The Ambiguity Game, or The Media Rorschach Test

Yesterday's one-time announcement of Robert Mueller's ambiguous statements regarding his two volume report may have been confusing for those who've not followed this whole charade closely enough to understand what's really going on here.

For those who would appreciate a clarification on this and see how the ambiguity was no more than a verbal game played by Muller for the Democrats in Congress who've been clamoring to impeach and the Media (D) who've seen their ratings evaporate, then I would highly encourage and recommend watching at least the first twenty minutes of Dan Bongino's Show from today's podcast in which he humorously explains things for us.

I believe you'll begin to appreciate what Dan is doing to provide understanding and insight into what's really going down with this whole circus experience. Here's the link to the article Dan refers to from Andy McCarthy about Mueller's word play he engaged in yesterday.

For a different perspective, I also recommend watching Laura Ingraham's show on FOX for last night's broadcast. As I write this post, a full copy of the show has yet to be posted. Once it is up on YouTube.com, I shall add the link for my reader's convenience.

Apples & Oranges!

With the announcement by Pres. Trump on Friday that he was giving A.G. Barr authority to declassify all documents pertaining to the investigation of the investigators the liberal/leftists and Media (D) are screaming that this will disclose sources and jeopardize them; NOT SO!

Apples = Declassification

Oranges = Disclosure

Why? Easy, it's very simple... the two - declassifying and disclosure are NOT something that are the same, or going to happen under A.G. Barr. Barr's not going to allow disclosure of his active agent abroad. 

The only reason the liberal/leftists and Media (D) are saying this is because they not only are trying to use a false excuse for not declassifying the docs, but because they all know it will result in completely and utterly expose and embarrass them as complicit in conducting a soft coup of taking out our duly elected president and for breaking multiple laws.

In other words, eventually the nation will be seeing coverage - mostly on FOX - of news stories about the growing conga line of indicted liberals & leftists involved.

Paragraph One

For those who listen to, or watch the video version of the Dan Bongino Show on a regular basis, you may already know what the title of this post is about. So, for those who don't, for various reasons which are understandable, I will briefly explain it to you.

As a former Secret Service Agent in the Obama Administration, and before that a N.Y. policeman, Dan knows lots of the law enforcement parlance involved in the profession. When a law officer is submitting paperwork for an investigation on criminal activities, the opening paragraph of the body contains information which lays out the who, what, when, where, how and why of facts.

Through this long, drawn out investigation by the Deep State and Media (D) of "Russian Collusion" of Trump, we have gradually learned a lot, but not all, the details of those facts... except the how of it's actual beginnings.  We have speculative ideas of the how, but now, with the declassification by Pres. Trump to A.G. Barr to declassify those pertinent documents gathered on the whole collection of memorandum (FISA warrants, FBI 302s, DOJ records, State Dept. notes, etc.), there's an expectation that we will now, finally, learn the truth behind the how of it all.

Of course, with this move by Pres. Trump, we have over this Memorial Day weekend, seen Brennan, Clapper, and others in the Media (D) either give dire warnings, or totally freak out that the president is exercising his Constitutional powers to clear up what he's been found by Mueller's report to be cleared of any of their claims over the past 2.5 years. There's also the claims made, which have been said many times before, that should any intel is declassified, our national security will be at stake. B.S., because what they actually know, is that those who participated in this biggest political scam in our nation's history, will be exposed and many will be indicted for going before the FISA Court and obtained a warrant based on unverified sources. The real question is, could their sources have been "disinformation" from Glen Simpson at Fusion GPS, and Surkov/Tribnikov, the Russian agents working with Stefan Halper to feed Christopher Steel?

By the way, if you've not already watched a couple of the recent broadcasts on FOX of Life, Liberty and Levin, then I highly recommend doing so for the purpose of informing yourself about the background of this whole investigation which is discussed in the John Eastman and Pete Hegseth as guests shows. You'll be glad you did if you want to more clearly understand what's going on.

If this teaser has peaked your curiosity about what's really going down with all this, I highly recommend watching Bongino's Memorial Day podcast where he goes into explaining the details behind the latest news on it all. It gets MUCH more interesting with every passing day.

Remembering Those Who Sacrificed For Our Freedom

Fortunately for me, my dad who served in the Navy during WWII, served as a Yeoman (secretary) to an Admiral in England and didn't have to see the battlefield on a ship. Had this not been the case, I and my next two older brothers of three would not have come into the world had he perished in battle. Here's a short video explaining the circumstances which those men faced in storming the beaches of Normandy.

I suppose someone's estimated what the quantity of Americans might have been born, had we not lost all those young men in both the European and Pacific Theaters of the war, but it makes one wonder just how different our nation may have become had WWII never happened.

I pray that we never experience a WWIII, for there very well might not be any nation to rebuild afterwards.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =

THE NCO

by Patrick Kilchermann

A man who was not so young anymore walked through the woods, lost in thought. It was a heavy day and he preferred to observe it alone... for being surrounded by people who didn't understand was the only thing worse than loneliness. His feet carried him absentmindedly around each turn and his mind wrestled, as it always had, with one question. "Why." After a while he awoke from his walking-dream and realized he was now standing still. Something pulled his eyes upward and there, standing on top of a hill and against the shining sun was a man. The man. His man. Squinting against the light, unable yet to make out the man's face, his heart jumped to his throat; adrenaline shot to his veins. He didn't need to see his face: he knew who it was by his silhouette. The man on the hill was American. He was Japanese. German. Korean. Vietnamese. Italian. French. British. He was white and yellow and black and brown. He seemed to stand proudly, firmly planted, arms on his hips. To his body clung an untold number of packs and straps and gear and supplies that made him look as if he weighed 250 pounds. In the mind of our man, this figure was perpetually twenty years older than he, and it was therefore like a punch to the gut to see instead after all these years how truly young he actually was. And yet, the man on the hill radiated a certain wisdom and confidence that our man had still never managed to obtain. This was the man who had shown ours the ropes. He had taught him how to walk. How to think. How to scrounge. How to improvise. How to listen. How to set up an ambush. How to kill. And on one particularly terrible night that still haunted our man's nightmares... he had taught them all how to die. From this man on the hill had come venom and anger and rage and unfathomable tenderness. He was often the last to sleep, the last to eat, the first to cross. He was at once both a mother hen and a vicious badger. Our man caught his breath and wanted to call out to the one on the hill -- but something stopped him... and in squinting tighter he realized what it was. The man on the hill was wearing one thing that our man, in all their time together, had never seen him wear before: it was the most peaceful and happy smile you've ever seen. Our man wiped his eyes, and the man on the hill was gone. He exhaled... He relaxed back and deep into his civilian shoes. From that smile our man won his liberation. He straightened up his old bones, feeling younger himself. And he said aloud: "This walk was beautiful. But I think I'm ready to go home now."

--
Patrick Kilchermann
founder, Concealed Carry University

The Italian Connection?

If half of this information provided through this source is accurate, then it will eventually be divulged in the A.G.'s findings on investigating the investigators.

Warning/Caution: Before attempting to read the material divulged from this source, one needs a sufficient quantity of time, prior knowledge regarding the "bigger picture" of what's actually been revealed on this matter, and patience in reading some of the information provided in this piece which was machine translated from Italian to English.

The real issue for me is... will it result in justice for those key players involved, ie: Clinton and Obama?

AOC is Digging Her Own Political Grave

Here's an article from The Horn News a good friend of mine sent me. It's both such good, and horrifying, news about this out-of-control socialist/leftist who's established quite a reputation as a "dunderhead" that I had to share it here.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

by Frank Holmes, reporter

The walls are closing in on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The media tried to make the freshman congresswoman a star, but her popularity has hit new lows.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues want nothing to do with her.

And Cortez represents one of the safest blue districts in the country, but her re-election is in doubt.

Now, she’s lashing out by promising to use the government to punish her personal enemies.

She’s been getting pushback for a plank in her unpopular “Green New Deal” that promises to hike tax rates on “the rich” up to an astronomical 70%.

But she doesn’t mean rich people like Bernie Sanders, her fellow “Democratic Socialist” who just confessed he’s a millionaire.

AOC says she’s going to handpick a tiny group of people she hates—“like 10 people”—and walk away with everything they own!

She went on a rant of all the people she wants to bankrupt.

“When we say ‘tax the rich,’ we mean nesting-doll yacht rich,” she tweeted.

“For-profit prison rich. Betsy DeVos, student-loan-shark rich. Trick-the-country-into-war rich,” she rambled.

AOC said she had a right to clean out her enemies’ bank accounts, because “THAT kind of rich is simply not good for society, & it’s like 10 people.”

Forget the fact that it’s totally un-American to pass a bill aimed at a few, specific individuals–that’s called a “bill of attainder,” and it’s unconstitutional. The Constitution means nothing to the Democrats, anyway.

But publicly broadcasting that you’re going to use your power to get your political foes, no matter what? That kind of chutzpah is breathtaking.

One writer compared her tweet to the Soviet Union’s liquidation of people it declared enemies of the state.

Another challenged Cortez to “name those 10 people…Seriously, we are all waiting. This should be a very simple request.”

This isn’t even the first time AOC admitted she wanted to abuse her power to settle personal scores.

Last December, Donald Trump Jr. trolled AOC with a devastating Instagram post showing President Trump telling Cortez he’s against socialism, “Because Americans want to walk their dogs, not eat them.”

Even though she hadn’t been sworn into Congress yet, Cortez threatened to throw him in the slammer!

She threatened “Junior” by saying it’s a bad “idea to troll a member of a body that will have subpoena power in a month.”

She ended by telling him to “have fun!”—dealing with all the charges she’d hit him with once she took office.

Make the bubble-headed congresswoman look stupid on social media? See you in court!

If AOC thinks she can jail the commander-in-chief’s first-born son, who couldn’t she destroy?

She’s already put the crosshairs on some of the most powerful people in the country. She’s trying to use her seat on the House committee that oversees banking laws to punish banks that do business with pro-Second Amendment groups. She’s singled out, harassed, and shamed financial execs on national television.

These businessmen didn’t break a single law, but Democrats hate gun owners, so off with their heads!

AOC has gotten more aggressive—some people would say unhinged—as her popularity has tanked, and there are signs she could even be a one-term congressman.

A Gallup poll found her negatives had doubled in six months.

Her fellow Democrats are distancing themselves from her as fast as possible. Five congresswomen from pro-Trump districts in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey went on a national tour dissing  Cortez’s far-Left policies.

Roll Call newspaper said, “The message…was clear: Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t represent them, and she’s not the one who’s going to help Democrats maintain their majority.”

Things are so bad that Cortez may not even win her ultra-Democrat seat in the Bronx.  Her approval rating has skydived by 26 points since she was elected, mostly over her chasing thousands of good-paying jobs out of her district.

AOC has decided that voters might kick her out of office in 2020, so she wants to do as much damage as possible first.

Until now, Republicans just worried about the ex-bartender’s slow wit.

“She’s a dunderhead!” said  Fox News host Mark Levi. “She doesn’t know a damn thing. She hasn’t done a damn thing.”

But now they say her plan to use the government to target her enemies has crossed a dangerous line.

“This is why socialism turns into authoritarianism,” said Ari Fleischer, who was press secretary for President George W. Bush. “This is very Venezuela of her.”

First, socialists take you money. Then they take your freedom. And in the end, they take your life.

At least AOC has admitted what’s really driving her lust for power!

Frank Holmes is a reporter for The Horn News. He is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”

This is How Much D.S.H.S. Cares

I'm without words! And to realize that our tax dollars are paying for such incompetence!

I'll link to the story here, and let the article do the explaining.

= = = = = = = = = = = = 

And... this is how delusional and clueless Seattle Mayor Durkan is regarding the condition of neighborhoods in her city. As if that's not enough evidence, there's this site about the growing garbage in Seattle.

Success & Freedom's Key Component

One would assume that a teacher's job is to not only instill knowledge into the youth they're in charge of, but that they would also impart those bits of wisdom from experience to prepare them for life ahead. This is what makes for a great movie about an outstanding teacher, such as we've seen, or heard about in past years. But is there any of that happening anymore in our public schools today? I wonder.

After four years of serving my country in the military, I decided to to serve future generations by going into the education profession. It was a difficult experience, for the difference between the two experiences was like water and oil. Even though the first was only four years, the second was a little more than seven times that.  There was a general shift of philosophy in education over that longer period as well.

When I first entered the classroom those who had served in the military were considered a positive influence on the children they would educate. Discipline was considered a critical factor for young, developing minds, to be successful in life ahead. However, by the time I retired, the social climate was one which either despised that factor, or did its best to neutralize its impact.

Early on, discipline was mostly under the determination and application of the teacher when being applied. We understood each child directly over the school year and applied what we knew was appropriate for them. Our military experience had taught us that discipline is the key to personal freedom, and we wanted to impart those concepts to our students. However, over the years, I experienced the gradual withdraw of that individual control of applying discipline in our classrooms and a shift to the administrative level.

Then, there was the third element in the equation; the parent who fought our attempts to impart lessons about life. This was at a time when many parents were believing that teachers were, for some strange reason, attempting to undermine their parenting skills. As an example of a low level attempt to deal with advising a student who was unruly, I decided to request that the student's parent come in for a teacher/parent/student conference to discuss the problem. In the process of discussing the problem, the student expressed her frustration that it wasn't fair that there seemed to be a difference for the issue being discussed. In my attempt to explain why this view of the student's was misguided, I began to explain by pointing out that "Life isn't fair." But, before I could further explain why I was saying this, and give an illustrative example, the parent blew up at me for saying such a thing and declared that they were doing their best to teach their child that everything should be fair in life. Naturally, this situation made it even more difficult to impart a concept for the student, when the parent had a completely opposite understanding and wouldn't even allow me to finish up a "life lesson".

It was my assessment that this shift of discipline from teacher to administrator was due to a combination of three things. First the district's growing fear of litigation - parents were becoming more "sue happy" when they disagreed with how their child's consequences were meted out for inappropriate behavior - second, corporal punishment, that is any physical contact - even taking a student by the arm to remove them - was becoming a big "No, no!", (that was considered abuse) and third, there was a growing trend to allow only the school counselor, or administrator in the building, to decide what the student's punishment would be when they weren't even present to witness their behavior and the student often became highly adept at spinning the story to their favor.

Over the years, it became obvious to me that the student who was unwilling to comply with my initial verbal directives to put their behavior in check became bolder once they were aware, and had determined that this new arrangement of secondary consequences usually resulted in less severe outcomes. Now, as I've substituted over the last ten years, I've witnessed many incidences where students are bold to the point of physical violence against their classmates right in front of the substitute. 

Most of the time, these instances are repeated time and time again, with a record by the principal being kept and suspension, or expulsion, is only applied when the particular student has accumulated a sufficient quantity of infractions to warrant it. Meanwhile, other students are the target of unnecessary repeat violence because the teacher is not to interfere for potentially doing something in the process of breaking it up that could get them disciplined as well.

Consequently, we now have youth in public schools who are not learning logical consequences of their actions, but the empowerment they now realize they have by just confronting their teacher and claiming falsehoods about their teacher to get their way. (I will not go into detail here, but when I was told some of the things which were asserted by students from an administrator about me, it was utterly shocking.)

Now, you're probably thinking, well, this is just one teacher's sour grapes, or, this isn't that widespread. Then, I invite you to watch an eight minute video of an N.Y.U. professor who was drummed out of his position because he dared to go against the institution's directive. If his more recent story isn't adequate cause for alarm about what's happening in our schools of higher learning now, then nothing will. Oh, I forgot to mention that he was an avowed leftist/communist! (The Red Pill Expo is put on by the Freedom Force International.)

Looking Ahead to 2020

America is growing weary and confused about what seems like a never ending and highly complex "Russian Collusion" story. Half the country is convinced that Trump is a Russian plant to destroy our democracy, while the other half knows that some nasty operatives have managed to impede the president's first half of his first term. As to the details, well, that's another story that for most folks who try to keep on top of the investigators being investigated - thank God we now have A.G. Barr - are too busy to follow with much clarity what's being discovered. There are just too many players! 

Hopefully, enough who are keeping track of this don't lose sight of the two most important points; the predicate (motive or reason) for spying on Trump, and why those behind it didn't notify him during the campaign, or after being elected. These two points will be what the newly appointed U.S. Attorney Durham's prosecutions hing on. Then too, let's not forget that none of this story would NOT have been disclosed to the world had Hillary Clinton won the election. This video interview from Judicial Watch w/ Andy McCarthy is enlightening.


Then, there's the fact that the 2020 campaign is gearing up. Like a 23 headed hydra, the Democrats who are running all are convinced that they've got the answer; even more socialism! As though they're saying, "Look, I can do better than Madura in Venezuela."

From my perspective as of today, my gut tells me that because of the accomplishment thus far of the Trump Administration after two years - despite the interference by his opposition to discredit and eventually impeach him - President Trump will be the Republican nominee; hands down. Although he's not remade the party thus far, those across the nation who've benefited and seen how he's truly taking measures to actually make America great again, will overwhelmingly vote for him.

As for the Democrat nominee... currently the pundits are saying it's going to be Biden, but in my honest opinion, he's too old and more of an empty suit than anything. I would tend to predict the Democrat nominee will be one of the following; Biden or Sanders. So, if I'm correct about Biden, it's obvious who may well get the nomination; especially without Hillary fixing it against him this time. 

I think any of the others already have said something, or just are showing well in their own states; with most of them running third or worse in early polling. It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next year, since at this point in 2020, or sooner, we should see most of the field  already dropped out.

No matter! Whoever goes against Trump is going to get sliced and diced during the general phase of the 2020 election debates by him. However, I believe there is a danger in this scenario. If too many voters assume that this will be the case, and they choose to tune out the primaries portion of the election, things could possibly change for the worse. 

Then again, that will depend on just how much occurs as the investigation comes out with and who is not only indicted, but tried, convicted and sentenced. However, given the current attitude of the Media (D) I'm not holding my breath on expecting a change of heart on their part. They know just how critical a part they play in promoting their leftist propaganda.

The Mueller Myth

As I've followed the development of the "Russian Collusion" hoax over the past few years, I've noticed something interesting happen to Muller's reputation.

When it was first announced that Mueller was selected by Rod Rosentein to head up the investigation into the hoax concocted by the Hillary Campaign, Fusion GPS, the DNC and other sycophants, the general census in the media and inside D.C. was that he was the "perfect" man to take on this critical task.

He's a Republican, he's the former F.B.I. Director the first decade of the 2000s, he knows all the right people to get the job done right, was the general reaction when new broke that Rosentein announced his choice.

Okay! So, the country, surprised that our election might have been tampered with, are thinking, "Great, this guy's gonna get to the bottom of this because a clean nosed guy who everyone trusts is heading the investigation up." Not so fast!

Only a few days ago this week, news was released through a F.O.I.A. Judicial Watch initiated, requesting the Mueller team's office calendar. And something rather revealing has been found to clearly taint the reputation of Mueller. It had to do with who Mueller selected to be in charge of hiring team members to begin the process of carrying out its duties.

It turns out that the very same individual I've written about in the past posts accounting prosecutorial abuses and one with a reputation as a "Pit-bull" lawyer, is the same guy chosen by Mueller to pick underlings on the investigation team tasked with looking into Trump's campaign members.

Politico posted an article this past week revealing information from that F.O.I.A. Judicial Watch requested, and it reveals that it was Andrew Weissman who was in charge of selecting those team members! Reading the article's two paragraphs just below the picture in the middle of the article are the key ones to read.

The first of these two paragraphs addresses Weissman's interviews for the team with privacy concerns as the grounds for those who didn't join the team being redacted. While that may be partly true, my suspicion is that individuals were being protected for political reasons.

In the second of these two paragraphs, the key sentence to note is the one about "... many of those hired had donated to Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, or other Democrats." While this point has been known for months as a point of speculation from hearsay, we now had hard evidence to back it up as fact.

So, if we combine this fact with the reports' results and the liberal's reaction of extreme disappointment that it didn't provide them with any information with which they could indict Trump with, Mueller's reputation has been proven to be less than stellar; especially when it has been revealed that it was Mueller himself who delivered material for the Uranium One transaction with Russia.

Durham For Accountability

This Wall Street Journal article today about A.G. Barr appointing U.S. Attorney Durham is worth reading. However, in my honest opinion, it is mild and "safe" for the general public's consumption since the WSJ cadre are, in essence, moderate conservatives who identify the voters who support the president, who they dislike, as "Trumpians", but tolerate only because he's made them richer than they even imagined. In my opinion, if no convictions are forthcoming from this investigation of the investigators, then they'll see just how right they are about demanding heads on a pike.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Attorney General William Barr has assigned U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate possible abuses by law enforcement and intelligence officials in the 2016 election campaign, and the reaction has been predictably partisan. Trumpians are demanding heads on pikes while liberals are calling it a hunt for conspiracies that didn’t exist. We see it as a necessary step toward accountability and restoring public confidence in America’s enforcement agencies.

Mr. Durham comes with more experience than even special counsel Robert Mueller in navigating U.S. law enforcement, including the FBI and intelligence services. He uncovered rogue FBI behavior in the case of Boston mob boss Whitey Bulger, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey tasked him to look at the CIA’s destruction of videos of its terrorist interrogation program. As a U.S. Attorney, Mr. Durham will have the power to convene a grand jury and subpoena people outside the government. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been looking into

some of the same questions, but he lacks similar power. Mr. Durham can also pick up any criminal referrals from Mr. Horowitz’s looming report.

Mr. Durham doesn’t strike us as the type who will answer to anyone’s political agenda, and he may not bring criminal indictments. He didn’t in the CIA case. But appointing someone of his standing and experience is important to getting to the truth about the FBI counterintelligence probe of Trump campaign officials, the FBI’s apparent misleading of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get a warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page, and other seeming abuses.

Investigating potential FBI or CIA abuses is arguably more important to American democracy than the Russia collusion probe. Tens of millions of Americans suspect that public officials interfered in the presidential election. Especially because Mr. Mueller did not investigate the FBI he previously led, someone needs to hold abuses to account or clear the air if nothing illegal took place.

What Happened to Balanced Reporting?

It died during the Obama Administration's eight years from the relentless fawning over their 'can do nothing wrong' president, that's what happened!

Nancy Benac, a reporter who's article appeared today for AP News, reports on Mueller's silence during the aftermath of the release of his report and takes a tone that his silence leaves the nation in the lurch about whether Pres. Trump is guilty of collusion or obstruction. How typical of the Media (D)!

I couldn't help but notice that her presumption was that, because Mueller has failed to appear before the Congressional Intel Committee, those who don't agree with A.G. Barr's assessment of the report are being denied closure on this marathon hoax produced by Hillary and her cohorts to try and save her reputation; whatever's left of it.

And why, I've always pondered, do these reporters quote someone who agrees with the reporter's  premise of their article? It seems that 99.9% of the time, the source is from some eastern state where the political orientation tends to run liberal.

The truly sad reality is that most of these people who feel this way are completely unaware of the mountain - which keeps getting larger and more clear as the weeks pass - aren't even aware of the evidence which proves that it is nothing but a hoax.

And then, there's Senator Grassley's remarks to the media about it. This is "classic"!!!

What is evident to me is that these heavily biased articles never change and are unending. Sort of like the wind and the rain wearing down the mountain of rock.

The Relationship Between Gun Control and Crime

The following article below was shared with me by a friend. I post it here so that anyone who reads it may be more informed about the reality of the facts on this topic.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
In 1996 a man killed 15 kindergarteners and a teacher at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. As a response, the British government totally banned handguns of any sort, rifles of any sort, and in theory limited shotguns to farmers who need to protect their livestock, and to protect themselves from livestock that turned violent toward humans.

The chart below shows the results of that gun ban, both as guns were turned in and as the risk of armed resistance fell.

In 21 years, the U.K. violent crime rate has from 5 per thousand to 27 per thousand, or as the U.S. measures violent crime, from 500 per 100,000 population to 2,700 per 100,000 population.

Over the same time period, the United States violent crime rate has fallen from 586.4 per 100,000 population to to 394.4 per 100,000.

Click here for the FBI Uniform Crime Report numbers to verify that statement.  http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Clearly, England is not the gun free, crime free paradise our Adversaries paint it. In fact, London has reported more murders so far this year than New York City, even though Gotham itself’s crime raters are elevated by restrictive gun laws.

Clearly, then, the gun control industry is out to pull the wool over our eyes. Which means it is time for us to become the best informed people on Earth about gun controls.

Stranger

Posted on 12/05/2019  by  Stranger

http://extranosalley.com/the-relationship-between-gun-control-and-crime/

How Long Will It Be Before We Lose Our Freedom?

How long will it be before the fascist/statists get a confiscation bill passed into law? Not while President Trump's in office which won't be until 2024. Then, it's anyone's guess. However, we all would do well to consider the advice of Bob Livingston's newsletter on the topic just posted this past week.

= = = = = = = =

"Hey dad... hey dad. Do we have a gun?"

"What's that?"

"Do we have a gun?"

We see the innocent face of a small child and then the advertisement fades to black. Whereupon the Ad Council and the Brady Campaign to Take All the Guns display in stark white letters a new code word they invented: "Family fire."

After all, taking away guns has always been about the children. That's what they want you to believe. And looking at the faces of the children taken from us, it's emotionally easy to agree with them. After all, who can understand such a heinous act as taking a rifle into a school and gunning down a bunch of six-year-olds? Who wants children accidentally shooting each other in their homes?

But who are the folks at the Brady Center, Michal Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Corey Booker? They are statist totalitarians. They're playing on emotions — the emotions of a grieving populace — to advance their agenda. They don't care about children. They're disingenuous.

How do I know? If they cared about children, they'd be weeping over the thousands of children that America has killed with drone strikes and air raids in Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Africa. If they cared about children, they'd be outraged that 2,000 babies are aborted every day in America, many on the verge of being born. If they cared about children, there would not have been 232 synthetic chemicals found in umbilical cord blood samples from babies. If they cared about children, they wouldn't be doing everything they can to wrench children away from their fathers and the authority of their parents "for their health" and put them under the aegis of the state at every opportunity.

Taking away our ability to protect ourselves began under the altruistic sounding words "gun control." Now it's "family fire." As always in such chicanery, these words are totally misleading. But they have worked their charm on lukewarm church-going Americans.

Not one in 10,000, when they hear the words "assisted suicide" and "planned parenthood" think of them as murder. Nor do many more think of "gun control" as unreasonable or unconstitutional any longer. Now the attempt is being made through the propaganda of advertisement to put gun ownership into violent military terms so as to make it as distasteful and politically incorrect as possible for anyone to have a gun in their home, lest a child should be injured.

But do not confuse the matter at hand. Politicians don't care about children. They do what politicians do best: Use a tragedy to push their freedom-stealing agenda. If a few children die along the way, well... never let a crisis go to waste. Remember, U.N. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright told 60 Minutes that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were "worth it." 

Death is the purview of the military-industrial complex. So first they want to take away your "assault weapons" and now they want to take the rest of your weapons so there will be no friendly family fire in the home. Charming.

But if the prevalence of weapons in private possession is the problem, how is it that people aren't constantly shot to death at gun shows and competitions? Why are there millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition in the hands of so-called "right wing nuts" — that's you and me, to the lamestream media — that are stored safely without incident? Why have the competitors on the History Channel's "Top Shot" not shot one another on national television? And how is it that gun crime rates are lower in areas with fewer restrictions on gun ownership?

No, dear reader, guns are not the problem. You and I are the problem, for the statists in government. In An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Noah Webster wrote:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be,…

The 2nd Amendment was not put in place for hunters or only for self-defense. It was put in place to protect Americans from totalitarians in government like New York's Rep. Jerrold Nadler. He once told CNS News: "One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence. If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that's insane."

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, must have been insane, then, when he wrote, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Our Constitution has been shredded and it seems there are few willing to acknowledge it, and fewer still trying to do something about.

For those willing to study our country's history, the oppressive nature of government is no surprise. We were warned by the founders, who broke away from an oppressive government and formed one that guaranteed certain rights. We were warned again regarding the military-industrial complex by President Eisenhower in his farewell speech.

Unfortunately, those elected to represent us seem to either have no knowledge of these warnings, our history or our Constitution — or are blatantly disregarding it to consolidate their power. Concerned citizens need to hold accountable those they elected, for tyranny rests at your doorstep.

What to look for

I wrote to you last year that you would be well served by keeping an eagle eye open for any attempt to establish national gun registration. Cory Booker has now proposed it, as a presidential candidate. This is a prelude to confiscation of guns of every kind.

Also, keep an eye out for the end-around gun control with ammunition control. All they have to do is make ammo in short supply by buying it up. The thought police can bankrupt every ammunition maker by making guns perfectly legal but ammunition illegal, or impossible to get without — you guessed it — registering your purchase.

I remember in years gone by that many people reloaded spent ammunition. This would be a great opportunity for you men out there who would like to learn a secondary trade for a post-collapse society.

Also, buy a gun, get trained in its use and practice, practice, practice. Don't be a helpless victim, and I am not talking about crime. Gun laws are not about crime. They are for disarming the populace in order to give more power to the State. The Founders understood this concept. Cory Booker, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg and their gun-grabbing ilk know it, too. They just aren't saying it.

We can't afford to let the elected elites and the corporate media use tragedies to erase the 1st and 2nd Amendments that were carefully crafted for a reason. The Founding Fathers understood the necessity of an armed populace if a society was to remain free.

There is a growing sense of fear from many in our society over the usurpation and the arbitrary power of rulers. But more importantly, if a person is to remain secure in his home, he has to have the ability to defend himself.

I believe that is called life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

P.S. — The school shooting in Denver will mean even more calls for "gun control," even though one of the suspects is mentally ill and almost certainly taking pharmaceuticals. Where is the outrage over that? And where are the calls for more preparedness and for better self-defense? That's exactly how an off-duty border patrol agent saved lives during the recent synagogue shooting in California... by being armed. This is why, for your protection, I have quickly arranged for you to get a free concealed ankle holster by going here right now. The only way to prevent these types of incidents from harming you is to be even better prepared, not disarmed.

Why Contempt of Congress Against A.G. Barr Is Completely Absurd

As U.S. Federal Prosecutor from New York Andrew McCarthy points out, you've got to be stupid to be a liberal Democrat in Congress.

Why?

Well, you see, there's information which most of the public is not provided because of the practice by the Media (D) called selective omission which is coupled with cognitive dissonance to perpetuate their fantasy that they are determined to use in ousting a sitting president. (I suspect there are millions of Americans who've already tuned much of this out because of their day-to-day busy lives at work and home.)

Have I peaked your interest on what that information might be? I hope so, as it makes all the difference in understanding why I've titled this post as I have.

In McCarthy's latest FOX News.com piece, he provides the facts regarding why the contempt of Congress meted out by Chairman Nadler is utterly ridiculous. So, go here and read it to understand how this is so.

Should you have liberal friends who think they'll be able to win the discussion on what's going on, you'll be glad you are up to speed on this information.

Disinfranchising 63 Million Americans

That is precisely what the Democrats in the House and the Media (sorry, I repeat myself) are doing in attempting to uphold their claims that President Trump should be impeached, which have no basis in fact.

Investigating the investigators is revealing more and more details on just exactly what really happened back during the 2016 presidential campaign and for the past two years via the media wing of the liberals who are unwilling to accept their loss by continuing to mislead the public.

The following two links provide us with just released news that the proves the FISA court was lied to and how it was carried out even after the F.B.I. had advanced information that none of the dossier was reliable and the Clinton Campaign had paid for it as opposition research. (Be sure to let a follow-up video  of Cong. Devin Nunes come on after Cong. Jim Jordan's interview, to hear what he shares. It's very short.)

If you've not listened, or watched the two links in my previous post - "Russian Hoax a Cover?" for May 8th - of the Dan Bongino Show which explains how John Brennan, former C.I.A. Director under the Obama Administration was the "key" coordinator behind all of this, then I would highly recommend checking it out.

Russian Hoax A Cover?

Here's Dan Bongino holding the limo door for Pres. Obama.

Since I've been sharing, on occasion, information we come across about the battle between the liberals and Trump's W.H., I thought I'd share the two links below from a subscription I have for the Dan Bongino Show. If you don't already know who this guy is, he's a former Secret Service Agent who served during the Obama Admin. that got out around the time of the 2016 campaign and has not only become a regular guest on many FOX News shows - Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity & Laura Ingraham to name a few - but has also launched his own podcast show for the purpose of informing the public what's going on through sources within the "Beltway of D.C." on developing events on the hill.

I highly recommend you use these two links from yesterday & today's podcasts from his show - there's an option of audio or video of each show - and follow what he's uncovered and explains about ties between the F.B.I. and D.O.J.'s involvement in the Russian Collusion Hoax. It has more specific information than most other conservative sources and I believe you'll recognize that Dan is not only articulate in what he explains, but does a great job of connecting "dots" others don't. Check it out!

Caution: Listening/watching these two episodes will blow your mind and bring you "up to speed" on what really happened in 2016. You may want to share them with your friends.

https://bongino.com/ep-974-the-big-coverup/

https://bongino.com/ep-975-we-were-sold-out-yesterday/

Trump's White House Prepares for Battle

As more and more evidence is revealed by those investigating the "investigators", it is becoming clear that the 2016 presidential campaign was messed with in an unprecedented manner, not by the Russians as the media is leading the public to believe, but by the Obama Administration itself.

How can I say this? Well, based on the various facts I've been able to assemble, I believe the following is basically accurate. (I believe future investigative findings will support this theory.)

In the 2008 campaign Hillary held a secret meeting with Democrat candidate Sen. Obama. I believe he made a deal with her to allow him to take the nomination then, in exchange for her being given the position of Secretary of State after being Senator of New York which Obama aided her in getting during his first term. This would allow Hillary time in the first term to establish her cadre of followers/ supporters/collaborators in Congress she gathered. It would allow her to use the Clinton Foundation Initiative to establish her "war chest" for her future campaign for the presidency.

Then, after being re-elected, Obama would appoint her as S.O.S., after establishing her credibility as someone more than just the First Lady, where she could expand her contacts around the world for more broad support and contributions to her "war chest." However, due to some unexpected outcomes during her term as S.O.S. - ie: Libya & Benghazi - Obama was more reluctant to provide public support to her during her bid for the White House in 2016; especially after news got out about her email server and her "right-hand aide" Humma Abedin's spouse - Cong. Weiner - and the Hillary emails on his laptop. Of course, it didn't help her campaign either when John Podesta allowed his computer to be hacked which revealed how the Hillary campaign was being run, and then there was how it was revealed that then DNC Chair Cong. Wasserman-Shultz rigged the nomination against Sen. Bernie Sanders.

In the process, and in order to control the narrative for her, Obama had his intelligence cronies - Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al - engage in spying on Trump's campaign after Hillary and Obama agreed she would provide the meme of Russian collusion as an "insurance policy" in an effort to eliminate any possibility of Trump winning.

After the shock of election night, Hillary's operatives within her network she'd established, opened the floodgates to put into motion the impeachment process. In essence, it was a psyops campaign, with the help of the media, to convince the public he was a Russian collaborator; Putin's puppet. Their next step in the plan was to strategically target seats in the House to take back control to implement the impeachment process led by Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

Another twist in the game was the outcome of the Mueller report which frustrated the Dems to the point of losing it, is Chariman Nadler demands the fully unredacted report, as well as Trump's tax returns and all other docs which could indict him as a crook of any kind. With the appointment of A.G. Barr, they knew their plan was falling apart. So, Congress and the media (D) go after Barr!

This article from The Morning Call now provides us with the legal defense the White House is now mounting against this unprecedented attack on a sitting president who's been framed by the Hillary political machine; the chief of which is still on tour touting that the election was stolen from her.

How typical! Just like that "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband back in the '90s! No wonder she didn't win the election.