he broke into his estranged wife’s Virginia home and assaulted both the wife and stepdaughter with a wrench. Investigators said they later found garbage bags, zip ties, duct tape, and various weapons in the man’s car, along with a journal detailing his plans to kill his wife.

Sept. 9, Sisters, Oregon: When an unknown man broke into the back door of a residence, the homeowner grabbed his rifle and confronted the intruder, forcing him to flee without firing a single round, police said. The intruder then went to a neighboring home, where that homeowner called 911 and told the intruder to leave. The intruder returned to the first home and this time, the homeowner held him at gunpoint until police arrived.

Sept. 11, Cherokee County, Georgia: A homeowner used her firearm to defend herself against a man who started banging on her doors and windows. The homeowner did not know the man and yelled at him to leave, and he temporarily retreated. The man returned and became even more aggressive, threatening to kill the homeowner, who had armed herself with a firearm. When the man began to approach the homeowner, she shot and killed him, police said.

Sept. 16, Providence, Rhode Island: A man was smoking outside his home when someone approached, held a gun to the man’s head, and demanded everything in his pockets. The robber then forced the man into the apartment, where they fought. The man was able to reach his own gun and shoot the robber, who later was arrested after seeking treatment for his wounds, police said. Despite the state’s strict gun laws (it has a “B+” rating from the Giffords gun control group), a neighbor told reporters that these types of crimes were common in the area and that his family had been victimized several times as well.

Sept. 19, Atlanta: Three masked teens approached residents outside their home before one teen opened fire on the residents with a handgun. One resident used his AR-15 to return fire in self-defense, firing numerous rounds and killing all three assailants, police said. The residents were unharmed.

Sept. 19, Miami-Dade County, Florida: A lunch break for an armed Good Samaritan took a heroic turn when she intervened to stop a brutal robbery and assault occurring outside a Popeyes restaurant. The woman fired her handgun at an assailant as he pummeled a bleeding and helpless victim lying on the concrete, police said. The rounds missed the assailant, but the shots were enough to make him run away. The woman told reporters this was the first time she had fired her gun outside a gun range, and that although it was “an intense moment,” she just “had to stop” the assailant. “I just had to save the guy’s life,” she said. “That’s all I did was try to save someone’s life.” Police later arrested the assailant.

Sept. 22, Salina, Kansas: father and daughter held a man at gunpoint after he kicked in their door in a home invasion. The man initially told the father that he was running away from someone, but the father yelled for his daughter to bring his gun after it became clear the man was trying to lock them all in the house, police said. The family had prepared for emergency situations like this one and were able to detain the man until police could take him into custody.

Sept. 26, Redding, California: A holder of a concealed carry permit helped intervene in a kidnapping after it became clear to him that another customer at a gas station was holding a woman against her will. Earlier in the evening, the man had assaulted the woman’s sister before forcing the woman into his car and driving off, police said. The permit holder noticed the woman was in distress, confronted the man, and held him at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived.

As these examples show, the first line of defense against crime are those on the scene when crime occurs. Despite our deep respect for law enforcement, police officers are not always there when crimes occur. They respond to calls of those who are already in peril, or to a crime scene after the offense has occurred.

Government exists to protect the inalienable natural rights of its citizens, but unfortunately, sometimes the government is unwilling or unable to do so in a timely and effective manner.

We don’t make the public safer by depriving law-abiding citizens of the best means of self-defense, or by imposing heavy and arbitrary burdens on the exercise of constitutional rights. We simply make those law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to crime and tyranny.

COMMENTARY BY

Cooper Conway is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Amy Swearer is a senior legal policy analyst at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Utah: Robbery Victim Pulls Gun Fires after Departing Thieves

Members of Previous Generations Now Seem Like Giants


A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


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

4 Ways All Electric Vehicles Are Doing More Harm To Mankind Than Good

While reading the October, 2019 issue of the California headquartered Motor Trend magazine I came across a letter to the editor from a “63-year old baby boomer” who wrote:

I’m a liberal greeny who knows that the planet has to be saved. Humans have caused climate change, but too many humans don’t want to recognize that fact. Especially human politicians.

The editor Ed responded with:

A lot of great points, Tom. There’s no doubt that fossil fuel powerplants hurt when it comes to emissions, but depending where you live, the impact could be minimal.

What does this 63-year old greeny get wrong?

Electric Vehicles (EVs) Depend on Government Subsidies

In a Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) column titled Electric Cars vs. Gas Cars: Is the Conventional Wisdom Wrong? Bill Wirtz wrote:

When Denmark got rid of its tax credits for electric vehicles, Tesla’s sales dropped by 94 percent. In Hong Kong, the company saw a decline of 95 percent as the city got rid of comparable tax advantages for those buying electric cars.

If you are a taxpayer and don’t drive an EV then your helping to pay for someone else’s all electric car or truck.

EVs Don’t Contribute to Gas Taxes

The gas taxes in the United State are used to build and maintain local roads and bridges, and the federal and state highway systems.

Julian Spector and Julia Pyper in the July 5, 2017 Green Tech Media column 17 States Now Charge Fees for Electric Vehicles reported:

Several states have passed or enacted new fees this year, bringing the total to 17.* Recent additions include West VirginiaMichiganMinnesotaIndianaOklahomaTennessee and California, which is home to leading EV maker Tesla and a suite of policies designed to incentivize electric-car adoption. South Carolina enacted a biennial fee for electric cars.

The following nine states passed or implemented EV fees in previous years: Georgia, Washington, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina and Virginia (see chart below). According to the Sierra Club, other states have introduced legislation this year that would require EV owners to pay a separate fee, including Kansas, New Hampshire and Montana.

Read more.

EVs Cause Harm to Mankind

In Electric Cars vs. Gas Cars: Is the Conventional Wisdom Wrong? Bill Wirtz wrote:

Electric vehicle batteries need a multitude of resources to be manufactured. In the case of cobalt, the World Economic Forum has called out the extraction conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where 20 percent of the world’s cobalt comes from. Miners as young as seven years are suffering from chronic lung disease from exposure to cobalt dust. [Emphasis added]

EVs Strain Existing Electrical Grids

FEE’s Bill Wirtz wrote:

[O]ver 95 percent of Norway’s electricity comes from hydropower, of which 90 percent is publicly owned. That does not come without its downsides. As electricity consumption increases in Norway, the sector is unable to keep up. Last year, lack of rainfall and low wind speed exploded Norwegian electricity prices to the level of Germany (which is still in the process of phasing out nuclear energy). Norway then resorted to coal power, and as fossil fuel power imports exceeded energy export, Norway has actually seen an increase in CO2 emissions[Emphasis added]

Zero Hedge’s Tyler Durden in the column $35 Billion: UK Faces Huge Loss From Electric Vehicle Adoption noted:

If Great Britain keeps its commitment to switch over its vehicles to electric by 2050, the government will see a whopping loss of 28 billion pounds ($35 billion) paid by motorists driving traditional gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.

Read more.

FEE’s Bill Wirtz concludes, “As much as consumers might care about CO2 emissions, they are even more price-sensitive. Even those consumers who aren’t will eventually be swayed when they find out their car brand is costing them comparably excruciating amounts in fuel.”

America depends on cheap, reliable and dependable sources of energy. Be it electricity or fuel for your automobile. California, the state with the most EVs, is experiencing electrical black outs.

Mankind advances via new technologies. Key to technology is reliable energy. Without reliable energy we go back to the dark ages, like in Northern California.

Conclusion

The climate changes on Mars as it does on plant earth, but there are no cars on the red planet.

The bottom line is:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. These changes follow natural cycles.
  3. Mankind cannot change these natural cycles.

Mankind was given dominion over the earth and all of its natural resources. Not using these natural resources, either voluntarily or by government mandate, harms humans. Using these natural resources wisely advances human flourishing.

Man can’t control the weather let alone the climate. Our 63-year old liberal greeny needs to face the facts. Going green isn’t helping mankind.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Electric Cars Aren’t Nearly as Green as People Think

It’s Time to Kill the Generous ElectricVehicle Subsidies

Zero Emission Vehicles Can Increase Air Pollution

Recent Energy and Environmental News

For the full version of the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter, please click here…  To review some of the highlights, see below.

FYI, the new buzzword is community “resilience.” Like its sibling “sustainability” this is the Left creating a Trojan Horse that is intended to fool trusting, well-intended, and unaware citizens. Hopefully that will not be any of our readers.

Gov Matt Bevin recently gave an exceptional talk about electrical energy realities. He was Southern States Energy Board chairmen, and was giving the keynote speech at their annual meeting. It is one of the BEST talks I’ve ever heard from a politician about the importance of affordable, reliable electrical energy. Pass it on!

Since there is such a diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into eight (8) categories.

My vote for the most outstanding articles this cycle: It Costs $532,000± to Decommission A Single Wind TurbineNY County Health Board Eyes Wind Turbine RegulationsClimate Worship Is Nothing More Than Rebranded PaganismHow I Changed my Mind… about Global Warming, and The False Prophets of Climate Change

Energy Economics

It Costs $532,000± to Decommission A Single Wind Turbine
In a “Reversal” Wind Power Industry Wants More U.S. Tax Credits
Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt: Let’s Not Commit Economic Suicide

Wind Turbine Health Matters

NY County Health Board Eyes Wind Turbine Regulations
A new tool in China’s kit of repression
Why Everything is Getting Louder
Community ailments circle back to turbines

Renewable Energy Destroying Ecosystems

Socialism Is the Greatest Threat to the Environment
Why Wind Turbines Threaten Endangered Species With Extinction
Wind energy’s big disposal problem
Unfurling The Waste Problem Caused By Wind Energy

Nuclear Energy

Video: Nuclear Energy is Green
GEN IV Nuclear Energy is Clean, Efficient and Plentiful — Why the Worry?
Nuclear Power Is The Only Realistic Option
Net-Zero CO2 Emissions By 2050 Requires A New Nuclear Plant Every Day

Energy Misc

Video: Kentucky Governor’s Keynote Speech on Low Cost Energy
Weathermen Wild As Wind Turbines Interference Wrecks Their Radar Signals
NC Energy Company Finds Solar Power Actually Increases Pollution
Short video: Renewable Portfolio Standard Scam (Part 2)
Video: Hansen & Shellenberger: Nuclear Power? Are Renewables Enough?

Global Warming (AGW)

Climate Worship Is Nothing More Than Rebranded Paganism
President Trump, religious liberty, and international climate policy
Chief UN Climate Scientist Calls the Climate Narrative “Religious Extremism
How I Changed my Mind… about Global Warming
The IPCC’s Seldom Mentioned ‘Uncertainties’
IPCC Lead Author’s Research Uncertain About UN’s Climate Goal
Top climate scientist breaks ranks with ‘consensus’
‘There is no climate emergency,’ hundreds of scientists, engineers tell U.N.
Dozens of Failed Climate Predictions Stretch 80 Years Back
Some Recommended Sources for Objective Info on Climate Change
Marxists join climate strike: for system change, not climate change!

Impressionable Youths and Global Warming Propaganda

The False Prophets of Climate Change
Greta Thunberg and the Cult of Adolescence
The Global Warming Cult is Polluting Adult and Children’s minds
Drama Over Science? Greta’s Climate Speech and Appeal to Emotion
Short satire video: Green activist Greta Thunberg & Thomas Cook

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.)

What the Trump Impeachment Inquiry is Really About
Yes, the Deep State Really Does Exist
An Open Letter to Heartland
Short video: Why I Don’t Want and Don’t Deserve Reparations
The Progressive Agenda to Dumb Down America’s Children
The 50 most miserable cities in America
With a $230 million deficit, UN may run out of money by end of month
Archive: The importance of stupidity in scientific research

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a computer… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

INFANTICIDE: Live Organ Harvesting Commonplace in U.S. Abortion Mills [Video]

Daleiden, Merritt trial reveals beating hearts cut from abortion survivors

by Stephen Wynne  •  ChurchMilitant.com

SAN FRANCISCO (ChurchMilitant.com) – Bombshell testimony from the trial of Center for Medical Progress undercover journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt has revealed that infanticide is commonplace inside U.S. abortion mills.

Earlier this month, attorneys for Daleiden submitted a closing argument brief detailing that live births are occurring inside the facilities and that these newborns are routinely killed — their organs harvested while still alive.

Describing Daleiden’s research into the practice, the brief recounts that he discovered “a mainstream media exposé produced and aired in 2000 by Chris Wallace for the program ’20/20.'”

From Wallace’s report, Daleiden learned of Dean Alberty, who worked as a fetal tissue procurement technician inside a Planned Parenthood facility in suburban Kansas City.

According to the brief:

From the “20/20” video he learned that Alberty had been handed whole fetuses from Planned Parenthood doctors and had harvested beating hearts. Alberty had also testified before Congress and described a live birth of twins who were actually cuddling each other. He would not harvest from them and the abortion doctor drowned them in a pan of water.

The practice was not isolated to Kansas City, Daleiden discovered.

In the course of his research, he came across the book Beyond Abortion: A Chronicle of Fetal Experimentation, which documents experiments performed on unborn babies, as well as the removal of organs from infant abortion survivors.

In Beyond Abortion, Daleiden found an article titled “Artificial Placenta,” which described “obtaining live fetuses as old as 24 weeks from unnamed abortionists and keeping them alive in a machine for study but letting them drown in the machine after obtaining data.”

In the summer of 2011, he learned of a company named StemExpress, which specializes in providing “biospecimens” to researchers across the country; a deeper look at the firm revealed the scale of tissue harvesting occurring inside American abortion mills.

Daleiden discovered that StemExpress required “tissue procurers to service 48 universities and 8 private entities with fetal organs and tissues.”

He later uncovered “a StemExpress order form with a list of organs and tissues for sale, including whole hearts, hearts with veins and arteries attached, as well as brains, livers and other organs.”

He then found “a Stanford study using whole human fetal hearts obtained from StemExpress which they put on a Langendorff perfusion machine.”

According to the brief:

Mr. Daleiden learned through his own research and by consulting experts, including Dr. Theresa Deisher, that in order to use the Langendorff machine the heart had to either still be beating when it was placed on the machine or a beating heart had to be arrested in a relaxed state in a potassium solution and then quickly transported to the machine. … Dr. Deisher testified that she told Mr. Daleiden that the “most horrifying aspect of the use of the remains of aborted fetuses was that some of the babies had to be alive, have beating hearts when they were harvested.”

Deisher, a stem cell research scientist, testified that based on her experience with stem cell research on hearts, this was a frequent occurrence. The babies’ hearts have to be harvested while still beating, she explained, as otherwise the organ would have no research value because once in “contracture,” the heart’s cells would no longer be capable of regenerative growth.

The brief detailed additional evidence of infanticide — including testimony by a former StemExpress employee:

Mr. Daleiden continued to gather evidence for his investigation. He met Holly O’Donnell who had worked for StemExpress and told him she left after seeing a late gestated fetus. She was directed to dissect its brain. She did so. She also told him that her superior Jessica tapped the fetuses’ heart and it started beating. She also told him of seeing a message stating that an intact fetus was being sent to the StemExpress facility.

Daleiden later learned that “StemExpress technicians had to work very closely with the abortion doctors at [Planned Parenthood] MarMonte who increased dilation on the patients in order to obtain intact fetuses with beating hearts.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra — a self-identified Catholic — is prosecuting Daleiden and Merritt for their undercover work. In his preliminary hearing closing argument, he made no effort to rebut testimony about the harvesting of infant abortion survivors’ organs.

Instead, Becerra suggested that harvesting organs from newly born infants is protected by the state’s abortion statutes.

The “defendants willfully misrepresent the law on homicide in California,” he argued. “California law is clear that therapeutic abortion is not homicide.”

Pro-life advocates counter that there is nothing “therapeutic” about harvesting beating hearts from live infants.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Planned Parenthood Doctor Admits In Court: Strong Demand For Aborted Babies’ Livers, Kidneys, Intestines

3 Big Wins for Religious Liberty Indicate Tide Is Turning

A Democrat Explains Why She’s Pro-Life

ABP. VIGANÒ: Pope must give ‘Clear Statement’ on Christ’s Divinity

Canadian Prime Minister’s ‘New’ Sex Scandal

Insurance Provider Won’t Pay for Sex Abuse in Buffalo

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

President Trump is protecting Americans from Big Government

During the Obama Administration, it became common practice for Federal agencies to target and penalize American families and small businesses. They got away with it by hiding behind vague, often secret interpretations regarding how ordinary citizens should comply with the government’s own maze of bureaucratic regulations.

When President Donald J. Trump took office, he pledged to turn the page on Washington’s regulatory overreach, giving the American people a government that’s finally accountable to its citizens. Building on that promise, the President signed a pair of Executive Orders today to ensure that the abuses that took place under the last Administration can never happen again.

Americans will no longer be kept in the dark.

First, Agencies will have to place their guidance documents on easily searchable public websites, allowing any American access to them. The government will be required to permit citizens to give their input on these guidelines, and they will have the ability to ask agencies to withdraw guidance they believe is wrong. Second, agencies will be strictly prohibited from enforcing rules that have not been made publicly known.

These common-sense changes come alongside the President’s historic efforts to cut burdensome red tape. In his first week in office, he issued a challenge to his Administration: For every new regulation introduced, 2 old ones must be cut.

That goal has been met—to say the least. As of today, the tally is 14 regulations that have been cut for every significant new one implemented. That makes for the largest deregulatory push since Ronald Reagan was President.

Unlike Obama, President Trump is protecting Americans from Big Government.

Acting OMB Director: “Trump Keeps Promise to Tame Bureaucracy That Runs Roughshod Over Americans”


President Trump signs ‘game-changing’ trade deal with Japan

During the U.N. General Assembly last month, President Trump continued to fight for fairer trade deals for American workers. The results of that hard work came to light Monday, when the President signed a pair of groundbreaking deals at the White House.

“These two deals represent a tremendous victory for both of our nations,” President Trump said. “They will create countless jobs, expand investment and commerce, reduce our trade deficit very substantially, promote fairness and reciprocity, and unlock the vast opportunities for growth.”

President Trump: This is a groundbreaking achievement for the U.S. and Japan

America’s farming community is the big winner from the first of Monday’s agreements, which dramatically expands their market access. Before this deal, Japan was already America’s third largest agricultural export market—accounting for $14.1 billion in food and agricultural exports last year. The terms are even better now, as Japan will eliminate or reduce tariffs on approximately $7.2 billion in U.S. agricultural goods.

Once the agreement goes into effect, more than 90 percent of American agricultural imports into Japan will be duty free or receive preferential tariff access.

“In the United States, these deals are a game-changer for our farmers and our ranchers . . . [they] will now be able to compete fairly in Japan against major competitors worldwide,” the President said.

The second deal signed on Monday focuses on digital trade, setting the same “gold standard” digital trade rules that are found in the President’s landmark United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). Vital online commerce will now be expanded, which brings a significant boost to the already roughly $40 billion worth of digital trade between America and Japan. It ensures America will remain a global leader in digital.

The President’s deal with Japan is a win for American farmers and businesses.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘There can be no reward’: Beto O’Rourke supports punishing religious institutions for views on sexuality

© All rights reserved.

MSNBC’s Las Vegas Anti-Gun Rally

On Wednesday, anti-gun news outlet MSNBC, along with their partner organizations Giffords and March for Our Lives, hosted nine Democrat candidates for President for what was billed as a “Gun Safety Forum.”  Most of the time was spent by candidates and anti-gun activists railing against guns, NRA, and occasionally, President Donald Trump.

As one can imagine, there really wasn’t much new discussed, as candidates continued to try to convince Democrat voters that each is the most anti-gun choice.  At times, it seemed like a fight might break out over who had the most outrageous scheme to disarm law-abiding Americans.

Everyone seemed to agree on “universal” background checks, “red flag” laws, and that there is an “epidemic” of gun violence in our country.  But as each candidate took the stage for their individual allotted time, most tried to separate themselves from the others.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, one of the higher polling lower tier candidates, started things off, trying to draw a connection between passing new gun laws and combatting “white nationalism.”

Buttigieg also promoted gun licensing, as well as “red flag” laws and “universal” background checks.  Attacking NRA, he made the patently false allegation that our association represents the interests of gun manufacturers, rather than our 5 million dues-paying members.

Mayor Buttigieg also talked about banning semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, making the confusing statement that such things should not be sold “anywhere near an American school or neighborhood.”  He seemed to clarify later that he was not talking about limiting where gun stores could operate, but meant he wanted to ban these popular rifles.

While trying to sell the constitutionality of banning some of the most commonly owned firearms in America, he made two bizarre comparisons.  First, he said that people can own slingshots, but not nuclear weapons, followed by stating that water balloons are legal, but predator drones are not.  It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous comparison than one between children’s toys and actual weapons of war while discussing the Second Amendment.

His support of banning AR-15s, however, did not, at this time, include support for the type of confiscation scheme that has been promoted by one of the other candidates.  More on that later.

Former HUD Secretary and San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro was next. He promoted increasing the tax on ammunition to further drive up its cost and supported the banning of so-called “assault weapons,” but fell short of calling for their confiscation.  Instead, he promoted a voluntary “buy-back” scheme, followed by registering those not turned in and tracking their future transfer, similar to the way fully-automatic firearms are currently regulated.  While he did not mention fully incorporating them into the National Firearms Act (NFA) protocols, that seemed to be where he was heading.

Next was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.  He stated support for banning and confiscating semi-automatic firearms, pushed so-called “safe” storage laws, and promoted his scheme to implement a federal licensing program for gun owners.  He went so far as to call out all of his opponents that don’t support his position, claiming anyone who does not support licensing “should not be a nominee from our party.”  He then went on to pat himself on the back for pushing “the most ambitious” gun plan.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has been leading the pack in some polls, then spoke.  She promoted the idea of limiting firearm purchases to one-a-month, and also suggesting a 7-day waiting period before a law-abiding citizen could take possession of a lawfully purchased firearm.  She also threatened a federal investigation of NRA—a clear attempt to quash our right to free speech, and that of our more than 5 million members.

Following Warren was former Vice President Joe Biden. While Biden had been the favorite in the race, at one point commanding a lead of more than 25-points over his closest rival, his advantage has all but disappeared.  Biden again raised his make-believe idea on gun control—mandating guns that can only operate utilizing “biometric markers.”  He also pushed a ban on the manufacture of AR-15s and similar rifles, coupled with regulating those that are currently owned under the NFA.  This scheme has been promoted by representatives of Giffords, one of the sponsors of the event, so Biden was clearly playing to the audience.

His presentation was marked by the usual rambling, odd tangents, and self-promoting hyperbole to which we’ve grown accustomed.  At one point he stopped in the middle of praising those behind March for Our Lives to clumsily transition to talking about the federal restrictions on hunting migratory waterfowl; pointing out that there is a limit of three shells in your shotgun when in the field.  That brought him to discussing putting limits on the number of rounds one can have in other firearms.  Biden seems to be struggling with determining an arbitrarily acceptable limit on ammunition capacity, so maybe he’s now testing out the idea of using three.

Former Texas Representative Robert Francis O’Rourke, who self-identifies as “Beto,” took the stage after Biden.  He specifically called out Mayor Buttigieg for not supporting his gun confiscation idea, all but calling him a coward.  He seemed to imply the same about Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) and Senator Chris Coons (D-Del) for their questioning the level of support for the disarmament scheme.

O’Rourke also pushed the popular lie among the anti-gun crowd that AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles are “weapons of war.”  He even made the outrageously false claim that such firearms are “sold to the militaries of the world.”  Of course, this is just an evolution of what gun-ban advocate Josh Sugarmann began promoting in the late ‘80s, when he wrote about so-called “assault weapons”:

“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Of course, millions of law-abiding Americans own semi-automatic rifles, while fully-automatic firearms are strictly regulated under the NFA, and are what is actually “sold to the militaries of the world.”

He also claimed that, when the Second Amendment was ratified, it took “three minutes to reload a musket.”  In fact, someone in the 18th century who was familiar with their musket could fire and reload it two- to three-times a minute.  While that fact has little to do with the debate over gun control, what O’Rourke ignores is the more relevant fact that those privately owned muskets were no different than the muskets used by those in “the militaries of the world.”

The bottom-tier candidate waited until near the end of his time to break out two of the shticks for which he has become somewhat famous; profanity and high school-level Spanish.

Another bottom-tier candidate, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, was next, although she didn’t really bring anything new to the discussion.  She mostly echoed the same, tired gun-control ideas promoted by those who came before her.  Perhaps that is why she has been struggling throughout most of her campaign to generate more than 1% support in the polls.

Businessman Andrew Yang, who can’t seem to achieve much more than mid-single digit support in spite of promising to give people “free” money, had some curious ideas.  He appeared to support Biden’s “biometric markers” idea, and mentioned expanding on the Booker notion of licensing by promoting a multi-tiered licensing program, although he didn’t offer real details on that while on stage, other than there would be different licenses for different guns.

Yang also mentioned wanting to keep track of people who own multiple firearms, but also offered no details on accomplishing this to the audience.

Two particularly odd ideas stood out.  First, in order to counter the impact of organizations like NRA, he suggested giving every American $100.00 of what he referred to as “Democracy Dollars.”  People could give this money to lawmakers and candidates to help influence their votes, which sounds a bit like buying votes.  While we do not support the notion of buying votes, perhaps Mr. Yang did not consider the fact that NRA has five million members.  Does he really want to add more than half-a-billion dollars that could be used to support the campaigns of candidates that support the Second Amendment?

His other odd idea, which may be better described as troubling, was the suggestion that gun manufacturers be fined every time one of their lawful products is used by a criminal.  One presumes he is not suggesting the same penalties for the makers of any other lawful products commonly used by criminals.  If he did, then he would likely be accused of trying to bankrupt the entire manufacturing industry, rather than just those that manufacture firearms.

One other odd statement he made, but also didn’t go into any real details about, was implying that criminals who use firearms to kill others are somehow victims.  This line of thought deserves no additional commentary.

Finally, California Senator Kamala Harris spoke, offering nothing substantively new.  She reiterated her desire to use executive action to implement many of her schemes.  Perhaps hoping to avoid the ire of O’Rourke, she made clear that she supports his approach to banning and confiscating AR-15s and similar semi-automatic firearms.  Some of the candidates who took the stage mentioned their version of supporting the Second Amendment included, at least to some extent, the right of self-defense.  Harris, however, spoke only of respecting the Second Amendment as it relates, in her mind, to the tradition of hunting.

Ultimately, this anti-gun rally produced what would be expected of an event run by an anti-gun news outlet and anti-gun organizations.  The same gun control ideas that have been promoted ad nauseum by radical extremists for years, or even decades.  It was at least slightly interesting to see at what lengths candidates will go to try and out-anti-gun one another, especially considering the controlled environment where there was no chance of facing any sort of push-back.  Especially from citizens who still respect the Constitution, individual freedom and our right to keep and bear arms.

RELATED ARTICLES:

San Francisco Mayor Waffles on NRA “Terrorist” Group Designation

Federal Court Entertains Bizarre Legal Theories That Threaten Gun Owners, Rule of Law

Violent Crime Dropped in 2018

NRA’s Adaptive Shooting Program Aids Disabled Hunters

Member Spotlight: Meet the Police Officer Who Told Congress She ‘Would Not Comply’ with a Gun Ban

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

Citizens Speak Out Against Florida’s ‘Red Flag Law’ and ‘Risk Protection Orders’

I want to thank and congratulate the 12 members of WH 912 (3 of which are also LARC Members & 4 of which are Members of Polk REC) who came to the annual FL Congressional Delegation forum open to the public on October 7, 2019 at the Polk State Campus in the PCSO complex.

Seven made 3 minute testimonies on the unconstitutional provisions of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS Public Safety Act (hereafter referred to as SB 7026) and five more supported us for a total of 12 activists in attendance.

Many thanks and kudos to our lineup of speakers – in order of appearance they were Patti Zelsman, Jack Zelsman, Danny Krueger (nominated for this years WH 912 Oscar), Royal Brown III, Glynnda White, Kay Mijou, and Manny Brito. All were well rehearsed and completed their presentations within 3 min limit or a few lines (seconds) past 3 minutes. We also appreciated those present to support us – Roy and Nancy Pearce, Linda Adams, Jane Thomas, and Dy Soldwedel-Krueger.

We spoke before five of the six members of the Polk County Congressional Delegation who were Senators Albritton and Lee and Representatives Burton, Tomkow and Bell. Sen. Stargel was not present, Her Legislative Asst. Chad Davis was the recorder for the Delegation.

Glynnda White wrote the narratives for each of our 7 speakers and submitted them to Chad Davis in advance so that we would be pre-scheduled in a sequence that built upon each other and reinforced all the major points we wanted to get across. Among important points made were as follows:

  1. MSDHSPSA (SB 7026) is unconstitutional and violates our 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendment Rights and, in certain circumstances may also violate our 1st and 5th Amendment Rights – each of the testimonies drove this point home with specific examples of how our rights are/can be violated.
  2. School Safety and Gun Control should have been considered in two separate bills/laws and not cobbled together in one rushed 3 week time frame after the Parkland shootings.
  3. The Risk Protection Order (RPO) codified within SB 7026 prescribes Ex Parte petitions resulting in seizures of firearms, ammo, accessories & permit without a Hearing which comes 14 days later at which time the respondent must prove he/she is not a threat. This is a clear violation of Due Process Rights and the Legal Precedent of “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” for law abiding citizens who might be served with an RPO. This and other provisions are not only troubling to law abiding gun owners (especially those who have undergone background checks, have no criminal record, received CCW training and issued carry permits) but are fraught with many dangers that can result in violations of our Constitutional Rights (see attachment which was given to all the Congressional Panel Members).
  4. Age restrictions on owning, possessing, purchasing long guns clearly violate the 2A rights of 18-20 year olds.
  5. Bottom line recommendation was to support, co-sponsor Rep Mike Hill’s HB 6003 or sponsor a companion Senate Bill to HB 6003 which will revoke the RPO and 2 A age restrictions. Reconsider a much different and constitutional Bill for potential emergency situations where firearm seizure procedures may be appropriate.

This is the kind of Grassroots effort we must all support if we want to retain our rights and not live in fear of the possibility of an unconstitutional seizure of our firearms, ammo, accessories and permit.

BACKGROUND: Risk Protection Order in SB 7026 Violates Many Rights

Stands Due Process on Its Head – RPO takes away our Due Process Rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments as well as the Fl Constitution Sec 1, Art 9 and infringed upon our 2nd Amendment (2A) rights including FL Constitution Sec 1, Art 8.

Ex parte seizure of firearms, accessories, ammo, permits (if issued), etc. before a hearing for the respondent

Triggered by False Allegations/Weak Investigations –   Allows possibility of being triggered by false accusations and possible less than thoroughly investigated information by very busy and often overworked law enforcement.

Reverses legal precedent of being innocent until proven guilty since the respondent must prove they are not a threat rather than the court proving they are in the “after the fact” (post seizure) final RPO hearing.

Premonition Not Fact – Judges making decisions to seize property based on premonition of what might happen in the future – to do so opens very dangerous avenues to ignore our rights – trading rights for safety

Impact on Innocent Respondent  – Current procedure could lead to law abiding gun owning citizens being put through the embarrassment of seizure, personal cost to hire an attorney, loss of the means to defend themselves and their families and bureaucratic nightmare of being placed on state & federal criminal data bases and the difficulties of clearing their names.

Civil Procedure Treated Like Criminal Law – Since the RPO is a civil procedure, Why then are respondents served an ex parte and Final RPO automatically reported for inclusion in the state and national criminal data bases ?  There are no provisions in the RPO section of the law to help the respondent remove their names from these lists thus setting up another potential bureaucratic nightmare for the respondent.  This is another level of punishment for the respondent as a part of the criminal system yet they were served with a civil order.

Weak Rules of Evidence  – An RPO based on a premonition should at least be supported with beyond reasonable doubt evidence not the nebulous clear and convincing evidence of a threat as stated in the law.

2A Privilege Not Right– Hearings being held after the fact of seizures has the effect of turning the 2A from a right to a privilege.

Legal Representation – During the final RPO Hearing the court is represented by prosecution/attorney(s) representing Law Enforcement (LE) petitioners whereas the respondent is not entitled to Public Defense.  If they want (and probably should retain) legal representation, the respondent must hire an attorney without reimbursement compensation should their case be vacated.

Vague language of the RPO is open to varying interpretations by different legal jurisdictions, Judges, LE.

Duty Judges – Reliable sources have reported where large numbers of RPOs are being issued, the load is too great for assigned judges to review petitions and hold hearings so case assignment can go to duty judges with little knowledge of the RPO procedures.

Contract Lawyers for LE are being hired to represent LE petitioners with an incentive for pay based on cases leading to issuing of Final RPOs.

Judges Removed  – In at least one Court Jurisdiction, the Judge assigned to RPO cases was replaced by the Chief Judge of that Jurisdiction because of complaints by LE petitioners that he was turning down too many LE petitions he judged to not be clear and convincing and did not issue an ex parte RPO.

Property Treatment – There are no specifics in the RPO process as to the condition of how the seized property of the respondent is to be handled, stored, maintained and returned nor are there stipulations within what timeframe to return property should the ex parte RPO or final RPO be overturned or vacated.  This can lead to damaged property being returned without compensation and bureaucratic delays in returning properties.

3rd Party Transfer – The time frame of the option whereby a respondent can transfer property to be held by a 3rd party is also not determined nor prescribed.  There are unanswered questions about the strict conditions (such as passing a background check) required of the 3rd party transferee.

  •     For example if the 3d party is a CCW permit holder is this enough proof that a background check has been performed or does a new check have to be made and by whom?  Transfer requires a  sworn statement that the 3rd party will not allow respondent access during RPO period – will the LE officer serving petition take this statement or does the 3rd party or if not who/where do they go?
  •     Based on the lack of specifics on the transfer process, it appears this transfer won’t happen before the seizure but afterwards/post seizure.  This then leads to more bureaucracy and time delays.  The transfer should be conducted before seizure so as to preempt the need for LE to take possession, store, maintain and return property e.g. this function should take place between respondent & 3rd party at the same time the petition is served to the respondent and LE conducts inventory.  This would save LE resources as well.

Unequal Penalties – The fact that an accuser found to have rendered a false statement can only be charged with a misdemeanor whereas a search warrant can be issued to determine if any of the prohibited items are in the respondent’s residence and if the respondent is found to possess any firearm or related item after the final RPO (including one firearm bullet), they can be charged with a 3rd Degree Felony. This is also absurd, amounts to a civil search and unbalances the scales of justice.

Other Rights in Jeapordy – We are concerned these violations of our 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendment rights by SB 7026 could lead to other violations such as our 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

  •   1st Amendment Rights – Sen. Galvano’s coordination with FDLE to identify hate groups and hate speech could lead to RPOs being issued to members of these groups even though no such correlation exists in past mass shootings.
  •   What will be the criteria/sources used to determine that a group is a terrorist group and that they are a threat?  Surely not the uber leftist SPLC who has placed most conservative groups on their list of terrorists?
  •   Who will determine what is hate speech ?  This is fraught with the possibility of politicizing hate speech and using it against political opponents and seems more like the tactics of the Communist KGB or Nazi Gestapo than USA law.
  •   There are leftist groups such as the SPLC who have falsely classified most conservative groups as hate groups.  Others have now stated the NRA is a terorist group and all members of the NRA are racists.  These types of action like the RPO run the risk of turning certain agencies of the FL Govt into “speech police” which could further jeopardize our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

Weakening Self Defense Laws: Then there are the intended or unintended consequences in RPOs weakening our Self Defense laws and Stand Your Ground rights – law abiding citizens will be concerned about using their firearms under lawful conditions for fear of then having an RPO issued against them while a determination of immunity from prosecution for shooting takes place.

  •   Acceptance of large donations from gun control groups like Everytown USA  to PACs helping Republican Senators get re-elected also smacks of a conflict of interest and definitely conflicts with Republican values.

Civil Law Process Treated Like Criminal Law.  Why then are respondents served an ex parte and Final RPO automatically reported for inclusion in the state and national criminal data bases ?  There are no provisions in the RPO section of the law to help the respondent remove their names from these lists thus setting up another potential bureaucratic nightmare for the respondent.  This is another level of punishment for the respondent as a part of the criminal system yet they were served with a civil order.

Conclusions – All of the above stacks the deck against the respondent in an RPO case especially if the respondent has no prior criminal record, is law abiding and is the target of someone’s vendetta, anger, political attack or other such lies and distortions to make LE petitioner and Judge wary that they might be a threat and then err on the side of perceived safety rather than individual liberty.